Continuing the Ever-Popular H and C's Conversation

...That would be "homosexuality and churches," but for whatever reason I didn't have the heart to put that in yet another subject line, lest we seem like a single-issue bunch.  I clearly don't mind BEING a single-issue bunch, but evidently I want at all costs to avoid being SEEN that way.

Liz BN put a nub on the conversation with her lengthy comment asking, effectively, even if one bought into the article I posted Monday, should one ask one's gay friend to visit such a church as sort of a guinea pig?  Or would they need to hear a bit more to avoid being a test case?

One friend recently commented, with the church I lead, that he felt he could entrust a gay friend to me or a few of our leaders to be treated well, but he wasn't so sure it would go well with the larger church population, which effectively meant he couldn't invite that friend to our church.  So Liz' question is well-asked.

Another friend, following our blog conversation, pushes back provocatively as follows:

It's one thing to be open and prepared and have a more satisfying conversation with the GLBT who finds their way to us.  It's quite another thing to go knocking at the GLBT door, and say we're here for you.

 My ultimate concern is not whether we’ll become too loving and accommodating, but whether we will overpromise and underdeliver in our earnest and intelligent naivete.  (Which is not to say, don’t do it.  We’re as earnest and intelligent and naïve as we are, God be praised.) 

 Will we be here for them a few years down the road when it's not the cutting edge issue which demands our blogging?  When unexpected mess bubbles to the surface in private?  When a hard conversation blows out the very person we worked hard to make space for or alienates a portion of our tithe-paying community who can't bridge the gap?  Are we ready to make space for people who will threaten our very sense of ourselves, our sense of community, and what it means to be a Jesus follower (not because they're trying to be difficult, but simply by nature of how "other" they are and how "otherly" they live and love than we do)?  To what extent do we feel similarly excluded from "church" and in GLBT we've found someone worse off than ourselves for whom to fight?  To what extent is what we really dig the diversity, subversiveness, and creative vitality?  To what extent do we really have time for the individual GLBT person, in their pain and their power?  To what extent have we reckoned with our own waywardness and brokenness when it comes to sexuality and relationship, and are we prepared to go there?  To what extent is what we really want to have a voice in a secular culture which will dismiss us if we don't become gay savvier?

 GLBT are not the only ones who have cynicism to overcome in relationship to the church.  From my vantagepoint, there was a cutting edge in this in the mid-1980’s, and the church as a whole hedged and moved on to other things. 

 GLBT, the Lord, and opportunity knock again.  To raise the cliché acting question, “what’s our motivation” to open the door, as it will influence what happens next.

On my end, I've actually pondered a mid-range next step--that whether "mid-range" in my mind or not would probably have fallout--of going more public with the kind of meta-processing about the question that we do here. 

My take--naive as it may be--is that the position I strike in the article from Monday isn't actually a theological one.  It's neither about being "open and affirming" nor about being "biblically-faithful in the face of a pc secular onslaught."  What might seem jarring about it to many churchgoers is just the framework with which it opens the questions. 

Would going more-public with such a framework while making no theological comments whatsoever be a useful step forward or just beside the point?  In this one are we back to where churchgoers were with the abortion conversation--it's us or them and don't try to pussyfoot around that?

Comments

[chad]

Let me apologize right up front if this turns into a rant. It's an emotionally charged issue for me right now. ... to borrow a version of your final statement, I think it's time to stop pussyfooting around. Not as a matter of picking a side in the us-or-them battle though, but in getting the centered-set framework pushed out with an explicit "And this applies to people who are gay too! (or prostitute, pimp, or pyramid schemer for that matter)" I think the framework can be very easily dismissed in the mind of a listener if not explicitly stated where it can apply.

The other reason I think it is so important to dive in is that this "battle" will not last forever. At some point some semblance of a resolve will surface with one side taking the spoils. (I'm not a futurist, but I will bet money those resisting change will not win.) The point being that a framework ABOVE the "open and affirming" vs "biblically-faithful" spectrum needs to be injected into the conversation BEFORE it's to late to have a voice and change the texture of the conversation. I think that time is now. Bring on a public centered-set for all people!

(I'm stepping off the soap box now, thanks for letting me borrow it. :) )

[Vinceation]

Dave, I think pointing out the fact that what you're proposing is not theological is super important and, because of modernist legacy, largely missed.
If going more public with this is the next step, I think the language has to explicitly remove itself from theological discussion. One of the ways I've been talking about this recently with friends is putting the issue in terms of faith/trust that Jesus actually does interact with people:
1) I don't know if any of us knows what is theologically right/wrong, good/bad, correct/incorrect... but can we agree that Jesus does? (hopefully, the answer is yes)
2) Can we agree that Jesus will meet with and give feedback to anyone who seeks him?
3) I'm trying to have enough faith/trust in Jesus that he actually interacts with people. If, say, homosexuality is an issue, then he will bring it up. But, this doesn't require me to come down one way or another on the issue. It requires me to have faith that Jesus is alive and talks to people.

[LBN]

I think this will only work if the approach is publicly affirmed and encouraged by the leadership. First, because this is clearly a question of marginalization and acceptance, I think the power structure has to be involved in addressing it. Second, this is uncharted territory-- we do literally need leadership here! Otherwise we'll just talk about it vaguely here and there and nothing will change.

I agree one obvious next step is a Sunday morning sermon explaining and encouraging this approach. But that does run the risk of veering too much to a policy/theological statement, just by virtue of the time/place constraints. More to the point, I'm just not sure this is productive as a first public step in this process. I think it'd just bounce off, honestly. And the lay leadership would likely not be prepared to pastor it well. Is there a way to build up to it, by proactively encouraging this specific approach in other settings and providing opportunities to learn about what that might mean?

I could imagine small or focused ways -- e.g. publicly offering a class or series of classes covering and discussing the material from Marin's book and how a church approach like that would work in practice. Or larger ways -- e.g. taking two hours to talk about this during small group leaders training, or asking someone like Marin to come speak to the church as a part of SGL training, or do it as a special event and promote it as something that's really important to us as a church and that you don't want to miss.

I also think that having GLBT people tell their stories is a crucial part of this learning process. If the only Sunday morning presentation of this topic is Dave speaking, there's no way for it not be somewhat abstract. The church body needs to hear the voices of GLBT people of all sorts talking about who they are and who Jesus is or might be for them. How can we make that happen?

Anyway-- I think to do this right there will be a clear cost. People will leave, sure. But also-- there is only so much training time for leaders, you can only ask people to come to so many meetings, there are only so many Sundays. Most of what we do will have to come in place of some other also very good thing (and some people will resent that, too). But we can't make this happen with just 45 minutes on one Sunday morning. So, count the cost. Doing this halfway will likely leave us exactly nowhere. Can we make that commitment?

[Dave Schmelzer]

Oh, I don't know, Liz. On the one hand, I'm hoping this issue applies beyond our own church, so I was throwing this stuff out not exclusively on the "what should those of us in Boston do?" and more on the "what should we all do?" lines. And, as per your final question... beats me. We, like all churches, have many, many commitments we're making all the time and whether this one can or should trump others (we've been having troubles having a thriving kids' church for just one example) remains to be seen. So, on my end, I'm not feeling as though I'm looking for "The Answer" so much as I'm looking for "what's next in the process even if it's not The Answer." My feeling has been that's how a ton of things have happened for us along the way. The Answer is seeming a bit overwhelming (not to mention uncertain) to me at the moment. Does "what's next in the process" seem less than worthy from your vantage point?

[LBN]

My context is my local church, so that's the context my thoughts are in. :) But I don't think anything I mentioned is really that specific to the Boston Vinyeard, except a few things that might be easier in a bigger church...

But on the real topic, yes, of course, "what's next in the process" is a worthy question. By all means, each step is important. Talking about this at all is better than not talking about it. Starting one conversation is better than none.

So let me try to re-say what I meant by halfway being nowhere, but be less dramatic about it. :) First, what I meant is that there is an activation energy for this kind of thing, and that putting it, say, three times the effort might give thirty times more impact. Sure, you can plant seeds anywhere and some will grow, but it'll be much more worthwhile if you take the time to fertilize the ground first, and your harvest will multiply. That was the point of most of my comment-- what could a church do to make the ground more fertile for this kind of conversation? There are options at each price point. :-P

Second: I do stand by the fact that there is a real risk in going "halfway". By "halfway" I don't mean small steps. I mean saying "come here all you GLBT people, trust us with your hearts and spiritual growth, we're ready", without acknowledging that there is a cost there, and being ready, to some extent, to pay it. That's the "overpromise and underdeliver" that was mentioned. I think if we do that, there's a risk that we'll get hurt and the people we invite will get hurt-- and that's what I meant by being "nowhere".

Finally, third, my point was that anyone thinking about this should count the cost. Not necessarily that they should pay the cost! Or pay it in any particular way. There is no one moral path here, and, incidentally, I also don't think anything I proposed even approaches The Answer. :) So I really didn't mean my question about commitment to be rhetorical: I meant it practically. My point is just that we can't be too abstract about the "what's next" question, because no matter what we do this has to be one priority among many. So any big or even moderately-sized dreams on this front have to also address the hard practical questions of priorities and resources (i.e. not just the theological questions of sexuality), and you know, woe to us if we ignore them and all that.

I promise my next comment to this blog will be shorter.....