As we reflected on the night and heard from people within our Generous Space community who attended the event, we found there was a lot to process. These are the kinds of things that happen after the curtain falls on a public event like this – and probably where the most important learning happens. So, we wanted to share with our broader community some of our takeaways from the experience.
The key common ground for the panelists (which in addition to the two LGBTQ+ people featured two straight cisgender theologians) was three-fold: First, this is not a heaven or hell issue. It is a secondary matter and one on which faithful Christians may come to different conclusions and disagree. Second, LGBTQ+ people are an integral part of the Body of Christ and if they are absent the entire Body is impoverished. Third, violence toward and oppression of LGBTQ+ people has devastating consequences that the church must address. From my vantage point, this was the essential foundation for the conversation in the first place.
The key difference between panelists’ ideas lay in relation to marriage. One panelist is committed to celibacy and experiencing deep intimacy through friendship and a sense of family in community. One panelist is married to a same-sex partner. One panelist sees the trajectory of God’s redemptive story as being an inclusive one that today embraces LGBTQ+ couples and families. One panelist sees gay sex as sin. I use that stark language because that is the language the panelist uses, but it does seem a bit jarring, doesn’t it? The reason I say that is that the other panelists spoke about these realities in relational terms. One of the things I’ve been reflecting on lately is that when you rip sex out of the context of covenantal relationship, I think you are then automatically talking about something outside of God’s best intention for human beings. From my vantage point, sex outside of covenant is a completely different conversation than talking about being sexual beings within relational contexts.
But let me turn it over to the two LGBTQ+ panelists to share their reflections…
I also tried to emphasize the point that this is where I currently stand. However, if I felt prompting from God to change my perspective or if I found enough convincing scriptural evidence I would mostly likely change my opinion. I entered this discussion knowing what I believe and why I believe it but tried to remain humble enough to admit that I might be wrong.
During the question period, I remember focusing a lot of my attention on how the church must respond to support their LGBTQ+ members. Regardless of position (affirming of same-sex marriage/sex or non-affirming), the way that the church has loved/unloved the LGBTQ+ community is broken and there needs to be action along with the apologies to work towards reconciliation. In my personal experience, I haven’t been to a church yet that fully supports me as a celibate individual. Since I believe that celibacy is the appropriate response for me in light of my sexual attractions, this lack of support makes me feel left out of God’s kingdom. In order for the church to take a traditional position on homosexuality, they must also be willing to support their celibate/single population.
After hearing some feedback from those who attended the event, I also feel that in the future this event should spend more time at the very beginning to carefully introduce exactly what this event was going to entail. At the very beginning of the night, one of the organizers said a few words to introduce the panel and discuss a little about why this event was taking place. I felt they did a very good job of introducing the night, but to some people in the audience, it wasn’t exactly clear if the conversations were going to be triggering or uncomfortable to listen to. A few of my LGBTQ+ friends who were in the audience mentioned that there were times they didn’t exactly feel safe. One of my friends even mentioned that if there was more description about the event, they might have avoided coming altogether since for them the discussion was fairly triggering.
My opinions of how to improve this event aside, I think the event accomplished much of what it set out to do. The way that I can see how we in the Generous Space community can learn from this event is to note that there needs to be work done outside of organized events and bible studies to disagree well with each other. What I mean by this statement is that given the nature of large group meetings, it is absolutely crucial for us to dialogue with others outside of these events (especially those we disagree with). We have to make the time to understand one another since we don’t have the time to unpack everything an individual brings to the discussion in one night. Active communication (both listening and sharing) is something that we as a community do well, but it is definitely something we can improve upon.
When I participate in panels like these, I find that in the moment, I tend to be mainly concerned about how well I’ve represented myself, and it’s only later that I’m able to gain perspective on the whole event. The night of the panel, I felt satisfied with my contribution to the discussion, but in the days that followed, as I listened to some of the concerns of my peers who had attended, I wondered whether I had pressed hard enough into the conversation. I had focused on modeling grace, humility and love toward my co-panelists, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, but at certain points in the evening, I believe I failed to adequately hold the straight, traditionally-believing panelist accountable for the way he stated his theological positions, and the potential and actual negative effects on my friends.
I asked myself why I didn’t feel angered by his words (which some of my friends found triggering), and I think it was because he was not from my theological or denominational tradition and didn’t have any direct relationship to me. I knew I only had to spend two hours with him and would likely never see him again. Had he been from my own denomination, and had he been even partially responsible for the ongoing exclusion of LGBTQ+ pastors like me from service within my denomination, I believe I would have responded much more passionately and personally.