Thanks for the post and I wanted to share some of my thoughts. While I grew up in a conservative Christian environment, I now describe myself as a liberal Christian. A few years ago, our family made the decision we wouldn’t be members of a non-affirming church community.
While I appreciate your point that you are “for people” (and I believe that is 100% true) I think it misses a bigger and underlying premise. I grew up with this same idea in my church but it was the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” While I want to note that you are not advocating for hating anything, I think the same problem is present in both statements -- someone is separating another person into two (or more) separate things against their wishes.
As you stated, you are “for people” but disagree or have nuanced views with the different identities representing the acronym “LGBTQ+”. You specifically called Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, etc, not people but “moral questions.” I think here is why people get hurt. This is why I won’t go to a non-affirming church, and this is why there is no real conversation being had. There can be no real conversation until people are recognized as people - fully themselves. What seems to be actually happening behind the scene for the above statements is you are only recognizing a “part” of people. There seems to be an underlying philosophical/theological assumption that a person has a “core self” with added “parts. This segmentation is done without asking how one views themself and hence it is hard to have an honest conversation when one doesn’t feel like they are fully seen and recognized.
This “open but not affirming” position seems like the sexual identity equivalent to color-blindness, i.e., I see you but do not affirm your sexual identity / do not see your race.
This “sexual blindness” is really hurtful. To say “I am for you but not all these other parts.” Can deeply hurt someone.
Also, if you do segment someone, then what are you “for”? What is a person if we scrutinize and pick apart their sexual identity, their gender identity, their race, etc. What do we have left at the end. I am a cisgender, straight, White, male. If anyone would disagree with any of those things but still be “for” me, I would be utterly confused and would probably feel ignored.
I think before a conversation can start, all people present at the conversation need to feel fully recognized as people, not as issues that could be disagreed with.
I'm trying to track what you are saying here. You first acknowledge that you believe 100% that I am for people, but then you proceed to claim that while I say that, I'm actually not because to disagree with someone's sexuality is to not recognize them as people. Is that right?
I'm curious what you make of my many muslim friends that I claim to be for. Or the gang members. Some would argue--and I think I'm with them--that Islam and gang membership are identities that run deeper than sexuality. Do you think I'm equally self-deceived to think I'm for my muslim friends despite disagreeing with Islam?
I once encountered in my ministry a man who thought there was nothing wrong with his pedophilia. I think I was for him precisely by telling him pedophilia is evil and he must repent of it.
Then there's you and me. I think my Christianity, and in particular my orthodox Christian beliefs that lead me to say that marriage is the proper context for sex, is an identity that not only runs deeper than my sexuality, but also ought to trump anything else I say about myself. You claim that I am denying peoples' status as people by disagreeing with their sexuality, yet here you are disagreeing with me about something I claim runs deeper than sexuality. Still, I believe you are for me. And I hope you believe that despite my disagreement with you, you can believe that I am for you.
All of that to say, disagreeing with someone about all sorts of things they claim define them (even ontologically) in my reckoning is actually an act of love. I'm not offended by, hurt by, or feel like people are inciting violence against me when they disagree with my Christianity. It's the people who pretend as if their disagreements with my Christianity aren't real that I'm suspicious of.
As for dividing people into parts, I'm seriously considering a follow up post where I can get my thoughts about sexual identity into words. But for now, in sum, I don't believe in sexual identities. homo-, hetero-, etc. are all prefixes that ought only describe activity, not ontology. And I'm always going to make a strong differentiation between who people are and what they do. Any alternative to my mind has disastrous consequences.
Your response helped me understand where you and I differ. Your view of sexual identity, i.e., not believing that they exist, is something we disagree on and I think it is really harmful. You are denying a person’s view of themself. It would be as if I were to say to you “I love you and I am for you but I don’t believe that Christianity exists at all.” In this scenario, I’m not saying we disagree on a set of beliefs but that Christianity itself doesn’t exist. I find this difficult to even write as an example because I am thinking “how could someone deny the existence of what I am right now” and I think that could be how members of the LGBTQ+ community feel when they hear “open but not affirming.”
I think you're really onto something here, but I think you just aren't being consistent with the analogy. Isn't to say, "I don't believe in Christianity" in fact the same as saying, "Christianity doesn't exist?" To be sure, no one who denies the truth of Christianity denies that it is a religion practiced by a good chunk of the world population, but they are saying that all those people believe a lie. They are saying the religion is not substantive, not true, has no basis in reality--doesn't actually exist.
In a similar way, I am saying homosexuality and heterosexuality as *identities* don't exist. That's not to say many people don't think that they have sexual identities. And it's not to deny that people really do feel same sex attraction, or opposite sex attraction, or attraction to certain animals. But I am saying that sexual identities as such are not substantive, aren't true, and have no basis in reality. Again, in sum: You are not your so-called sexual identity.
Finally, you have said a couple of times now that what I believe is "harmful" and "hurtful." Unpack that for me. How precisely is what I believe harmful? You seem to be concerned with how LGBTQ+ people feel. But the pursuit of truth cannot be in the first instance about how people feel, can it? To stick with your analogy--if someone says to me, "I don't believe Christianity exists," I don't find that intrinsically harmful or hurtful. Why is it different with sexual identity?
There is no argument I could provide that would prove to you how your position is harmful. I have learned how the “open but not affirming” stance is harmful through my friendships with members of the LGBTQ+ community, by hearing the countless stories of those that feel unseen and rejected by the church, and by seeing the effects of what happens when someone lives in a non-affirming community (https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096920693/lgbtq-youth-thoughts-of-suicide-trevor-project-survey)
Suicide is an evil epidemic. But in the last 5 years, various stats easily google-able say that as much as 70% of US suicides were middle aged white men. Not to mention indigenous populations. To suggest that non-affirming communities are what’s leading to suicides amongst LGBTQ peoples is conjecture. It might have a role to play, but it lacks explanatory power for the the breadth of suicide’s grip on the general population. What if there is something more dark and insidious about western culture that’s leading to suicide being a leading cause of death across US populations? I’m inclined to think there is.
Joseph, another stellar piece. You speak f rom the trenches of pastoral life with its contours and speedbumps that are inevitably daunting. I've spent a lifetime trying to build relationships across a lot of spectrums politically and with other faith communities. My most enriching conversations used to be with mainline Protestants. Those days are gone. The vitriol that used to be the exclusive domain of fundamentalist conservative types has new competitors. Their identity politics is suffocating and their theology of welcome has its priority lists which I have no hope of being listed on. So much for inclusivity. Keep up your theological reflection of common sense.
Thank you Joseph for a reasonable and honest definition of terms. This is helpful for life-giving conversations
Hey Joseph,
Thanks for the post and I wanted to share some of my thoughts. While I grew up in a conservative Christian environment, I now describe myself as a liberal Christian. A few years ago, our family made the decision we wouldn’t be members of a non-affirming church community.
While I appreciate your point that you are “for people” (and I believe that is 100% true) I think it misses a bigger and underlying premise. I grew up with this same idea in my church but it was the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” While I want to note that you are not advocating for hating anything, I think the same problem is present in both statements -- someone is separating another person into two (or more) separate things against their wishes.
As you stated, you are “for people” but disagree or have nuanced views with the different identities representing the acronym “LGBTQ+”. You specifically called Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, etc, not people but “moral questions.” I think here is why people get hurt. This is why I won’t go to a non-affirming church, and this is why there is no real conversation being had. There can be no real conversation until people are recognized as people - fully themselves. What seems to be actually happening behind the scene for the above statements is you are only recognizing a “part” of people. There seems to be an underlying philosophical/theological assumption that a person has a “core self” with added “parts. This segmentation is done without asking how one views themself and hence it is hard to have an honest conversation when one doesn’t feel like they are fully seen and recognized.
This “open but not affirming” position seems like the sexual identity equivalent to color-blindness, i.e., I see you but do not affirm your sexual identity / do not see your race.
This “sexual blindness” is really hurtful. To say “I am for you but not all these other parts.” Can deeply hurt someone.
Also, if you do segment someone, then what are you “for”? What is a person if we scrutinize and pick apart their sexual identity, their gender identity, their race, etc. What do we have left at the end. I am a cisgender, straight, White, male. If anyone would disagree with any of those things but still be “for” me, I would be utterly confused and would probably feel ignored.
I think before a conversation can start, all people present at the conversation need to feel fully recognized as people, not as issues that could be disagreed with.
Thanks for your thoughts, Troy.
I'm trying to track what you are saying here. You first acknowledge that you believe 100% that I am for people, but then you proceed to claim that while I say that, I'm actually not because to disagree with someone's sexuality is to not recognize them as people. Is that right?
I'm curious what you make of my many muslim friends that I claim to be for. Or the gang members. Some would argue--and I think I'm with them--that Islam and gang membership are identities that run deeper than sexuality. Do you think I'm equally self-deceived to think I'm for my muslim friends despite disagreeing with Islam?
I once encountered in my ministry a man who thought there was nothing wrong with his pedophilia. I think I was for him precisely by telling him pedophilia is evil and he must repent of it.
Then there's you and me. I think my Christianity, and in particular my orthodox Christian beliefs that lead me to say that marriage is the proper context for sex, is an identity that not only runs deeper than my sexuality, but also ought to trump anything else I say about myself. You claim that I am denying peoples' status as people by disagreeing with their sexuality, yet here you are disagreeing with me about something I claim runs deeper than sexuality. Still, I believe you are for me. And I hope you believe that despite my disagreement with you, you can believe that I am for you.
All of that to say, disagreeing with someone about all sorts of things they claim define them (even ontologically) in my reckoning is actually an act of love. I'm not offended by, hurt by, or feel like people are inciting violence against me when they disagree with my Christianity. It's the people who pretend as if their disagreements with my Christianity aren't real that I'm suspicious of.
As for dividing people into parts, I'm seriously considering a follow up post where I can get my thoughts about sexual identity into words. But for now, in sum, I don't believe in sexual identities. homo-, hetero-, etc. are all prefixes that ought only describe activity, not ontology. And I'm always going to make a strong differentiation between who people are and what they do. Any alternative to my mind has disastrous consequences.
Hey Joseph
Your response helped me understand where you and I differ. Your view of sexual identity, i.e., not believing that they exist, is something we disagree on and I think it is really harmful. You are denying a person’s view of themself. It would be as if I were to say to you “I love you and I am for you but I don’t believe that Christianity exists at all.” In this scenario, I’m not saying we disagree on a set of beliefs but that Christianity itself doesn’t exist. I find this difficult to even write as an example because I am thinking “how could someone deny the existence of what I am right now” and I think that could be how members of the LGBTQ+ community feel when they hear “open but not affirming.”
Troy,
I think you're really onto something here, but I think you just aren't being consistent with the analogy. Isn't to say, "I don't believe in Christianity" in fact the same as saying, "Christianity doesn't exist?" To be sure, no one who denies the truth of Christianity denies that it is a religion practiced by a good chunk of the world population, but they are saying that all those people believe a lie. They are saying the religion is not substantive, not true, has no basis in reality--doesn't actually exist.
In a similar way, I am saying homosexuality and heterosexuality as *identities* don't exist. That's not to say many people don't think that they have sexual identities. And it's not to deny that people really do feel same sex attraction, or opposite sex attraction, or attraction to certain animals. But I am saying that sexual identities as such are not substantive, aren't true, and have no basis in reality. Again, in sum: You are not your so-called sexual identity.
Finally, you have said a couple of times now that what I believe is "harmful" and "hurtful." Unpack that for me. How precisely is what I believe harmful? You seem to be concerned with how LGBTQ+ people feel. But the pursuit of truth cannot be in the first instance about how people feel, can it? To stick with your analogy--if someone says to me, "I don't believe Christianity exists," I don't find that intrinsically harmful or hurtful. Why is it different with sexual identity?
This will be my last comment on this thread
There is no argument I could provide that would prove to you how your position is harmful. I have learned how the “open but not affirming” stance is harmful through my friendships with members of the LGBTQ+ community, by hearing the countless stories of those that feel unseen and rejected by the church, and by seeing the effects of what happens when someone lives in a non-affirming community (https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096920693/lgbtq-youth-thoughts-of-suicide-trevor-project-survey)
Suicide is an evil epidemic. But in the last 5 years, various stats easily google-able say that as much as 70% of US suicides were middle aged white men. Not to mention indigenous populations. To suggest that non-affirming communities are what’s leading to suicides amongst LGBTQ peoples is conjecture. It might have a role to play, but it lacks explanatory power for the the breadth of suicide’s grip on the general population. What if there is something more dark and insidious about western culture that’s leading to suicide being a leading cause of death across US populations? I’m inclined to think there is.
Joseph, another stellar piece. You speak f rom the trenches of pastoral life with its contours and speedbumps that are inevitably daunting. I've spent a lifetime trying to build relationships across a lot of spectrums politically and with other faith communities. My most enriching conversations used to be with mainline Protestants. Those days are gone. The vitriol that used to be the exclusive domain of fundamentalist conservative types has new competitors. Their identity politics is suffocating and their theology of welcome has its priority lists which I have no hope of being listed on. So much for inclusivity. Keep up your theological reflection of common sense.
Thank you for this!
I LIKE YOUR WRITING. And I share your perspective on this 100%.
Gotta keep it real simple .......love God and love people.
Yes and Amen! Be nuanced!