One of the challenges we bump into pretty quickly when we try to have a conversation about Christian theology and LGBTQ issues, is the problem of labels. On the one hand, labels are helpful, even necessary ways of quickly and simply orienting ourselves in the conversation. On the other hand—and anyone who has been unfairly slapped with a label like “gay activist” or “homophobe” will probably understand what I mean here—they eliminate all the nuance that we need to retain, if we’re going to have the conversation well. George Orwell once warned that if we’re not thoughtful in how we employ our words, the words will start to do the thinking for us, and that is a very real risk when we start to talk about the LGBTQ experience and the teaching of the Bible.
I say that because over the course of this series, I have used the terms “affirming” and “non-affirming” to describe various theological postures, and I want to acknowledge that the issues are far more nuanced than can be captured by the simple either/or of those terms. I have used these terms primarily because a blogpost format like this does not allow much space to let the nuance breathe, and I have wanted to orient readers to the conversation as quickly and as simply as I can.
That said, I would not describe myself with the label “non-affirming.” I serve as a pastor in a denomination that remains committed to its reading of the Scriptures, that “same-sex sexual intimacy does not fulfill the Creator’s intention for sex,” and I agree with this reading of the Scriptures in that regard. Even so, I also believe very strongly that a church with this theological posture can, indeed must, find ways to welcome, embrace, and include LGBTQ people into its community, its ministry, and its fellowship. To do this well will mean a great deal of intensely contextual discernment, weighing all the particulars of any given situation and moving forward guided by the Holy Spirit. There is no single, no one-size-fits-all theological “position” nuanced enough for this kind of work. What we need instead are a number of prayerfully discerned theological principles, held in tension with each other, that we can lean on and draw from as we respond to each person in our community as whole people, without reducing them to the lowest common denominator of a convenient term.
If I had no choice but to label myself, I would probably call my position, such as it is, an “accommodating” one. What I mean by this term is that, although I remain convinced after a careful reading of the Scriptures that same-sex sexual intercourse was not the creator’s intention for sex when he created man and woman in the beginning, still, I am compelled by the Gospel—a Gospel of radical holiness expressed through the sacrificial love of others—to find ways to make loving accommodations within my theology of sex, for those whose experience of their sexuality does not fall within the biblical vision as I perceive it. Sexuality is far too powerful and complex an experience—shaming, rejection and exclusion is far too harmful—and the causes of atypical sexualities are far too mysterious—for us to do otherwise.
I have been talking with enough people about these issues for long enough now to know that saying “I’m accommodating in my theology” is likely not really to satisfy anyone. It’s too grey a response in a conversation that seems to have space only for black-and-white answers. The most ardent affirmer will ask me if I will perform a gay marriage, then; and the most intractable non-affirmer will ask me if I would attend a gay-pride parade, then. And both would ask me what accommodations actually look like, then, in real time.
And to both I would have to say, it depends. But whatever else it looked like, it would mean responding to people as whole people, the entire complex of experiences and longings, hopes and needs that make up the human heart, taken together. It would mean, too, responding from within a whole theological framework, where things like grace, hospitality, the healing power of community, friendship, and the radical inclusion of the marginalized have as much to say as any “vision for sexual ethics” that I may have taken from the scriptures.
Accommodation is the art of loving the world that is, even as we hold tight to a biblical vision of the world as it will be (which, incidentally, will not include sex at all, either heterosexual or homosexual (Matt 22:30)); and it means holding on to this vision of what the world will be, without ever turning our backs on the world as it is.
This is hard to do. It takes great risk, and even more humility. It’s probably why the “accommodating position” is so unsatisfying.
But in seeking to be accommodating, I take some small inspiration from one of the least likely places: a children’s cartoon about some mysterious intergalactic Gems who have banded together to save planet earth, simply because they fell in love with the world as it was.
If you’ve been with me since the start of this series you will know that I’m talking here about Steven Universe. If not, let me explain. The central heroes of the show are a group of alien life-forms known as the Crystal Gems, who originally came to earth as part of an invading army of Gems from a planet called Home World. When the Crystal Gems arrived on Earth, however, they discovered here a world worth loving, so they defected from Home World and set about defending the planet that they’d initially come to destroy.
As strange as it sounds, as an accommodating pastor, I sometimes feel like I’m one of the Crystal Gems, defending a world-worth-loving from being trampled over by my own people. I hesitate to write that, partly because it’s so melodramatic, but more importantly because I am afraid I will sound like I’m vilifying those of my colleagues and fellow-Christians who are most decisively non-affirming. That is not my intention at all; and it’s certainly not the parallel I see between an accommodating theology and the Crystal Gems.
Rather, the parallel is here: that the Crystal Gems are neither humans from Earth nor the Gems of Home World. They are Gems, to be sure, but they sworn protectors of planet Earth; and neither are they earthlings, rather they are outsiders who have nothing to recommend them to the planet other than a simple (sometimes naïve) love. Like an accommodating pastor, you might say, the Crystal Gems inhabit this “both/and” grey space in a universe that wants to divide everything up into a nice, tidy, “either/or” of black and white.
And like an accommodating pastor, they are willing to stand in that "both/and gap," if for no other reason than a profound love for planet earth, and a beautiful commitment to the precious human beings that call it home. I hope that when it is all said and done, I will be able to say as much about my own ministry as a pastor, that I stood in the gap between an "affirming" and a "non-affirming" theology, refusing to reduce people to the simplest terms of a convenient label, and choosing instead to embrace all of God's children in all the complexity of their experience as whole people.
0 comments:
Post a Comment