So today I was in Little Tokyo waiting with a friend at a restaurant when a man walked up and asked loudly, "Is anybody friendly?" There were several of us waiting outside (it was a popular place) and we all just waited quietly for our turns to be seated. Right off the bat, the man sounded a bit aggressive, so (along with everyone else) I decided to ignore his comments. I usually am friendly to others but because of the way he asked the question, I thought it best to simply ignore the situation, in hopes of avoiding a confrontation (besides, my past experiences of answering people's random questions was not pretty). As we ignored him, he continued to ask the question, each time more aggressively. After asking about 3 times, he walked away.
But as he walked passed me he said loudly, "Fine, I can see you're not friendly you fat, nigger, bitch."
Now, as I have said before I was not the only person standing there. In fact, there were at least 10 other people standing in front of the restaurant and most of them stood closer to him than I was, although I was the only African American there. Everyone that was close to the restaurant could hear his comment. As he continued to walk away, he stopped, turned around and said (even louder this time) "see that's whats wrong with the Black Race; they ignore everybody," and continued to walk down the street, offering up other terms towards me that I do not care to name nor remember. I along with the crowd continued to remain silent as if nothing happened.
At first, I tried to shake it off. I do not identify with any of those terms he mentioned so there would be no need to respond. But as I sat there going through what happened in my head, I realized that I couldn't shake it. There was something that bothered me. There was something that hurt.
Later, when I got home, I continued to think about what it was that bothered me so. Was it the fact that he called me a "fat, nigger, bitch?" Well, that was a part of it but not totally. As I began to think about it more, I realized that it wasn't what he called me, but the fact that he pointed me out in the first place. Allow me to explain. As I said before, there were several people outside at the time he walked over to us. All of us heard him, and he spoke as if he was speaking to all of us. And we ALL ignored him. Every person there made the personal decision to ignore his question. But I was the only one called out for it. And not only that, but my decision, my personal decision, was dwindled down to a matter of race. My personal decision was no longer my personal decision but a decision that was based on what this man decided was a stereotype of African Americans. It wasn't the name calling, but the fact that there was no room for my moral agency, my own personal decision. Everyone else in that group had moral agency to not get involved. My moral agency, however, was not a result of my own person but what others thought based on the color of my skin. That is what bothered me.
Now, many of you will read this and think several thoughts. Allow me to tell you what I DON'T want to hear:
1. "just ignore him, you are none of those things." I know that. This is what many people do when they encounter things such as this. I understand that who I am cannot be wrapped up in a simple category or stereotype. But we don't engage racist comments because we identify with them, we engage them because they speak a truth of a system that needs to be changed. How many times have you dwindled a persons actions to their race? I am not saying that people are not shaped by their culture but when we view people's decisions as only a reflection of a (racial) structure that was only constructed to dehumanize those who were "non-white" then something is very wrong here.
2. "why are you bothered by a 'crazy person' anyway?" The only difference between "crazy people" and those who are in power is that "crazy people" have no filters...
3. "I am so sorry that happened to you": Isn't it funny how we use our "empathy" as a way to disengage from the conversation?
Honestly, I am not asking for you comments (although you are more than welcome to share them). What I am asking is that you sit with this. That you really think about what it means to have your moral agency taken from you on account of your race. What does it mean when your personal decisions are always seen as some stereotype? Does it bother you? Does it affect the way you make decisions? There are a number of questions that this situation raises. It is interesting to see how agency is affected by race. Hopefully I can reflect on this more in the future...
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
My response to creating a polycentric leadership
So today I had the chance to speak at a conference in response to JR Woodward's presentation on Leadership. It was a very interesting and fun time and I wanted to put my response here for those of you who wanted to be there but couldn't. Please keep in mind that it is a response to a presentation. If you want to know more about what JR said you can pick up his book entitled Creating a Missional Culture: Equipping the Church for the Sake of the World.
My Response:
I would like to first thank JR, the Missio Alliance, and the Ecclesia network for allowing me to be here today. I take it as a great honor that I can stand before you all and share some of my thoughts. I found a lot of what JR said to be very interesting and also very encouraging. It is always good to see that we are able to continue to ask questions of ourselves and how we engage the gospel in church leadership, and I am glad to know that there are those of us who are not willing to settle for what has always been but will continue to ask questions and challenge us to be more than we could even think or imagine. What I hope to do in this short time is to bring out some of JR’s points that I appreciated and also to contribute my own “two cents” if you will in hopes to challenge us to further engage what it means to be leaders in the church.
There are two points that I wish to explore in relation to this topic today. The first is the connection between culture and the church, and the second is in relation to diversity within Polycentric leadership. In regards to the first point (culture), JR states that by engaging in “grace-filled spiritual practices” which he defines as a collection of thick, bodily practices that engage our senses, grab our hearts, form our identities and reshape our desires toward God and his kingdom (I like that by the way) we create environments that then lead to creating missional culture. He states “As coworkers with God, we create culture and culture recreates us.” Or in other words, the way in which we live and relate to one another in essence shapes our culture, and in turn our culture shapes the way we live and relate to one another. This begs the question: In what ways have we allowed the culture to shape the church? What lines have become blurred and which cultural customs have we simply claimed as our own religious rituals? JR gives an example of this in his presentation when he talks about how the American church has adopted a business mentality. American Capitalism has become so ingrained in our culture and our church that many Pastors run their churches like Fortune 500 companies, and will write books and back it up with proof texts to justify their methods. This method, however, is not biblical and no matter how much they try to convince you; stewardship and capitalism are not the same thing. Thus, cultural customs have become religious rituals and we are left looking more like disciples of Donald Trump than Jesus.
JR goes on to say, “The language we live in, the artifacts that we make use of, the rituals we engage in and the narratives we inhabit have the power to shape our lives profoundly.” He also states, “For leaders of God’s people uniquely contribute to the cultivation of a culture distinct and different from the dominant culture.” I would ask; where does that leave those who are already not a part of the dominant culture? How is the church participating in other cultures that are not dominant? A good friend told me that we cannot have a conversation about culture without having a conversation about power. Hence the reason we refer to the dominant culture. Who chooses artifacts? Who determines which rituals we engage in or which narratives are formative or which language primary? It is those who are in power, those of the dominant culture. Thus it is imperative for us to understand the distinctions between that culture and what I call the Gospel communal culture. There is something about the Gospel that allows us to not be hindered by our culture in becoming a part of this communal culture. This is not to say that we deny our culture to do so, quite the contrary; the gospel allows us to engage our culture, our traditions, and our narratives for it has been shaped by the gospel story, as we have been claimed by Christ. The dominant culture does not allow this; there is no room for other expressions of culture other than its own. It is hierarchical. It would seem then, that the current state of church has done more adapting to culture than cultivating a different one. It is a good thing there are people in the room who are willing to change that.
In regards to my second point, I must say that I was blessed by the story of the church in Chicago. That picture of viewing a church with the table at the center and those who are giving the word on the margins really is beautiful. But one of the things that I wanted to know was what the preacher was actually teaching? I can only assume that the intention to show inclusion should bleed into the way we speak and live but unfortunately experience cannot let me be that naïve. So if nothing more than an example, I would like to use this church, this beautiful vision, as a way to advocate for the importance of diversity within polycentric leadership.
The basic point in sharing this vision is to show how the medium can be the message, how our actions can speak louder than our words, thus indicating how our leadership structure also sends a message. I agree with this, but only to the extent that the medium and the message are the same. Which is why I wanted to know what the preacher was teaching. Though medium is important as a vehicle to express the message; we cannot fall back on the medium if we are not willing to preach that message. We cannot only count for our actions if we are not willing to be held accountable for our words. This is why diversity within Polycentric leadership is important. If creating a polycentric leadership is the medium, than we must empower those diverse voices in the message. We must allow them to be those prophetic voices that hold our White, male-dominated Western theology accountable to the gospel it is called to preach.
See, we can practice this in demonstration of our services, but do we practice this in our engagement with theology? In other words, we can stand at the edge of the circle and preach, but are we giving those who LIVE on the margins a voice? We can give up our power and positions, become Francisican in our poverty but still preach ideals of a dominant culture. Our positions are not enough. We cannot be polycentric in our function and not in our theology and beliefs. We cannot allow our giving up of our positions justify our words; we must empower those who have no voice, not because they were ever without it, but because it was stolen from them by a top down structure. Creating polycentric leadership amongst those who share the same ideologies and context is not enough. I must challenge you to not become polycentric in your leadership and remain hierarchical in your ideals.
Not only is this not a mission impossible, but I actually have the privilege of being a part of a ministry that practices what they preach. I hope not to take too much of Pastor Kevin Haah’s thunder as I boast about New City, but it seems like such a great example for what it means to hold both the medium and the message. New City Church of Los Angeles is a church that started about 5 years ago as a vision of Pastor Kevin to create an inclusive, Gospel-centered community in the heart of Los Angeles. But instead of simply gathering friends, or taking a team from his predominately Korean-American church, Kevin decided to create a leadership that reflected the community; both in ethnic diversity and socio-economic representation. And instead of creating a hierarchical leadership, Kevin, along with wise council, created a system of accountability; both for himself and his leaders, that refused hierarchical structures and made room for leaders to emerge that a system of hierarchy would only oppress. The result is a fast-growing, come as you are, gospel preaching, community loving church. And personally, coming from a background of service in churches with a history of glass ceilings for women in ministry, an environment that issued limitations for certain pigmentations and a student loan system that I swear has vowed to keep me in poverty; it is good to know that I can not only find community, but I can have a voice; a place at the table where power is not meant to be horded but shared.
Allow me to conclude by saying that I agree that Polycentric leadership is not only a more biblical model, but allows for those who would otherwise have no voice to speak up. I would encourage Pastors of churches to employ this model, but to be reminded that to be truly polycentric, true diversity is not optional. Thank you.
My Response:
I would like to first thank JR, the Missio Alliance, and the Ecclesia network for allowing me to be here today. I take it as a great honor that I can stand before you all and share some of my thoughts. I found a lot of what JR said to be very interesting and also very encouraging. It is always good to see that we are able to continue to ask questions of ourselves and how we engage the gospel in church leadership, and I am glad to know that there are those of us who are not willing to settle for what has always been but will continue to ask questions and challenge us to be more than we could even think or imagine. What I hope to do in this short time is to bring out some of JR’s points that I appreciated and also to contribute my own “two cents” if you will in hopes to challenge us to further engage what it means to be leaders in the church.
There are two points that I wish to explore in relation to this topic today. The first is the connection between culture and the church, and the second is in relation to diversity within Polycentric leadership. In regards to the first point (culture), JR states that by engaging in “grace-filled spiritual practices” which he defines as a collection of thick, bodily practices that engage our senses, grab our hearts, form our identities and reshape our desires toward God and his kingdom (I like that by the way) we create environments that then lead to creating missional culture. He states “As coworkers with God, we create culture and culture recreates us.” Or in other words, the way in which we live and relate to one another in essence shapes our culture, and in turn our culture shapes the way we live and relate to one another. This begs the question: In what ways have we allowed the culture to shape the church? What lines have become blurred and which cultural customs have we simply claimed as our own religious rituals? JR gives an example of this in his presentation when he talks about how the American church has adopted a business mentality. American Capitalism has become so ingrained in our culture and our church that many Pastors run their churches like Fortune 500 companies, and will write books and back it up with proof texts to justify their methods. This method, however, is not biblical and no matter how much they try to convince you; stewardship and capitalism are not the same thing. Thus, cultural customs have become religious rituals and we are left looking more like disciples of Donald Trump than Jesus.
JR goes on to say, “The language we live in, the artifacts that we make use of, the rituals we engage in and the narratives we inhabit have the power to shape our lives profoundly.” He also states, “For leaders of God’s people uniquely contribute to the cultivation of a culture distinct and different from the dominant culture.” I would ask; where does that leave those who are already not a part of the dominant culture? How is the church participating in other cultures that are not dominant? A good friend told me that we cannot have a conversation about culture without having a conversation about power. Hence the reason we refer to the dominant culture. Who chooses artifacts? Who determines which rituals we engage in or which narratives are formative or which language primary? It is those who are in power, those of the dominant culture. Thus it is imperative for us to understand the distinctions between that culture and what I call the Gospel communal culture. There is something about the Gospel that allows us to not be hindered by our culture in becoming a part of this communal culture. This is not to say that we deny our culture to do so, quite the contrary; the gospel allows us to engage our culture, our traditions, and our narratives for it has been shaped by the gospel story, as we have been claimed by Christ. The dominant culture does not allow this; there is no room for other expressions of culture other than its own. It is hierarchical. It would seem then, that the current state of church has done more adapting to culture than cultivating a different one. It is a good thing there are people in the room who are willing to change that.
In regards to my second point, I must say that I was blessed by the story of the church in Chicago. That picture of viewing a church with the table at the center and those who are giving the word on the margins really is beautiful. But one of the things that I wanted to know was what the preacher was actually teaching? I can only assume that the intention to show inclusion should bleed into the way we speak and live but unfortunately experience cannot let me be that naïve. So if nothing more than an example, I would like to use this church, this beautiful vision, as a way to advocate for the importance of diversity within polycentric leadership.
The basic point in sharing this vision is to show how the medium can be the message, how our actions can speak louder than our words, thus indicating how our leadership structure also sends a message. I agree with this, but only to the extent that the medium and the message are the same. Which is why I wanted to know what the preacher was teaching. Though medium is important as a vehicle to express the message; we cannot fall back on the medium if we are not willing to preach that message. We cannot only count for our actions if we are not willing to be held accountable for our words. This is why diversity within Polycentric leadership is important. If creating a polycentric leadership is the medium, than we must empower those diverse voices in the message. We must allow them to be those prophetic voices that hold our White, male-dominated Western theology accountable to the gospel it is called to preach.
See, we can practice this in demonstration of our services, but do we practice this in our engagement with theology? In other words, we can stand at the edge of the circle and preach, but are we giving those who LIVE on the margins a voice? We can give up our power and positions, become Francisican in our poverty but still preach ideals of a dominant culture. Our positions are not enough. We cannot be polycentric in our function and not in our theology and beliefs. We cannot allow our giving up of our positions justify our words; we must empower those who have no voice, not because they were ever without it, but because it was stolen from them by a top down structure. Creating polycentric leadership amongst those who share the same ideologies and context is not enough. I must challenge you to not become polycentric in your leadership and remain hierarchical in your ideals.
Not only is this not a mission impossible, but I actually have the privilege of being a part of a ministry that practices what they preach. I hope not to take too much of Pastor Kevin Haah’s thunder as I boast about New City, but it seems like such a great example for what it means to hold both the medium and the message. New City Church of Los Angeles is a church that started about 5 years ago as a vision of Pastor Kevin to create an inclusive, Gospel-centered community in the heart of Los Angeles. But instead of simply gathering friends, or taking a team from his predominately Korean-American church, Kevin decided to create a leadership that reflected the community; both in ethnic diversity and socio-economic representation. And instead of creating a hierarchical leadership, Kevin, along with wise council, created a system of accountability; both for himself and his leaders, that refused hierarchical structures and made room for leaders to emerge that a system of hierarchy would only oppress. The result is a fast-growing, come as you are, gospel preaching, community loving church. And personally, coming from a background of service in churches with a history of glass ceilings for women in ministry, an environment that issued limitations for certain pigmentations and a student loan system that I swear has vowed to keep me in poverty; it is good to know that I can not only find community, but I can have a voice; a place at the table where power is not meant to be horded but shared.
Allow me to conclude by saying that I agree that Polycentric leadership is not only a more biblical model, but allows for those who would otherwise have no voice to speak up. I would encourage Pastors of churches to employ this model, but to be reminded that to be truly polycentric, true diversity is not optional. Thank you.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Sometimes I doubt everything.
Have you ever looked at your faith, everything that you believe and have believed since you can remember and thought..."What if this is all Bullshit?"
Cause I gotta be honest...I do.
As a matter of fact, I'm having that thought right now.
And it's hard, you know, cause you never actually want to admit that a thought like that can cross your mind, but sometimes, if you are really honest with yourself, you'll feel it creep in. Or maybe its never left your mind and it manages to show its face every now and then. But you constantly remind yourself that its OK because it only happens sometimes...
Until "sometimes" becomes "often" and "often" becomes "normal" and the next thing you know you doubt everything.
But hey, that can never happen to me...I'm a Christian.
So even if I do doubt "sometimes" I will never let it get that far...I will always believe.
Yeah, I think that way too...
Now, many of you may be gasping right now thinking, "yep, that's it, Tamisha has officially jumped off the deep end." Please be assured that that hasn't happened. I still believe. I still have faith.
But "sometimes..."
Sometimes I wonder if it is all Bullshit.
So what keeps me grounded then? What keeps me from jumping?
Honestly (and this is where my Charismatic roots come in), I remember the times I experienced God. Times that I know without a shadow of a doubt that God was with me. Present in a situation, or gave me a word that I couldn't have known for someone else or did something so mind blowing that there could simply be no other explanation.
But as I even begin to think about that and about how learning so many things here at Fuller have a way of challenging what you believe I wonder if there will come a time when there are so many holes in my "theology" that even those experiences begin to slip through the cracks.
So where does that leave me? Holding on to anchors until they're blown to bits by some ideology or praying that I still love Jesus when I graduate?
That's not enough for me.
My faith has to go deeper...
Believing the way I've always believed cannot be the end for me. I have to get to a point where my faith is strong and unmovable.
And I have a feeling that to get there I'm going to have to doubt everything.
I'm going to have to let it go, and trust that after everything has been shaken that the truth will emerge and stand.
I don't want to be the person who fears doubt so much that their belief becomes their truth.
But I don't want to be the person that becomes so disillusioned that doubt becomes their god.
But sometimes...
Sometimes I look at all of this and wonder...
What if it is all Bullshit?
Cause I gotta be honest...I do.
As a matter of fact, I'm having that thought right now.
And it's hard, you know, cause you never actually want to admit that a thought like that can cross your mind, but sometimes, if you are really honest with yourself, you'll feel it creep in. Or maybe its never left your mind and it manages to show its face every now and then. But you constantly remind yourself that its OK because it only happens sometimes...
Until "sometimes" becomes "often" and "often" becomes "normal" and the next thing you know you doubt everything.
But hey, that can never happen to me...I'm a Christian.
So even if I do doubt "sometimes" I will never let it get that far...I will always believe.
Yeah, I think that way too...
Now, many of you may be gasping right now thinking, "yep, that's it, Tamisha has officially jumped off the deep end." Please be assured that that hasn't happened. I still believe. I still have faith.
But "sometimes..."
Sometimes I wonder if it is all Bullshit.
So what keeps me grounded then? What keeps me from jumping?
Honestly (and this is where my Charismatic roots come in), I remember the times I experienced God. Times that I know without a shadow of a doubt that God was with me. Present in a situation, or gave me a word that I couldn't have known for someone else or did something so mind blowing that there could simply be no other explanation.
But as I even begin to think about that and about how learning so many things here at Fuller have a way of challenging what you believe I wonder if there will come a time when there are so many holes in my "theology" that even those experiences begin to slip through the cracks.
So where does that leave me? Holding on to anchors until they're blown to bits by some ideology or praying that I still love Jesus when I graduate?
That's not enough for me.
My faith has to go deeper...
Believing the way I've always believed cannot be the end for me. I have to get to a point where my faith is strong and unmovable.
And I have a feeling that to get there I'm going to have to doubt everything.
I'm going to have to let it go, and trust that after everything has been shaken that the truth will emerge and stand.
I don't want to be the person who fears doubt so much that their belief becomes their truth.
But I don't want to be the person that becomes so disillusioned that doubt becomes their god.
But sometimes...
Sometimes I look at all of this and wonder...
What if it is all Bullshit?
Monday, October 8, 2012
Believing in Love
Note: Some of you will read this and think, "this girl is going to Hell; don't pass go, don't collect $200, but STRAIGHT to Hell.. Others will read this and think, "What the hell is she talking about?" Please know that I am not entirely sure, and writing usually helps me to sort it out so bare with me...
About a year and a half ago I wrote a blog entitled, Divided by Homosexuality, which was based on a panel discussion we had at Fuller during my first quarter. I read that blog now and still remember how confused I was. I approach this blog with much of the same confusion, but with more of a resolve than I ever would have been able to articulate last Spring.
Tonight I went to view a screening of "Love Free or Die" which was about Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop. The film was then followed by a Q&A with Bishop Robinson himself. To be honest, I had no clue who he was before hearing about this event and upon hearing about him I was interested in his life and particularly with his journey as expressed in the film. I enjoyed the film overall, as well as the Q&A, getting to meet him, buying his book and getting it signed. But what really lead me to write this blog was not the man nor the film, but the people I was watching it with.
When I left that panel last Spring, I was convinced on my stand on Homosexuality and was just beginning to explore what that looked like as I engaged with people in community (in other words, was it truly possible for me to engage people who were homosexual without turning my back on my beliefs?) As I began to explore this further, an amazing thing happened: I made friends. Not just any friends, but friends who were homosexual, friends who were Allies (heterosexuals who supported the homosexual community) and so on. This issue that I had been struggling with was no longer an issue: it had a face and a name and I had a relationship with it. No...strike that. Those faces and names were not issues, they were friends, good friends who supported me and I them.
"Now what?" I thought. Time and time again I played various scenarios in my head about how I would react to certain situations. "What if they got married? Would I go to their wedding as support for our friendship? Would that mean that I affirmed homosexuality?" Back and forth I went; trying to figure out how to love my friends in a way that was true to the Gospel, but at the same time uphold what I believed to be Gospel truth.
Some time later, Peace and Justice Advocates invited Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network to Fuller to talk and also to lead a panel discussion. One of the things that I really liked about this discussion and found to be helpful was the fact that they were open to people on both sides to the discussion. It allowed me to understand the possibility of exploring my position in community: that is, learning how to engage in community with others even though I was on the "Conservative" side of the issue.
Some time after that, a good friend of mine started an organization entitled, "One Table" which supported the LGBT community at Fuller. I remember sitting with her one night as we were having our usual Tuesday night dinners among friends and asking about my place at this table of conversation. Would there be a place for me since I technically hadn't made a "decision" yet? I found that there was not only a place; but a safe space to express exactly where I was: Welcoming yet non-affirming (or at least that's what I heard it called).
This leads me to tonight, Gene Robinson, the film and all. There I was, sitting behind my friends, watching a film about a man who went through hardship for what he believed to be the truth. It was in those first 10 minutes that I thought of this scripture:
Greater love has no one that this, that one lay down her life for her friends.
If I truly believe that Homosexuality is one of the make or break decisions of my faith; then would I be willing to lay THAT down for my friends? Would I be willing to suffer the possibility of Hell (if I believed that to be the result of my affirming of Homosexuality) to love my friends? Would my love have to be radical enough to require that of me, or was it possible to hold onto both?
It was at that point that I realized that my decision to love was more important than my decision to take a side. But would not taking a side prove me to be "lukewarm?" (I say this in the term that many Christians view this as; this is not what I believe that part of scripture to be saying, but that's another blog).This is also something that I had to confront:
Did I believe that Homosexuality was a sin because I searched the scriptures and came to this conclusion or was this simply the result of tradition and upbringing? (this question is where the "she's going to Hell" part comes in). I cannot say that I have searched the scriptures. I was familiar with the scriptures that were used in this argument of course, but did I actually read them for myself? No. I had allowed it to be something I always believed, no question. Now, I am not saying that if I search the scriptures for myself (not actually BY MYSELF, but we won't get into the nitty-gritty of context and history of the church and blah blah blah) that I would come out in favor of Homosexuality, but I'm not saying I won't either. I have found that I have to be willing to search the scripture and allow the Holy Spirit to tell me the Truth. For someone who has always believed one way, this is a very scary thing. I can say, "this doesn't mean that I will change my mind" but if I go in with that notion then I am not really allowing the Holy Spirit to have it's way. I am not really letting it go. I have to be willing to leave this at the foot of the Cross and trust that the Truth will make me free. To be honest, I am not sure what I will find. That is where the confusion still lies. But I can say this: my resolve is in love. It does not matter what I believe at the end of the day, love is still required. It is still the greatest commandment. And if the highest peak of love is laying down one's life, then I pray that no matter what the outcome, I am able to have the strength to nail this to the cross for the sake of my friends.
I welcome your discussion...
About a year and a half ago I wrote a blog entitled, Divided by Homosexuality, which was based on a panel discussion we had at Fuller during my first quarter. I read that blog now and still remember how confused I was. I approach this blog with much of the same confusion, but with more of a resolve than I ever would have been able to articulate last Spring.
Tonight I went to view a screening of "Love Free or Die" which was about Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop. The film was then followed by a Q&A with Bishop Robinson himself. To be honest, I had no clue who he was before hearing about this event and upon hearing about him I was interested in his life and particularly with his journey as expressed in the film. I enjoyed the film overall, as well as the Q&A, getting to meet him, buying his book and getting it signed. But what really lead me to write this blog was not the man nor the film, but the people I was watching it with.
When I left that panel last Spring, I was convinced on my stand on Homosexuality and was just beginning to explore what that looked like as I engaged with people in community (in other words, was it truly possible for me to engage people who were homosexual without turning my back on my beliefs?) As I began to explore this further, an amazing thing happened: I made friends. Not just any friends, but friends who were homosexual, friends who were Allies (heterosexuals who supported the homosexual community) and so on. This issue that I had been struggling with was no longer an issue: it had a face and a name and I had a relationship with it. No...strike that. Those faces and names were not issues, they were friends, good friends who supported me and I them.
"Now what?" I thought. Time and time again I played various scenarios in my head about how I would react to certain situations. "What if they got married? Would I go to their wedding as support for our friendship? Would that mean that I affirmed homosexuality?" Back and forth I went; trying to figure out how to love my friends in a way that was true to the Gospel, but at the same time uphold what I believed to be Gospel truth.
Some time later, Peace and Justice Advocates invited Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network to Fuller to talk and also to lead a panel discussion. One of the things that I really liked about this discussion and found to be helpful was the fact that they were open to people on both sides to the discussion. It allowed me to understand the possibility of exploring my position in community: that is, learning how to engage in community with others even though I was on the "Conservative" side of the issue.
Some time after that, a good friend of mine started an organization entitled, "One Table" which supported the LGBT community at Fuller. I remember sitting with her one night as we were having our usual Tuesday night dinners among friends and asking about my place at this table of conversation. Would there be a place for me since I technically hadn't made a "decision" yet? I found that there was not only a place; but a safe space to express exactly where I was: Welcoming yet non-affirming (or at least that's what I heard it called).
This leads me to tonight, Gene Robinson, the film and all. There I was, sitting behind my friends, watching a film about a man who went through hardship for what he believed to be the truth. It was in those first 10 minutes that I thought of this scripture:
Greater love has no one that this, that one lay down her life for her friends.
If I truly believe that Homosexuality is one of the make or break decisions of my faith; then would I be willing to lay THAT down for my friends? Would I be willing to suffer the possibility of Hell (if I believed that to be the result of my affirming of Homosexuality) to love my friends? Would my love have to be radical enough to require that of me, or was it possible to hold onto both?
It was at that point that I realized that my decision to love was more important than my decision to take a side. But would not taking a side prove me to be "lukewarm?" (I say this in the term that many Christians view this as; this is not what I believe that part of scripture to be saying, but that's another blog).This is also something that I had to confront:
Did I believe that Homosexuality was a sin because I searched the scriptures and came to this conclusion or was this simply the result of tradition and upbringing? (this question is where the "she's going to Hell" part comes in). I cannot say that I have searched the scriptures. I was familiar with the scriptures that were used in this argument of course, but did I actually read them for myself? No. I had allowed it to be something I always believed, no question. Now, I am not saying that if I search the scriptures for myself (not actually BY MYSELF, but we won't get into the nitty-gritty of context and history of the church and blah blah blah) that I would come out in favor of Homosexuality, but I'm not saying I won't either. I have found that I have to be willing to search the scripture and allow the Holy Spirit to tell me the Truth. For someone who has always believed one way, this is a very scary thing. I can say, "this doesn't mean that I will change my mind" but if I go in with that notion then I am not really allowing the Holy Spirit to have it's way. I am not really letting it go. I have to be willing to leave this at the foot of the Cross and trust that the Truth will make me free. To be honest, I am not sure what I will find. That is where the confusion still lies. But I can say this: my resolve is in love. It does not matter what I believe at the end of the day, love is still required. It is still the greatest commandment. And if the highest peak of love is laying down one's life, then I pray that no matter what the outcome, I am able to have the strength to nail this to the cross for the sake of my friends.
I welcome your discussion...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)