Generous Spaciousness on the Christian Campus

It is not really that surprising to read an article in the New York Times about tensions on Christian college campuses in relating and responding to their lgbt students. The article highlights a few American schools, most of whom I’m unfamiliar with. But given my relationship with a number of colleges, I well know the challenges of caring for students, dealing with institutional boundaries, managing communication and the inevitable perceptions of the broader constituency, and navigating the concerns of faculty which may range from issues of academic freedom on one hand through to the other extreme of asserting control to limit the conversation. To increase the complexity even more is the reality that none of these areas can be dealt with in a vacuum. That would be challenging enough. But in a college community all of these questions inevitably impact the larger conversation and how each individual question is addressed. Given this reality, I have high degrees of empathy for school provosts and deans of students, for they have a very challenging road to forge.

Perhaps I’ve been lucky – or perhaps I’m only approached by schools who at least have some desire to engage the conversation well – but I have encountered administrators with good hearts and good intentions as they seek my input. They are well aware of the complexities. They are well aware that the lives of real students, and staff and faculty too for that matter, will be affected by the leadership they give in this conversation. I’ve encountered, at least behind closed doors, courage and empathy and generosity and a readiness to acknowledge that they have more to learn in this area.

I suppose, given New Direction’s posturing in a place of generous spaciousness, that the schools who engage with me already know that I will raise with them the reality of diverse perspectives and advance the conversation to address how to experience space and room for authenticity. This means living in the tension. On the one hand, there is a school or larger denominational position that must be honoured. On the other hand, there is a recognition that our college communities are diverse and that learning invites exploration and difference and risking to rethink, deconstruct, and challenge. On one hand, there are codes of conduct and moral expectations on the members of a community. On the other hand, there the needs of individual students to navigate their journey of discovery in a safe, honest and hospitable environment where individual autonomy is respected. And here’s the rub. This is where I think some colleges are missing some critical distinctions and precision in language – and where the NYT article also contributes to the problem.

It comes back to this whole question of identity. I think, in large part due to the assumptions about gay identity perpetuated by the ex-gay movement, there is a lot of confusion regarding how an evangelical-based community ought to respond to an individual coming out as gay. At the risk of sounding very elementary, I think we need to return to some really basic concepts. When someone comes out and says, “I’m gay” they are almost certainly communicating that same-sex attraction is part of their reality. Beyond that, however, no assumptions should be made. Not only do you not know where they are theologically or in terms of sexual activity, you also don’t know where they are at in their own sense of identity. To say, “I’m gay” doesn’t mean they primarily identify with the gay community – maybe they do and maybe they don’t – you won’t know until they tell you. You don’t know about their taste in music, film, literature. You don’t know to what degree they might view themselves as an advocate or activist for lgbt issues – maybe they don’t at all – or maybe it is important and significant to them – but you won’t know unless they tell you. You don’t know what their approach to Scripture is. You don’t know how they feel about ordaining partnered gay clergy. What you do know is that they have come to a place in their life where the need to be honest about their experiences of sexuality have superceded the need to protect themselves by keeping silent. What you do know is that they have felt sufficiently compelled to be authentic to risk the potential rejection and marginalization that can come when one comes out – particularly on a Christian college campus.

What is the connection between honesty, identity and ideology? What we do know is that they are distinct issues for every individual – and when they are lumped together and assumptions are made the ability to foster a generous and spacious environment is compromised. First and foremost, students need an encouraging environment to be honest. Secondly, they need to be protected from the community making assumptions about their core identity and any ideology they may ascribe to. Thirdly, they need the freedom to ask questions, wrestle with what they truly believe and how their beliefs and values will impact the choices they make in how to live their life. Their autonomy needs to be respected.

There is a difference between an environment of generosity and an environment of control. An environment of generosity is one in which students can be educated. An environment of control is where students are indoctrinated. Generosity asks of community members to honour the boundaries and policies of the institution. Control demands of community members to internalize the boundaries and policies of the institution. In a generous environment, students and faculty aren’t anxious when difference is manifested. They recognize that there is value and learning to be had in engaging different thoughts and ideas. There can be a true sense of hospitality – where all are welcome – knowing that such a welcome will bring the complexity and challenge of difference. In a controlled environment, students and faculty are threatened by difference. The priority becomes addressing the difference in such a manner that it gives way to alignment with official position. Difference means being fired. Difference means being expelled.

An environment of generosity is not one without boundaries or policies – though it is sometimes assumed that this is what is being demanded. Rather, generosity works within a given system and its official positions by offering space for honest expression. Practically speaking, it may be the gay student who understands that the school’s official doctrinal position is that same-sex consummated unions are inconsistent with Scripture. That student may have some significant questions they are exploring and wrestling with about that position. Or they may have already determined that they disagree with this position. But because they are part of a community that is governed by such a position they choose to honour it by not engaging in same-sex sexual intercourse while they are a student. Given that a Christian college rooted in an evangelical tradition will hold that all unmarried students should refrain from sexual intercourse, the gay student honours this position just like any other student on campus.

But the idea that the student really shouldn’t come out of the closet – because by so doing they are dishonouring the school’s position on same-sex consummated unions is ridiculous. Coming out of the closet is an honest expression of a reality one is experiencing. It isn’t a statement about a position.

An environment of generosity isn’t fearful about exploring a variety of perspectives on a given matter. In the Christian environment, such fearlessness should be, but rarely is, the norm given that we have the benefit of being able to trust the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit in our deliberations and discernment. In the question of Christian college campuses supporting lgbt students this seems to be a tough concept to live out. It seems that on many campuses the fight over having official student club status given to a group that wants to explore lgbt issues is where a lot of heat (and maybe not too much light) is being generated. To be honest, I get confused about this hesitancy on the part of the administration. Oh I understand, of course, that donors may misread this and accuse the school of getting “soft on gays”. But I just don’t think such a fear ought to have so much power. It ought not be so terribly difficult to explain to the constituency a number of basic realities: First of all, we do have lgbt students at our school and need to serve them. Wake up people – we’ve got gay students and in the Spirit of Christ we need to do our best to support, shepherd and encourage them while they are part of our community. Secondly, not only are our sexual minority students – but all our students – confronted with the questions and challenges that arise for Christ-followers in our gay-positive context. This cannot be avoided or ignored. Students have questions and there need to be forums in which they can participate in conversation about these matters. Thirdly, our students would have no difficulty accessing information on a variety of perspectives in this conversation. We cannot (my opinion, should not) think we can protect or prevent them from hearing about diverse perspectives. Fourthly, given their exposure to diverse perspectives, doesn’t it make more sense to provide honest and open forums in which the conversation can take place with the wisdom and input of mature and seasoned members of the community? A student group inevitably has a faculty advisor who can link students with additional mentors, counselors etc. if needed as well as offering humble, wise input in the conversations as they emerge. Finally, what is a Christian college more concerned with – that a student experience a fully engaged integration of mind, heart and faith with their face turned towards God and the pursuit of a relationship with Jesus Christ - or that a student believe and live consistently with the school’s position on homosexuality? Truly, is our doctrine of justification so weak that it cannot handle the reality that devoted followers of Christ, who care deeply about the Scriptures come to different understandings about the appropriateness of covenanted, consummated same-sex relationships?

When fear and control close down conversation, when doors get bolted from the inside, do we really fool ourselves into thinking that this has no impact on our witness to the wider world? When fear and control crowd out robust trust in the leading of the Holy Spirit, do we fool ourselves into thinking this has no impact on the spiritual vitality of our communities?

Generous spaciousness on a Christian campus that has an official traditional understanding of sexual intimacy being reserved for heterosexual marriage begins by acknowledging the reality of diversity and difference – in our ideas, thinking, experience of sexual identity, and comfort level with the conversation at the intersection of faith and sexuality. It grows and matures when we understand that by making room for some of the inevitable tensions such a conversation produces we are also inviting spiritual formation as we become enlarged in our capacity to extend hospitality, to exercise patience, and to offer respect to those with whom we disagree. Generous spaciousness expects the best from people who willingly make sacrifices to honour boundaries and official positions without enforcing an ethos of indoctrination. Generous spaciousness supports a ‘big tent’ ethos on a Christian campus that draws people from different places and different experiences of the faith. It nurtures an environment that encourages all community members to keep turning their face toward Christ as the primary priority.

It is a difficult season for Christian colleges to open the conversation in this area. But avoiding it is not an option. It is true that not everyone shares the same levels of readiness. It is true that this can trigger conflict and even crisis in a community. But it is also true that this conversation will stimulate growth. Be fearless in love. Be gentle and patient. Be focused on Christ who went to the margins, who broke barriers, who pissed off the powerful constituency, and who welcomed all unconditionally. This is the witness our world needs to see – it is the witness that will catalyze bold faith in your students, revitalized risk-taking in your faculty, and by God’s grace, generosity in our communities-at-large.

-WG

Confession: Standing Against Bullying @ Church

On Palm Sunday, I led our congregation in a time of confession that connected with the previous week's anti-bullying initiatives. My daughter then sang a song called, "Don't Laugh at Me":



I am a little boy with glasses the one they call a geek.
A little girl who never smiles 'cause I’ve got braces on my teeth.
And I know how it feels to cry myself to sleep.

I’m that kid on every playground who is always chosen last.
I’m the one who is slower than the others in my class.
You don’t have to be my friend. But is it too much to ask....

Don’t laugh at me. Don’t call me names.
Don’t get your pleasure from my pain.
In God’s eyes were all the same.
Someday we’ll all have perfect wings.
Don’t laugh at me.

I’m the beggar on the corner. You’ve passed me on the street.
I wouldn’t be out here begging, if I had enough to eat.
Don’t think I don’t notice that our eyes never meet.
I was born a little different. I do my dreaming from this chair.
I pretend it doesn’t hurt me when people point and stare.
There is a simple way to show me just how much you care.

I’m fat. I’m thin. I’m short. I’m tall.
I’m deaf. I’m blind. Hey aren’t we all.

Don’t laugh at me. Don’t call me names.
Don’t get your pleasure from my pain.
In God’s eyes were all the same.
Someday we’ll all have perfect wings.
Don’t laugh at me.

-WG

More Language Matters

Language in the conversation at the intersection of faith and sexuality can be particularly challenging. The challenge comes for a few reasons. First of all, the language seems to change rapidly and it can be hard to keep up. Secondly, language means different things to different people – so what works in one context can be quite alienating in another. Thirdly, in a culture of PC (political correctness) there are different motivations behind our use of language. To unpack that a little more, some people want to be up on the latest language usage just for the sake of being with the times. They might not really think too much about what is behind the particular language they’re using. For others the idea of PC language is inherently problematic – the whole idea is frustrating to them. Sometimes this is because of a true yearning for authenticity in language which a PC environment can be perceived to hinder. Sometimes the frustration simply arises from a selfish laziness that resists language review and the willingness to revise and adopt language that is more suitable for the context.

I have increasingly seen language as one of the unique points of service that New Direction can offer to the Christian community. Not because we have it down pat and perfect – but simply because we are in conversation with a very diverse cross-section of the same-sex attracted and lgbt group of people. We have access to different thoughts, opinions and usage of language as it applies to sexual minorities than most pastors or leaders would encounter. So we condense some of these matters and try to communicate them as clearly and concisely as we can.

Recently I was confronted by some fellow Christians for using what they termed to be the language of secular gay activist groups. I become concerned when this kind of dichotomy is perpetuated. When we begin to make divisions between sacred and secular I believe we get on pretty thin ice. I come from a tradition in which one of our foundational understandings is that every square inch of creation belongs to God. Language is included in this. So there is no language that cannot be claimed as useful in God’s economy.

My rule of thumb is to choose language that is descriptive. Describing something is like using an open ended question. It has the potential to open the conversation to talk about what that description means to a person. What is interesting, however, is the prevalence of presumption that language is prescriptive or definitive – even when the one who utters the language explains that it is intended to be descriptive. Such assumptions create a polarized climate in these conversations. So when, for instance, someone presumes that a person who describes themselves as gay has made being gay their primary identity and the definition of who they are it is a misuse of language to justify their own assumptions. Such presumption is like a closed ended question in a conversation. The assumption has already been made so there really isn’t anything to talk about.

A friend told me about a meeting down in the U.S. in which they were discussing alternative language for the word gay. Now it is no surprise that I think such discussion is completely out of touch with what it means to be contextually present. I think the apostle Paul in his visit to Athens models for us the wisdom of using the language of the people and culture around us to make connections and open conversations about life and faith. The idea that we have to be afraid of or avoid the word gay seems to me to simply perpetuate polarity – and such polarity hinders our ability to be conduits of shalom in the neighbourhoods and communities in which God places us. Apparently, some of the options discussed in this particular meeting revisited mainstreaming the word ‘sodomite’ or the more general ‘unnatural vice’. I think such language is not only unhelpful, but completely misses the reality that we are called to love our neighbours, regardless of who they are or what they do, and our language must nurture connection not alienation and offense.

Such a discussion may seem extreme, but there are other much more moderate attempts at language that still miss the mark. It struck me that in the last two days I have heard the same language usage from two different leaders and felt I should raise it in this post. Both of these leaders embody the kind of generosity that New Direction seeks to model and promote. They both have plenty of lgbt people in their lives. So when I heard this particular use of language I knew that it came from a genuine place of trying to speak in a manner that could build bridges. In fact, it was a description that I had used a few years ago in my attempts to be more value-neutral and descriptive in my language. At the time, though, I had some gay friends explain to me how they heard what I was saying and the impact it had on them. This helped me to understand why it wasn’t helpful language and how I might revise it to better reflect my intentions. The word was ‘alternative’. I had used the phrase, “alternative sexual identities” to try to describe the reality that I see that people experience sexuality differently, that there are individuals who do not fit into a heteronormative box and that their existence needs to be acknowledged and honoured. However, my gay friends told me that when I used the adjective “alternative” it implied that there was some choice in the matter. Alternative didn’t just mean different – it meant a chosen difference – and this is not what my gay friends experienced. Their sexual identity wasn’t an alternative to them – it was an intrinsic part of their sense of personhood and how they navigated the world of people and relationships. My intention was not to communicate the idea of choice – so I had to revise my language. It seemed, at the time, that the adjective “diverse” seemed a more accurate description of my intentions. In the conversations I had this week, I heard the phrase “alternative lifestyles” and because of my conversations with my gay friends, I cringed a bit. Not only is the word lifestyle generally unhelpful in this conversation – but coupled with ‘alternative’ just made it worse. The man who used this phrase intended respect – but clearly was unaware of the way it could imply the opposite. The other usage was “alternative sexuality”. Again, the intention was to communicate in a manner that was respectful to those outside the heterosexual mainstream. But once you hear how the word ‘alternative’ sounds to our lgbt friends it is a relatively easy modification to say ‘diverse sexuality’.

In my seminars with pastors I emphasize the importance of precision in our language. I recently read a blog post by an evangelical leader in this area of ministry. He used the phrase, “active in the sin of homosexuality”. The intent in the post, as far as I could tell, was to confirm to his readers his clear commitment to and conviction of his belief that sexual intimacy is reserved for the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. The challenge comes with opening the potential for confusion with his use of the word ‘homosexuality’. What does it mean, exactly, to be ‘active in the sin of homosexuality’? Some people would see homosexuality and think of sexual attraction. Does that mean actively experiencing same-sex attraction is a sin? Does it mean if you’re tempted it’s a sin? Or does it mean if you lust it’s a sin? Some would think of sexual behavior. Some would include fantasy and masturbation in that category of sexual behavior. Some would restrict sexual behavior to physical interaction with another person of the same sex. Some would include physical affection. Others would only apply this to sexual behavior leading to orgasm. By not being more precise in the use of language there is greater likelihood of being misunderstood, misinterpreted and disregarded.

One of the weaknesses in the church is that we tend to use insider language. We tend to be focused on speaking to those who agree with us. The challenge is that when we do this in the public forum we contribute to a sense of “us and them”. But if we are to live as people on mission with God, to embody a life posture of being “living letters” of the good news of the gospel, then our language needs to be accessible to anyone. Does our language convey the reality that God’s heart is to reconcile all things to himself? Does it convey that his essential essence is love? Does it convey that as his followers, we deeply love the world we live in, we deeply love the neighbours around us, we deeply long to be useful to God in extending his invitation of love and reconciliation to all?

Language matters. Let’s use it to open doors and break down barriers.

-WG

The Power of Powerlessness & Competing Days

The Day of Silence and Day of Dialogue are coming up and I’ve been pondering some of the inherent ironies in these two initiatives.

The Day of Silence is an initiative of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network). GLSEN "strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression." They launched the Day of Silence to encourage students to take a vow of silence for a day to draw attention to and stand in solidarity with those who experience anti-gay bullying and harassment. Part of the messaging to promote this day communicates that they are being silent to end the silence. In other words, the day is meant to draw attention to the reality that so often this kind of name-calling and bullying is ignored or dealt with so minimally that little to no change comes. By being silent, students seek to make a statement as peaceably as possible.

There is also a counter day, however, to this particular initiative. It is called the Day of Dialogue. This initiative has an evolutionary history. Originally called the Day of Truth, it was launched by the Alliance Defense Fund in an effort to counter-act the “homosexual agenda”. The initiative then got handed off to Exodus International who has recently handed it off to Focus on the Family. FoTF says that the Day of Dialogue provides an opportunity for Christian students to invite other students into discussion about “what the Bible really says about God's redemptive design for marriage and sexuality." This year it is planned for April 18th, the Monday after Friday, April 15's Day of Silence.

While the message of the Day of Silence has been quite consistent since its launch in 1996, despite a variety of interpretations applied to it, the message of the Day of Dialogue / Day of Truth has been a little more challenging to ascertain. Day of Silence wants to end anti-gay bullying through passive resistance. Day of Dialogue wants to ….. counter-act the homosexual agenda, prevent promotion of homosexuality to students, wants to let confused, questioning or experimenting youth know they are loved and there is freedom through Jesus, wants to teach Biblical standards for marriage and sexuality, wants to empower Christian students to stand up for their faith ……

One has to ask from what posture each of these initiatives arises. It seems to me that the non-violent resistance of the Day of Silence, in the spirit of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., is much more consistent with an incarnational posture than the more overt proselytizing nature of the Day of Dialogue.

Philippians 2 is perhaps one of the most poignant and powerful descriptions of the substance of Jesus’ incarnation.

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

In this text we see that choosing the path of incarnation meant choosing the posture of powerlessness. Jesus made himself nothing. In other versions the text translates:

The Message: He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what.

New Living Translation: He gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave

KJV - But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant

We have a Greek word that captures this idea of entering powerlessness called “kenosis”. This literally means self-emptying. And we see that for Jesus, this self-emptying meant that stripped himself of his status and the advantages that went with it, he gave up his privileges – his perks, and he willingly laid down his reputation. He did all of these things in order to fully identify with the creatures he had made – to live in solidarity with us. In particular, he demonstrated a solidarity with those on the margins, those who were excluded and alienated: lepers, Samaritans, women, those perceived and labeled immoral. Embracing this degree of identification allowed Jesus to feel our pain. To suffer our temptations. To be betrayed, misunderstood, rejected and lied about. To know the wound of extending love and having it not returned. He suffered these things in such radical subversion to the systems of religion around him that it got him killed.

He could have taken on the empire. He could have come into our world as a leader and initiated high level summit talks. He could have come into our world as a revolutionary and mobilized the common people around him for an uprising. He could have persuaded, influenced and impacted in a manner that compelled people to do things his way.

But what we actually see in Jesus is someone who chose the way of powerlessness. He did not attempt to use his voice in levels of government. He didn’t seek to be a leader of leaders. He didn’t take on the system through persuasion and absolute guidelines. He spoke in riddles and puzzles and parables that many didn’t understand. He went to the riff-raff and had dinner. He remained silent in front of high councils. He wept over cities he surely could have influenced. He loved rich young men who walked away from him. He washed the feet of the one who was about to betray him. He cooked breakfast for the one who had denied him.

Jesus loved people from a posture of humility, generosity and graciousness.

My question is, “Which day of activism smells more like Jesus ….. the Day of Silence or the Day of Dialogue?”

What seems more incarnational: silence in solidarity for safety? Or proactive promotion of principles?

I think of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well. She asks him some pointed principal questions about appropriate worship. After all, there had been generations of feuding between Jews and Samaritans about temples and worship and rituals. Jesus, in his response, cuts through all the crap and essentially tells the woman that Jews and Samaritans have both missed the boat. Answering at a completely different level, Jesus says, “A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

In the midst of their polarized fights about the rightness and wrongness of worship tradition, Jesus illumines a whole new reality, a deeper and more profound connection with God than they could have previously imagined.

Both sides felt they had the right on their side. And it could be said that there was some right in both positions – but that both were incomplete in their understanding.

For those who may consider participating in the Day of Dialogue, I would ask the following questions:

• If you are counter-acting a day that seeks to raise awareness and bring an end to anti-gay bullying, what are you really communicating? And does it smell like Jesus?


• Is a Day of Dialogue really utilizing the wisdom of God who showed us that the way to change systems is to embody the posture of powerlessness?


• With whom are you identifying by participating in the Day of Dialogue? With whom do you stand in solidarity? Are they the powerful or the marginalized? Are they in the majority or minority status? Do they have perks and reputation or don’t they?


• Does the Day of Dialogue stand up for people or positions?

In this polarized climate, I call on Christians to embody the posture of the incarnation. I implore you stand in solidarity with those on the margins. And I challenge you to be willing to relinquish positions of power for the sake of loving your neighbours.

-WG