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.
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.
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?
Hey Troy, thanks for picking up what I missed in the read. To first see LGBTQ as "moral questions" prior to the experiences of real people can have the impact of essentially making people feel like they are the center of moral scrutiny (which is what many gay/SSA folks growing up in the church have felt, and is why I believe I experienced more shame about my proclivities than my Christian peers). Yet, I've found there to be spaces that are healthy for LGBTQ people without affirming gay marriage (often these are called Side B spaces, e.g. Revoice Conference). They are maybe more rare than I'd wish, but I find it much more spiritually life-giving than the other options.
Joseph, your inclusion about the moral questionability of heterosexuality is a truly helpful balance to the increased pressure on those who are predominantly homo-attracted, but I see Troy's concern here. Reducing the LGBTQ experience to just the moral questions can make it more difficult for people to name their experiences of dissonance/prejudice. And I do not think that to say "Christianity is wrong" is the same thing as "Christianity does not exist". Atheism and theism exist, but only one is true, and only what is true will last. False religions, in so far that while they contain some truths yet are not reliably true, are real religious systems and practices, and their adherents are identified by them.
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.
Thank you Joseph for a reasonable and honest definition of terms. This is helpful for life-giving conversations
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!
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.
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?
Hey Troy, thanks for picking up what I missed in the read. To first see LGBTQ as "moral questions" prior to the experiences of real people can have the impact of essentially making people feel like they are the center of moral scrutiny (which is what many gay/SSA folks growing up in the church have felt, and is why I believe I experienced more shame about my proclivities than my Christian peers). Yet, I've found there to be spaces that are healthy for LGBTQ people without affirming gay marriage (often these are called Side B spaces, e.g. Revoice Conference). They are maybe more rare than I'd wish, but I find it much more spiritually life-giving than the other options.
Joseph, your inclusion about the moral questionability of heterosexuality is a truly helpful balance to the increased pressure on those who are predominantly homo-attracted, but I see Troy's concern here. Reducing the LGBTQ experience to just the moral questions can make it more difficult for people to name their experiences of dissonance/prejudice. And I do not think that to say "Christianity is wrong" is the same thing as "Christianity does not exist". Atheism and theism exist, but only one is true, and only what is true will last. False religions, in so far that while they contain some truths yet are not reliably true, are real religious systems and practices, and their adherents are identified by them.
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.