Thanks all you music-lovers out there who commented on the Warren Zevon post. I suppose I'm working out what it is about this messed-up musician that grabs me as much as it does recently, and you all gave me food for thought on that front.
Some of you will remember that maybe six weeks ago we were in a discussion of churchgoing-and-homosexuality, inspired by reading a powerful new book by Andrew Marin called Love is an Orientation. I mentioned then that I'd written an article on how some of the thinking in this blog might intereract with those questions. The article didn't work out in the original setting--but it's found a home elsewhere (and it's nice to have a home...). I briefly reprinted it here, before pulling it for reasons too complicated to mention here. But I mentioned that, like Frosty the Snowman, it would return again someday. And you'll be happy to know that that day seems to be today.
It's on the long side for this blog (it will be about twice as long as any other entry) so if you want to take a look at it, grab a cup of coffee and pull up a favorite chair.
Many of you have already seen it in its brief run here previously. But, as always, I'd love all of your thoughts. Here's the article.
A friend—I’ll call her Tara—had a noteworthy experience at her work. A lesbian co-worker started to read a hotel Bible on a business trip. Upon her return, she asked Tara if Tara could get her a Bible, because she wanted to continue reading. Then she talked to Tara about answered prayer: had Tara experienced that God sometimes would answer our prayers? Because—who knew?—apparently God would.
It sounds, Tara said to her co-worker, as if this is all new for you. Have you ever explored faith in God before? No, the woman said, it had never crossed her mind. Because everyone knew God wasn’t a god for gay people, only for straight people.
Then there was the conversation my wife had earlier this week. A woman—also a lesbian—had been exploring Buddhism last summer. I’ll call her Amanda. She was on a summer project in England and she and a co-worker there had gotten into a casual conversation about faith. She talked about her incipient Buddhism and the co-worker talked about prayer to Jesus. That night, Amanda tried this crazy new idea of praying to Jesus. Good things happened. She asked for more advice from her co-worker, and her co-worker encouraged her to find a church to explore when she got back to the States.
I met Amanda when she joined in with a class we run called Seek. It’s a course for people exploring faith that’s similar to Alpha, except, perhaps, that it focuses more on how to experience God than how to think about God.
Every week was better for Amanda than the one before, topped off by our Holy Spirit Day, when she was robustly filled with the Spirit. She told my wife that she’d never considered looking into a church or into Jesus, because the word on the street was that Jesus and churches didn’t like her. But her experience in Seek had been entirely great. But now, as she was considering being baptized, she wanted to ask whether, contrary to everything she’d understood for so much of her life, it was actually wise for her to follow Jesus.
Like many of yours, our church is in a very secular city—Boston. And one thing we’ve noticed that perhaps you’ve experienced as well is that homosexuality is a major, major topic of conversation for people exploring faith here. I was talking a few years back with a Hispanic pastor who was leading a statewide fight opposing gay marriage. I asked him if that cost him at all with the secular Latinos he was trying to reach. Did they also oppose gay marriage? Indeed they did. He estimated about 95% of secular Latinos in Boston would oppose gay marriage and would be repelled by homosexuality in general. I said I guessed that the percentages of secularists I talked to would be the inverse of his—almost all the secularists I talk with regard gay rights as basic human rights.
And then, of course, there are the gay people themselves I meet who are eager to explore Jesus but, as with the two women above, can’t imagine how that would be possible.
I wonder if John Wimber offered us some help here. He taught a concept he learned from his colleague at Fuller Seminary, Paul Hiebert. Perhaps there are two different sorts of churches: one you might call “bounded set” and one you might call “centered set.”
A bounded set is like a circle: you’re either inside it or outside it. You’re a liberal or you’re a conservative, but not both. You’re a Midwesterner or you’re a Southerner or you’re whatever. But let’s think about bounded-set faith. On these terms, faith—and whatever any given church regards as going along with faith—is either/or and to a great degree is about what opinions or beliefs you hold. What are the boundary lines to what we regard as true faith? How do we know if someone is in or out? What are the rules?
By contrast, a centered set is like a central dot surrounded by endless other dots. The center dot is whatever holds the set together—Jesus, for our purposes. The other dots are everyone else on earth. And the question of a centered set isn’t about being inside or outside of something. It’s about whether the other dots are moving towards Jesus or veering away from him. Wherever they might be on the page, the only real issue is their direction. And so the job of the spiritual leader is to help folks point their arrows, as it were, towards Jesus.
So, to oversimplify, perhaps the central encouragement from a bounded-set church perspective would be “believe in Jesus!” or “accept Jesus!” And the central encouragement from a centered-set church perspective might be “start following Jesus!” and course-correct as needed as you go. The thought is that Jesus, then, will personally provide feedback and direction along the journey of faith, even as spiritual leaders, of course, do their best to help out as well. So Tara’s co-worker starts praying to a God no one has ever talked with her about; she gets quick answers and encouragement, and she wants to learn more to keep this good thing going.
This seems to me to offer at the very least arresting thoughts about the conversations I so often find myself in on this subject. As I talk with my proudly bounded-set church-leader friends—the Latino pastor for instance—they’ll encourage me that the most important thing to tell gay people I meet is that they need to repent of their homosexuality, that it’s an abomination to God. I sometimes push back: does my church-leader friend feel that this is the most important message of the Bible? That, if we were to strip the Bible to its biggest theme, what we’d find is “homosexuals need to repent”? Wouldn’t we find something about, like, God? Or, better yet, Jesus?
No, they tell me, courageous Christians realize they need to deal with first things first. First things first?! I ask incredulously. Homosexuals needing to repent is the single most important message of the Bible? First things first, they respond, nodding sternly. On occasion I ask if they ever actually do talk with gay people. I have yet to meet the church leader with this message who’s told me yes.
One of our pastors not long ago was encouraging a group of Christians to do something non-controversial: think of six friends you have in your area who, best as you can discern, are not experiencing much from God. Then pray for them daily for a few months and see what happens. He opened the time up for Q&A. But, one questioner asked, what if my friend is gay? Our pastor was flummoxed. Was this questioner asking… whether gay people are worth praying for? Yes the questioner was. After a moment’s reflection, our pastor answered: …Of course.
As we
started up in
We have a simple take on why this is so. Jesus is astoundingly awesome and people who try out following him will love him and love the experience. This strikes us as a centered-set point of view. Again, there is endless feedback Jesus will offer anyone who moves his way—as the two women I’ve mentioned so powerfully experienced. There, of course, will be a lot of learning about which choices will veer our arrow away from Jesus and which will veer us towards him. But this is Jesus we’ll be taking this journey with, which pretty much guarantees it will be a good one.
So what am I proposing with all of this? On the face of it, not much. I suppose I’m starting by asking whether the two women whose stories I started with are right: is, in fact, the God of the universe not a God for gay people? Or were they misinformed? It strikes me that your answer to that, which I’m hoping doesn’t take you much time to arrive at, carries some immediate challenges with it. If this God is their God, most likely they (or some conservative Christian who is feeling you out when they realize you’ve invited a gay person to follow God) will ask you a question or two that is fraught with danger on all sides.
Most likely they’ll start with this one: Could a gay person ever lead in your church? I have a pitch to make about how you might answer which I’d expect to rankle you. But hang with me a minute.
Namely, if you answer their question either way you’re abandoning Wimber’s centered-set idea.
People are asking you that question, from either side, because they want to figure out what sort of bounded set you’re in. These are identity-politics questions and I’ve yet to experience an answer to them that has helped point anyone towards Jesus in a centered-set way. By contrast, I’ve experienced countless instances where an answer to that question has hardened someone against following Jesus—or has confirmed a longtime Christian in heart attitudes that haven’t served them.
But what of not answering the questions as expected? Particularly for conservative Christians, this can seem like evasion. “Hey, I asked you a direct question and I want a direct answer.” But perhaps you can take comfort that this was how Jesus responded to similar, bounded-set questions.
I have two recommendations, one easier than the other (though they’re both plenty hard). First, I might suggest saying something like, “Oh, our absolute commitment here is to following Jesus with everything we have. We do that through a few things. Learning more about and wholeheartedly following the teachings of the Bible. Learning to hear and obey God’s voice as best as we can. Learning to love people inside and outside of our congregation. And trying to do all of those things in the context of vibrant community. We’d be excited for anyone to lead who gave themselves wholeheartedly to those things and found that they had people eager to follow their leadership into more of the same.”
The expected follow-up: “Just to clarify. Even if they’re gay.”
And your reply: “Any leaders who are on board with what we’re doing, committed to learning more about and wholeheartedly following the teachings of the Bible, learning and growing in hearing and following God’s voice…you bet. We can’t find enough leaders like that.” I’m presuming you have no argument with that statement.
Except for this one: you may find yourself thinking in profound frustration, what the questioner is driving at is if you regard that as possible for a non-celibate gay person! My response on the occasions when that does get blurted out is usually along the lines of, “Oh, anyone who’s at that point in their journey with us will be at a great place to have that sort of conversation with us when the time comes where they’re figuring out if they should lead.”
So that imagined dialogue was the easier of my recommendations! Here’s the harder one: believe what you’re saying. Realize that this isn’t a tactic at all. That the heart of the Bible is to encourage people to follow Jesus with their whole hearts and then to have whatever conversations you need to have as you go, that nothing preempts this. If you catch me off-line and ask me what I really think about these questions, what I’ve just said is what I will tell you. (If this has actually happened and I’ve said anything different, I repent.) There is no chink in my armor. I’m all-in on this way of thinking. I think you will see endless good things happen in your life and church with GLBT (and secular) folks if you do this. That said, if, in the end, you understandably feel the need to draw boundaries up front, fair enough.
But, for me, it’s centered-set or bust. Jesus is the only God in town, for straights or gays. I’m rooting for all my friends to follow him. I think they’ll be pleased with what happens if they do.
Really glad you have this out there somewhere now! Dan L forwarded the PDF over after original post & I was disappointed it wouldn't get wider readership.
In so many ways (I guess after being submerged in centered-set thinking the past few years via Dave, this blog, Wimber, etc) reading the article left no new surprises (in terms of thinking)... but, it did more importantly bring the whole conversation down to rubber-meets-the-road, "so, now do it". Which is what I also found so refreshing about Marin's book.
I think this kind of conversation inherently challenges deeply held beliefs about homosexuality & God... but we're in good company... it's the way Jesus related & relates to people for the last 2000 years...
Looking forward to center-citysummit in a few days!
Posted by: kennyp | August 10, 2009 at 09:41 AM
Thanks for this post. I live in Amsterdam and last weekend was the Gay Pride parade. On Sunday there was a Christian Pride service, an outdoor church service made by and for homosexual men and women.
I had just finished your book and while standing in the small crowd watching the service I had the same thought.
Even in liberal Holland there is little room in churches for gays to lead or serve. But here they are following Jesus, just like all those people who were in church that morning. I felt more at home with in that crowd than on many a Sunday in church. Not because I'm gay, I'm not, but because it was about following Jesus and not about who you are, what you are, whether you are in or out etc.
Posted by: Mark | August 10, 2009 at 01:42 PM
AMEN!
My guess is though that you would not get many on this blog disagreeing or being challenged by this (I could be wrong though and often am.) My thoughts tend to go to, "Great! Now how does one apply this?" More specifically, how does one go about helping orient a congregation/individual to a place of believing this or even believing it's okay to believe this? How does one go about trying to create a safe place for those in the GLBT community (and straight secularist sensitive to the GLBT community) to be able to come and meet and get to know the Jesus that truly loves them so they are not scared off by Jesus disciples like the woman at the well?
Said a different way, how do we prep a place to be sensitive and accepting of someone GLBT so they are not scared off when they do find they like Jesus and want to learn more about him?
I realize there are many "Gay Churches" (at least here in NYC) that one could go to, but my dream would be for a church to not have to be classified with a bounded set like that. It would just be a church with gay and straight, and I'm wondering if that takes some kind or prep work?
Posted by: chad | August 10, 2009 at 01:59 PM
The older I get (I'm in my seventies), the less I understand all the fuss about gays, and their being treated as pariahs by some churches; I'm so happy to read Dave's thoughtful (and brave) cogitations. In Jesus' day, people got up in arms about his hanging out with Samaritans, lepers, tax collectors, adulterers, Roman centurions, etc., all people who were not entitled to participate in the religious life of Israel, but were attracted to him and his message. He came to give a different kind of message, not really new because the prophets had already already warned their people to be more inclusive (e.g., many passages in Isaiah). We need to trust Jesus to speak to his sheep personally, he will do the work of sanctification (sorry that's a churchy word, but I don't know which other word to use in secular language). His sheep do hear his voice and are led by him in "paths of righteousness" whether gay or not. I'm very interested in this conversation because I have a gay friend who is a follower of Jesus, and I've invited him to come to church with me. When he comes, I hope he will be seen as a person, not a gay person.
Posted by: Abby | August 10, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Thanks for this thought, Abby, and thanks for revealing your age--this, in particular, made me feel really hopeful, since many (maybe not all) of the older folks I have known throughout the years seemed to have become--and I don't know how to say this correctly as a twentysomething and not look stupid/naive--kind of closed off and bitter. Which seems to be the exact opposite of what you are expressing here. Since these older folks are family members, I have sometimes worried that I will "inevitably" become this way in 40 or 50 years. Maybe there is a tendency to either become either very much more open and thoughtful or very much more closed down and isolated. Anyway, thanks!
Posted by: brian | August 11, 2009 at 09:01 AM
Thanks for reposting the article, Dave. I agree on so many fronts-- this is the only way forward that I've seen, other than a magic potion that makes everyone agree.
I think my real question is what we can do to make this real. How much of it has to come from the church leadership? How can we participate as individuals? One obvious thing is to invite my gay friends to my church, but that does feel a bit like asking them to be experimented on. Leadership is key to our church's approach to spiritual growth, so "it could happen" seems like incredible progress for me over "it won't happen" but it seems like eventually that has to resolve into "it could happen, and in fact it has" or "it could happen, but the fact that it never has says something concrete about the realities of this church/approach". (And it could say many things. Ask Larry Summers what conclusions to draw about why there are no tenured women in the Harvard math program. Then ask me. :-P)
Anyway, I don't know what happens then in either case. And I'm not pushing for any resolution now! But in terms of inviting my friends into that situation, I might make a weak analogy to a girl who is interested in a guy who has never thought he wanted kids. But now he does say that if everything fell into place and the woman was the right woman, it could happen. If the woman definitely wants kids, would you advise her to commit herself emotionally to this otherwise great guy, not knowing whether, in the end, she can be the right kind of woman for him? Or would you say that she'd be better off in a relationship with a guy who openly "welcomes and affirms" having kids? I'm not sure. Maybe, maybe not, but it's got some risk.
Dropping the analogy, of course it depends on how well you think the alternatives do at helping people engage with Jesus. My position would be that for some people, the alternatives work really well. But there are many others for whom the strengths of my church (e.g.) would be an incredible blessing, and I want everyone to be able to experience them.
(And on a separate tack, in some ways this whole situation also sometimes reminds me of the challenges involved in explicitly trying to make an all-white community multi-ethnic. What does it mean to ask a person of color to step into that? But anyway.)
At any rate, my real question is what specifically we can do as members of these communities (other than the obvious, inviting other people to come take a chance on us)? Changing our own attitude is one thing, if we are uncomfortable around GLBT people or uncomfortable inviting them to experience Jesus without first changing sexual orientation. But it sounds like most people here have already bought into Dave's general approach. What do we do next? What do people think?
Posted by: LBN | August 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM
I just came across another article that's pretty relevant to our discussion here, analyzing some of the prevailing schools of thought on gay involvement in churches and leadership and their incentives to engage.
Here's a highlight from the article:
Posted by: DJ Sybear | August 11, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Liz: the "weak analogy" you adduce above is actually quite striking, and, I think, it could be deeply problematic for what Dave says above--deeply problematic if, in fact, there is a predetermined understanding of what it will mean for the GLBT individual to then be a part of the church.
So one obvious answer to the questions you ask at the end of your analogy is: No, it's probably not at all a good idea for the woman who definitely wants kids to marry someone who is "not sure," since it's a well-recognized relationship disaster to ask or expect someone to change on major things like that in a marraige. Which is not to say they won't change, or can't change, just that to expect it or implicitly demand it is unfair to the integrity of the other person.
Thus, I guess the upshot is: if a GLBT person is invited into the kind of church setting that Dave's article envisions--which I fully support, despite all of its ambiguity and problems--then there absolutely cannot be a sneaky, under the table, tacit "understanding" that, in fact, a gay person will "repent" or go straight or remain celibate or whatever.
And this, in fact, is what I like about Dave's formulation above: if you talk like this, you have to mean it. If you say you're not going to fly a flag, but you're open, you have to really be open--not just trying to garner street cred with this or that crowd. Because even very non-perceptive people (perhaps like myself) can spot a phony a mile away. As Dave puts it: "...believe what you’re saying. Realize that this isn’t a tactic at all. That the heart of the Bible is to encourage people to follow Jesus with their whole hearts and then to have whatever conversations you need to have as you go, that nothing preempts this."
Sorry for the long comment; I'm procrastinating in writing my diss., and I sit at a computer all day. I'm probably the only one... :)
Posted by: brian | August 11, 2009 at 03:58 PM
I wonder if inviting and loving people really is our primary, maybe only, option at this juncture.
One obvious possibility is to use positions of leadership to effect institutional or cultural change. I think that has its limits. On this particular issue, I wonder if effecting change in that manner would be next to impossible. I suppose that really depends on the environment, but I think most churches are too bounded set to accept that kind of change. If you are opportunely placed in a centered set church, I say go for it. Otherwise, I'd steer clear if you want to maintain your leadership positions.
I think many of us, though, can probably effect more interpersonal influence and change in advocating for positive treatment of GLBT folks (more broadly, positive treatment of any minority). In some sense, GLBT relations is a worst case for centered-set relations. That said, if followers of Jesus can manage to relate to GLBT people, they can probably relate to anyone.
On the flip side of this, the GLBT community has put in place certain ideas in which straight people can participate. Those who maintain a liberal perspective on theology and homosexuality would be well advised to come out as an "Ally", in my opinion. Put a sign up on your door, put it on your facebook, stick it to your cubicle, get a bumper sticker. Wherever.
If you have a more conservative, but still centered set perspective on such matters, articulate that as clearly but concisely as you can, and put that in public view. Don't back down on being reasonable and loving people!
Maybe that's a bit didactic, but those are my ideas. God bless!
Posted by: DJ Sybear | August 11, 2009 at 09:10 PM
Dave, I've been on vacation (and I still am) and I looked up this blog entry title and read your take. You are one interesting cat, you really make me think. No reply is necessary, just throwing out some thoughts:
1. For the first time I think I'm getting your centered-set thinking. I see why you prefer the words "centered-set & bounded set," but to me they don't best describe the situation. Just a thought. Solution? None presently, but I'll think about it.
2. Even though I'm just now getting your terminology, I began thinking those thoughts with my first reading of Brian McClaren. (sp?) I have since totally bought into the frame of thinking and think it applies to me as I review my conversion. What conversion?! I see my life from birth til now as one long wave, either moving toward understanding Jesus, or moving away. I think it would get me kicked out of Campus Crusade if I wasn't kickedout already.
Gotta run to eat. I'll log in again later and continue.
Posted by: Dave | August 14, 2009 at 09:27 AM
Dave, I've been reminded that since I'm on vacation, I can't be doing this right now so I'll just add one more thought:
You're pretty provocative in your thinking that when it comes to church leadership, you insist on saying what you say you would say if/when faced with "can Vineyard leadership be gay, etc.?" I like you saying what you say, though I would ask you 50 more questions just to hear how you'd answer the 50 other questions. My bet is that you'd be consistent, which is great, but/so I'd just like to hear/read you say what you'd say. When I'm not on vacation I'll explore that - with or without you - but I'll explore it as a post anyway.
The only other thing I'd say is, if there really is no conversion per say, and even the notion of being borm again is on a continuum, which I think it is, it does interesting things to our traditionally bounded-thinking when it comes to heaven/hell, doesn't it? I prefer non-bounded thinking when it comes to the after life. Have you ever "gone there, done that" as a Christian minister/pastor? I don't feel the freedom to explore/expose my possible thinking in this for fear of being lynched by the Christian ministerial crowd I run with. So, it's just a thought I'll leave with you. If asked about it I'll deny everything - ha!
Posted by: Dave Thom | August 14, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Dave, Just finishing the thoughts laid down a few days ago...I think your job as a pastor is frought with the difficulties of being on a cutting edge and answering to tradition as well. I couldn't do your job, it seems too hard for me to juggle both such balls. But I'm glad you're doing it! How difficult it must be to imagine what Jesus says to the issues you're addressing...I admire your dive into the abyss. You have described your church as having grown in numbers by "new" sheep and not from sheep shuffling. This fact alone makes you a guy I like hearing from. I think almost no one else can say such an outstanding thing. Keep up the good work. ~ DT
Posted by: Dave Thom | August 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM
I didn't know where else to post this, Dave, but I assume you get every post no matter how late it is or how misplaced among the blogosphere it might be. I may be guilty of mis-remembering something I read from you earlier but I think ~ I could be wrong, but I think you openly hoped for revival in a blog posting. You're a plenty bright guy, so I'm wondering what revival would look like to you. I'm too reluctant to buy into the term given that it sounds non-stage four and bounded-set.
Parenthetically, I think I see a lot of claims to these terms by others who are writing in that appear to be used in contrary ways. So it makes me think I'm not getting it right either.
A revival would seem to be characterized by a lot of question-forming & exploring, but not a lot of answer-finding, typical of the usual terms for a revival. And it wouldn't have born-again claims, except in terms that Ron Martoia might appreciate, and I think I do appreciate that guy.
So, just had to throw that out there. A real revival these days would be or should be as confusing a thing as a man who claimed to be God, and it seeming to make sense anyway. Then I'd know it was from God.
Carry on!
Posted by: Dave Thom | August 24, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I have to admit that I did not read this entire article, but I have to say that I think it is horribly wrong! You propose a false dichotomy with this bounded/centered set philosophy. As a Chaste Homosexual and a roman catholic I can say that you are gravely mistaken both about the issue of sexuality and the issue of faith.
When you tell people that they need to "journey towards God" what is the standard? How can one tell if one is journeying towards God? If you don't firtst call sin what it is and separate it from goodness and virtue. Your view is short sighted. Al the people you will bring to church will eaither fall away or their faith will be so watered down as to be meaningless.
You are separating conversion and repantance from evangelization, not putting it in it's rightful place. If you can't identify sin, what good is it to believe in Christ? It's a superfluous spiritual hobby. I'm sick of religious hobbyists ruining and poorly cathechising God's church.
Christ call is unambiguous, it isn't some fluffy garbage about moving towards a center dot, it is about being on the straight and narrow. Therefore your view that there is a difference between Center set and bounded set is Heretical and I hope that YOU REPENT AND TURN TO CHRIST because evidently you haven't understood him yet!
Posted by: Mitch Mueller | March 16, 2010 at 07:01 AM
I really like most of the comments to Daves post here... My question is more generell but also deals with the main topic of this post: how can we apply the leadershipstandarts Paul wrote down in the centered set? Would the standarts be like centers (values) that one Moves to or away from?
Posted by: Kristian Reschke | May 13, 2010 at 05:36 PM
This is an interesting tack to take on how to have these conversations, and to be clear right off the bat, I too feel that there are more important matters that the people of God need to be spending "time, talent, and treasure" on. Yet at the end of the day, there has been so much anti-GLBT condemnation from the churches that a clear stance is needed to even begin to undo that damage.
Explicit discussions need to affect implicit messages, too. For example, in these conversations, being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender is discussed as an issue to "struggle" with. People are glad when their gay friends [eventually? temporarily?] "turn from that lifestyle." And in programs designed to "heal" non-majority sexual orientations, denominations are still using obsolete psychological theories which have been declared harmful and abusive by legitimate psychological associations ("gay because of abuse," "gay because of poor/absent parenting," etc.).
The Church has contributed significantly to the cultural and personal sin of homophobia, which recently has resulted in highly publicized suicides among gay teens. Having done so much harm, a conversation which does not directly address "the question of homosexuality" leaves those other, hateful and un-Christlike, messages as the most prominent voice of the Church to GLBT people.
I am a Christian, a gay man, and someone who has attended a number of services at the Cambridge Vineyard over the years. I once brought a gay friend to a service, only to hear sermon content which was mortifyingly ignorant of the realities of same sex relationships and the potential for GLBT people to have partnerships and marriages which are just as holy as those of heterosexuals. I didn't make that mistake again.
Posted by: Thomas | October 14, 2010 at 03:25 PM