My friend NakedPastor posted a cartoon this week that has stimulated some good conversation. It was kind of fun for me because I’d commissioned NP to do a cartoon for the cover of a new DVD resource we’ll be releasing soon – and the cartoon he posted was one of the possible submissions (but we chose a different one). In the comment section, a woman wrote:
[My partner] and I, a couple of weeks ago, were checking out a ministry here in Canada whose mission is said to be “bridging the gap” between the LGBT community and the church. It wasn’t long before we discovered they were formerly a part of Exodus International and we started referring to them as “Exodus Lite” because they were doing their best to take a friendlier, non-judgmental approach to the issue but still didn’t get it. In any event, we read this one particular blog post from the lady that leads this ministry where she was defending herself as she felt she had been misrepresented by a leader in the Exodus movement. Apparently, she had mentioned two women that had entered into what they termed a “covenant friendship”, which the guy from Exodus termed a “sexless marriage” as it had all the trappings of a marriage without the sexual relationship as they accepted the view that gay sex was sinful. The post we read was basically her back-pedalling on what she had said to save face with the Exodus crowd, which was enough to convince me that she only wanted to separate from the bad image of Exodus but was still looking to run an ex-gay ministry with a pretty veneer to gloss over the harm caused by ex-gay ministries. It all seemed rather backhanded and dishonest to me, though they may in fact be very sincere.
I wanted to use this comment to again try to bring some clarity to what this blog (and New Direction) is about ….. and I don’t mean to be defensive – so I hope it doesn’t come across that way. Our history with Exodus is not something we’ve tried to hide. It is a huge part of our history – and will always be there as part of our story. We’ve tried to learn from that story in the best way we know how. And we’ve tried to keep moving forward into what we believe God is calling us to. While we do want to focus on bridge-building ….. it would be rather audacious to suggest that we are seeking to be the bridge between the gay community and the church. Rather, I think there are many smaller more relational bridges to be built. Sometimes those bridges are between gay Christians who hold differing views on the acceptability of gay relationships. Sometimes those bridges are within families where there has been fractures in relationship over the reality of a gay loved one. Sometimes those bridges are within a particular congregation where there is difference and disagreement. Sometimes those bridges are with post-Christian gay people who feel the need for some sense of being heard (or maybe closure) on their past with the church. So while we do seek to embody posture, priorities and language that will facilitate bridges being built – we encounter these opportunities situation by situation at a relational level. Part of that bridge-building is our attempts to describe spacious places where diversity can be acknowledged and where common ground can be discovered. Sometimes, there isn’t much common ground to be found – but there can still be moments of seeing, valuing and respecting one another’s humanity. I don’t think there really is that much common ground between an individual who believes that accepting the reality of a same-sex orientation or gay identity is outside of God’s best and an individual who experiences God’s love and grace in their relationship with their same-sex partner. There might not be much common ground – but there could be a humble, gracious acknowledgment that the other is deeply and unconditionally loved by God. And that would be more of a bridge than a simmering enmity, judgment and accusation toward the other. Where there can be an acknowledgment that God mysteriously works in the lives of those who express their faith and commitment in different ways, there is greater potential for common ground. And in these conversations there can be shared vision for reaching out and being partners with God in his work of reconciliation. But trying to embody the space of bridge-building means that we will care about relationships across the diverse spectrum of belief and practice around sexual identity. It means we care about relationships with those within Exodus. It means we care about relationships with those in the ex-gay survivor movement. It means we care about relationships with gay Christians who are celibate or affirming or partnered. It means we care about relationships with straight Christians who are black and white and oh so certain on this topic (with very little relational and personal experience). It means we care about relationships with straight allies/advocates. That doesn’t mean we agree with every aspect of what these different individuals believe or practice. But it does mean that we will seek to listen, extend respect, be gracious and gentle in our conversations, in the ways we may need to navigate conflict or disagreement, and in how we speak publicly about fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Our rootedness as a ministry has been in a more traditional and conservative understanding of sexual ethics. Again, this is not something we’ve tried to hide. In light of this rootedness, there are individuals who hold conservative beliefs and values who connect with us seeking support. Is this “exodus-lite”? Is this a kinder, gentler pull into ex-gay ministry? I suppose it depends how you would define ex-gay ministry. If you would define supporting someone in their goal to express their faith through a commitment to singleness as ex-gay …. then I suppose we would fit that. I wouldn’t describe ex-gay in that manner. To me, ex-gay connotes the idea of trying to not be gay…. to not identify as gay, to not accept and be okay with the reality of a gay orientation, to try to diminish one’s experiences of same-gender attraction. In my experience, this emphasis has often been unfruitful and sometimes emotionally / spiritually harmful (unless perhaps the individual was actually robustly bi-sexual to begin with – while I do know exceptions to this as well). While living a celibate life can be very challenging, I don’t believe that it is inherently harmful if it is a freely chosen commitment made by the individual. The challenge is when the church tries to externally pressure an individual to live a celibate life – when they do not feel called or able to live that out faithfully. So what about gay partnered Christians? What does “building a bridge” to them look like for New Direction? Well that sounds rather paternalistic doesn’t it …. Building a bridge, in my mind, is something that is mutually owned. So we experience bridge-building with affirming gay Christians when they invite us into conversation and relationship – and it is an equally shared experience because we both value the experience of reconciliation that might result. Sometimes, the bridge is about being able to relate to someone with a past association with ex-gay ministry in a way that is respectful and gracious. Sometimes, the bridge is about creating space for people to honestly own their convictions without judging the other. Bridge-building is not about changing the other. So, in our relationships with affirming gay Christians we are not trying to change their mind about their convictions. We want to listen and hear their story, celebrate their faith in Jesus Christ, and in our love for one another more deeply experience Christ’s presence. And where our friends encounter painful reactions and responses from others in the church, we want to offer support, encouragement, prayer and love. While I think our sexual ethics as followers of Jesus are important, I believe they are secondary matters. If you want to see a multiplicity of ways to live out our sexual lives as the people of God – just look through the pages of Scripture. Today, our reality is a diverse one. How will we relate to one another? How will we love one another? How will we encourage one another to deepen in our faith in Christ? How will we share the good news of the Kingdom of Jesus with our neighbours? These are the bridges that take priority. And they are built relationally, one conversation at a time.
-WG
there were several quotes int his i wanted to highlight… “While I think our sexual ethics as followers of Jesus are important, I believe they are secondary matters.”
This is the one that strikes me most. There is such enmity… so many on both sides show such intolerance it’s no wonder each fully believes the other has nothing but hatred. They have made a secondary matter the primary ‘deal making/breaking’ issue. It shouldn’t be.
We cannot be people of integrity if we compromise what we believe in scripture to be true… but choosing to love and accept people as they are, for who they are, isn’t compromise. That’s the commandment of Jesus. It’s not an obligation but a genuine love that comes from the Love we have for and in Christ.
Hi Wendy,
You said, “To me, ex-gay connotes the idea of trying to not be gay…. to not identify as gay, to not accept and be okay with the reality of a gay orientation, to try to diminish one’s experiences of same-gender attraction. In my experience, this emphasis has often been unfruitful and sometimes emotionally / spiritually harmful (unless perhaps the individual was actually robustly bi-sexual to begin with – while I do know exceptions to this as well). While living a celibate life can be very challenging, I don’t believe that it is inherently harmful if it is a freely chosen commitment made by the individual. The challenge is when the church tries to externally pressure an individual to live a celibate life – when they do not feel called or able to live that out faithfully.”
Here’s where I have a problem with that. First of all, your definition of ex-gay as something that “connotes the idea of trying to not be gay…. to not identify as gay, to not accept and be okay with the reality of a gay orientation, to try to diminish one’s experiences of same-gender attraction” is not bad. What I don’t understand is how you see the message being put out by ND as not this. ND does represent the idea of trying not to be gay, to not identify as gay, just like you said. You have an article on your main site that deals with how to “manage” your sexual identity. It (along with other areas on the sites) very clearly promotes the idea that one can choose to not identify as being gay by separating orientation from identity. This, by your own definition of what denotes ex-gay is in fact just that.
I don’t have a problem with a gay person choosing to be celibate if that is what they feel called to, anymore than I would have a problem with a straight person that chooses to be celibate. I do have a problem with organizations telling gay people that they don’t have to “identify” as being gay. I have a problem with trying to get gay people to use clinical sounding terms like same-gender attracted (neatly accronymed to SGA) so they don’t have to admit that they are in fact gay, with telling them that “gay” is an identity that they can choose to own or not own. I have a problem with an organization telling me that, while I may not be able to choose to be straight, I can still choose to be “not gay”. This is not bridge-building, this is an attempt to build a divide within the gay community. It is the polar opposite of bridge-building.
And I agree that celibacy is most definitely not inherrently harmful when freely choosen, though I may disagree that most celibate gay christians are in fact “freely choosing” that path as opposed to feeling pressured into it and thus struggling with it in a less than beneficial fasion (which is not to say that there isn’t a level of struggle inherent in the Christian life which can in fact be benificial). Nor do I agree that ND is not adding to the pressure that many gay Christians feel to live a celibate life that they don’t otherwise feel called to. You may offer links to resources for those that don’t feel called to celibacy, but it certainly comes off as an afterthought for those you are ready to give up on. It certainly isn’t a fair representation of available choices, nor is ND in anyway theologically neutral which is one route that could be legitimately taken if you have a solid theological stance but truly want to build bridges and open spaces for people who see things differently rather than feeling the need to sell your particular take on things.
Cindy (who doesn’t mind in the least being identified as the person you are quoting)
Oh, by the way Wendy, if you have now come to believe that, as you suggest here it would be “rather audacious to suggest that we are seeking to be the bridge between the gay community and the church”, you may want to update your facebook profile because your description of your position as executive director of ND still says, “Bridging the Gap between the gay community and the Christian community”. Peace.
Perhaps it would have been more clear if I had capitalized ‘the’ in my last post: It would be “rather audacious to suggest that we are seeking to be THE bridge between the gay community and the church.” Perhaps it would have been more clear if I’d specified that I don’t think there is just one bridge to be built or that New Direction has some major, important role to play in that singular effort. What I tried to suggest in the last post is that there are many ways that bridges are built in the space where sexuality and faith intersect.
“Bridging the Gap between the gay community and the Christian community” is a simple straight-forward way for my old highschool friends, or extended family, or connections from my broader denomination etc. who connect with me on my personal FB page to understand the focus of my work with New Direction. It is not a statement which is meant to suggest that there is one bridge to be built and New Direction is doing it. Mind you, I haven’t looked at my info page on my facebook profile since I wrote it three years ago.
I’m sure if people google me, they’ll find all kinds of examples of how I might contradict myself …. whether that is because my own views continue to evolve or because I’ve figured out how to articulate things differently or because I’m a work in progress who is prone to error. There are times I come across something I wrote six or seven years ago and think to myself, “Wow, I’m not there any more.” But it is what it is – I can’t expunge from the web everything I’ve written in the past. If one wants to assume some ulterior motive when they uncover some discrepancy in a writing from the past and something I’m saying today – so be it. I’ve tried to live and relate and write in as transparent a manner as possible. Not everyone is going to like the contribution I’m attempting to make in the broader conversation. Some will prefer the Exodus route. Some will prefer the MCC route. Some want me to go backwards. Some want me to hurry up and move forward. At the end of the day, I have to be faithful to how God is leading me as I try to serve many different people from many different perspectives.
My concern is what will be beneficial and encouraging and gracious in the public square so that people across the wide range of position and perspective can find a space in which to extend respect across difference. And that perhaps, in the process, some observers of the conversation will glimpse that people who live in the way of Jesus really are known for the way they love one another -even those with whom they disagree.