What the Church is All About

Reading through the comments on this post, I saw a stunning indictment: "Why is it that the church spends 95% of its time coddling insiders?" That may seem a bit harsh, but I think it might be true.

Just today I had a conversation with a nice young woman named Jenny - yeah, she's interested in the church plant; yes, she loves Missoula with all its beautiful pagans; but when are we going to start a Bible study? After all, what she really wants is to grow, to be around mature people, to become more spiritually mature herself. She wants fellowship with believers, with people who've got it together. But it's ok if we don't offer that yet - she's found another church that does, and she's making friends there, and she's thinking she'd like to get more involved there. I mean, don't you think I can just be involved in both?

What struck me is that Jenny is a consumer. How many times do we desire the fruit of our salvation - sanctification, holiness, calm in the face of trials, peace, love, joy - rather than the vinetender from whom all these things flow. And when we pursue the former, rather than the latter, we end up with neither.

I'm reminded of C. S. Lewis, who deeply desired joy. When he pursued joy, he failed to find it. When he pursued God alone, he also found joy.

The church, sadly, falls into the trap of marketing to felt needs. You desire community? Ah, we have some of that over here! Holiness? Hey, we have a twelve step program in stock!

The church coddles believers - insiders - because the church thinks it needs them (just like the believers think they need the various things the church offers). And yet what everyone needs is what Christ alone offers - himself.

Christ offers us himself (go read about the woman at the well in John 4, and look again at what Christ offers her). And he goes on to say that the call of one who would follow Christ is that of a servant, a follower, one who emulates Christ - not serving himself, but taking the form of a servant and dying that others, unbelievers, weaker brothers, might live.

Christ calls us not to be consumers, but servants. Of those inside the church, and also of those outside the church. The infidels. The unbelievers. The 'sinners' in this world. The cities and neighborhoods in which we live. Not for their own sake, but for his - to call them to join us in this self-denying service of Christ.

This is not a sexy call. It's mother Teresa, toiling away in the slums of Calcutta, never really being recognized or appreciated until after she was gone.

Seek holiness for the sake of holiness, and you will never find it. Seek Christ, and seek to serve those whom Christ loves - the poor, the needy, the afflicted, the oppressed, the lost - and you will not only gain Christ, but you will also find holiness. Only then will be ever really experience peace, joy, satisfaction, fulfillment - as we die to ourselves that others might live.

I'm not sure that's what Jenny wants in a church. But that's what the church is meant to be all about. And that's what it means to really know Christ.

Out of the Closet and Into the Church

So sometime last week, I posted some perspectives on homosexuality, and one of my readers - I'll call her Dianne - left a comment in which she mentioned that she herself had come out of a homosexual lifestyle. Hmm... that's not something you hear about everyday!

Since I'm always interested in firsthand accounts, I asked her if she'd be willing to tell me more about her experiences, and the conversation that followed was fascinating. So much so that I asked if she'd be willing to let me post her reflections here. She agreed, so here it is, cast in the form of an interview...

Christian: Hi Dianne, I'd be very interested in just hearing more of your story - where you were, where you are now, and how you perceive yourself as having moved through this process (what was helpful? what wasn't?). Basically, I'd love to have you tell me about yourself and then just answer any questions that might pop into my head as a result.

Dianne: Ok, here's a basic summary.

Where I was...
In high school I started having thoughts, feelings about it. But I dated guys then and was generally okay with that. My parents really, really sheltered me growing up, so by the time I graduated HS, I felt like there was a sort of parallel universe happening, full of both excitement and fascination, as well as despair, poverty, suffering and darkness -- all of which I had just never experienced or encountered, but want to. At first, just to see 'how the other half lived' but then soon after found its allure too strong, and became committed to it myself.

So, when I moved out on my own and started experiencing the world, I was totally unprepared for what I would be facing - the partying and all of the accompanying revelry. It sucked me in fast, just like quicksand. Of course it would take many years before I could have any perspective at all on the darkness and sinfulness of it all .

Geographically, I was in Philly, Baltimore, New York, Wilmington, in the bar and club scene and going to parties and such. I was a successful manager by day, being promoted and moved into opportunities. However, as a sort of weekend warrior, I lived an exciting and daring life in a culture that was both taboo (from normal society) and the only place where I really felt like I "fit in" and was unconditionally 'loved' and accepted (of course my frame of reference was tainted and twisted by having been raised in a broken family by non-Christians).

"Moving thru this process"...
For me, it was a mire, a trap, an entire lifestyle and worldview that I bought into hook, line, and sinker - including binge drinking, which turned into alcholic/black out drinking. By the time I was 29, the fantasy had started caving in around me and I felt the crush.

I didn't want the life I had anymore, but it was all I knew.

It drove me to AA. I was scared, but found a bit of refuge in going to "gay AA". For the first year, I enjoyed fellowship that was soooooo much better than anything I had before that - people who shared their past, their shortcomings, their fears, and who were geniunely trying to be humble. We spoke of "God" generically, which made me completely aware of God's grace working in my life, but also inflamed my hunger to REALLY know God.

Then, I was invited to a Bible study by a couple of evangelical Christians I worked with. Studying the Bible in fellowship - that was the turning point.

Two particular evenings stand out as definitive:

The first night, when we studied Romans 8:1: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

What? I wanted to know what about all of the other religions. All of the EE Trained people in the room had a great time with me that night. Within a week, I realized that the "unnamed god" who had brought me out of the pit into AA and who had brought me to Bible study was in fact Jesus Himself. I prayed to accept Christ in November 1995 and continued to go to Bible Study.

Then a couple of months later, the second passage that was definitive in this "process" - John 3:19: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

(I still start to get teary-eyed over that one.)

Here I was sitting in a Bible study. And the conversation immediately went to homosexuality. Not by me though; by someone I didn't even know at that point. It was like someone had shined a halogen spotlight on me and turned up the furnace to 150 degrees, then took all my clothes off and put me in the middle of Times Square.

The Holy Spirit has never been so convincing to me. Before that, I had argued on internet discussion forums, in letters to editors of all sorts of magazines and papers, with people in all types of venues (including the PTL club, you name it!) all of the arguments about context, about texts speak of men not women, about the 'original Greek', about Sodom being unwelcoming, on and on.

But at that moment, I had nothing. Just deep sorrow. There were more than 30 people at Bible study that night, when I confessed, repented, and believed God's Word. (It was the begining of 1996)

Right after that happened, I found Romans 12. Instead of churning to know completely what all of God's Word meant on this subject and what He wanted from me - ie, to go out with guys, to get marrired, etc., the Holy Spirit led me to my battlecry - Romans 12:1-2 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Those three encounters with our wonderful, amazing, triune God through scripture changed my life.

Where I am now...
Fast forward to now. Well, I love the Lord, I love His Word, and I love worshipping Him. If there was one thing that I could just do and do nothing else, it would be to studying His Word in fellowship with other believers and singing songs to Him. Someday, I would really like to attend seminary, but until then I stay plugged into the opportunities we have at GRPC (my church), outreach at work, through volleyball and other ways.

I admit that sometimes I still struggle with a few things. One is the idea of being a "Real Woman" (whatever that means :). The other thing I struggle with is every once in a while I find myself drawn to another woman emotionally and intellectually. It’s never a physical or sexual thing per se, but it is very overwhelming – consuming. I connect much better/ more naturally with men than I do women, so when I’m really connecting spiritually or emotionally with another woman, sometimes I don’t understand how to process it.

In summary, I still struggle, but not with knowing that my identity is NOT gay or homosexual. (That just sounds so foreign even just to write it.) My struggle is more about my identity in Christ and in relationship with His people. How to love? How to trust? How much to trust? How to serve? How to serve them? How to serve Him? These are all open ended questions that I'll just keep asking every day (Lord willing).

Christian: First and foremost, I really appreciate your willingness to respond. This is personal stuff, and you've been very open and forthright. I appreciate that. (I think we need more candor in the church).

Dianne: No problem! I need it too.

Christian: Ok, a couple of followup questions, starting with some simple ones for context. How old are you now? married? still single?

Dianne: 42, not married-yet.

Christian: Have you experienced any change in your sexual desires? (eg towards men rather than women? were the desires for women ever really sexual? or was it more a desire for acceptance / relationship / intimacy? what I'm really wondering about here is how you would quantify / describe the change that your Christ has worked in you)

Dianne: Yes. I really don't experience much nowadays in the way of sexual desires, but, yes, I have found that I have a general desire to be with a man.

Yes, I had life-dominating sexual desires for women for years. I would even go so far as to say that it was a serious addiction. I can't even count the number of women with whom I’ve had various encounters, not mention those I propositioned. (Sidenote: most women tend to be much more monogamous than I was, more like Melissa Etheridge or Ellen DeGeneres).

I believe the change Christ has worked in me is indescribably enormous. The emotions, intimacy, and acceptance issues I sometimes have today are blessings in comparison with the unbridled idolatry that characterized my past.

Christian: Ok, you sit down at a bar and order a beer - a woman sits down beside you: a) would you be able to tell whether or not she was a lesbian? b) what would you say to her if she was? what would you most want to convey?

Dianne: Okay, well, besides the fact that I don't drink alcohol anymore :) - I would have to say that this is an interesting and possibly illuminating analogy. I’ve often thought that sharing your faith is a lot like picking someone up in a bar. And I also think that you can have a sense of another gay/homosexual person in a way very similar to how Christians know that they are talking to other Christians. The kingdom of darkness is really sneaky like this.

a) Sometimes you can tell. But many lesbians look nothing like ‘lesbians’ and many straight women look a lot like ‘lesbians.’ It has more to do with the way they look at you, the way they talk to you, the way they relate to you. Then, you can tell sort of how they think of you.

b) What would I say? First and foremost, I must remember above all that I’m Christ’s ambassador, especially at that moment. Not to compromise the God’s Truth in anyway, but to come beside her, build a friendship, hope that she might open up about where she’s at and try to build a bridge or connection from that. Start with a neutral conversation but try to transition into where she is spiritually.

Build trust and then invite. (Actions speak louder than words). Our church has a lot of sports programs. I’d invite her to play volleyball or softball. Or if she is open to it, see if she would like to get together with friends from my small ‘house church’ and go to a museum or park or some kind of social outing: fellowship with others. Introduce her to other Christians and make sure our relationship is not exclusive in anyway. Build relationships that show her what godly men and godly women can look like when you actually get to know us (because most have only seen what the media shows them.)

Christian: If your church leaders came to you and said "We want to create a church culture that is welcoming to homosexuals, while at the same time being true to the Scriptures (eg. we're not going to stop calling it sin when asked)" - what would you tell them?

Dianne: Teach and preach the Gospel, because we need to hear it all of the time. Be different than the world in the ways that matter (love, openness, humility) by remembering the one Who makes us different. Worship that is engaging and heartfelt is also critical.

We need to confess our sin one to another, and stay vulnerable. If we give people the impression that we are ‘super-Christians’ – that we don’t struggle, we don’t hurt, we don’t sin, that we are on a higher level because of how long we’ve been going to church, or any other thing, then they will probably either run away or just try to polish the outside of the cup to try to fit in. But if we open our lives, they too may open theirs and find forgiveness, healing, & transformation. (for me, this is a MUST do).

Have stuff to invite them to. Do things that include both men and women: don’t separate all of the ‘programs’ into all of the men go do this, while all of the women go do that. There are a lot of gender identity issues and this would make it much more comfortable for people who are just coming in. Do stuff outside of the four walls of the church too, maybe within the communities that these people live in. Also, I would make sure married couples are involved in singles ministries.

Christian: Have you run across any books that would be particularly helpful (to people like you, or to people still struggling w/ homosexuality)? or would you just point people towards Scripture?

Dianne: I would have people come to a Bible study, in fellowship, rather than a plucking out verses. Sit together with the Bible, open it and read it together.

As far as books: “Coming out of Homosexuality” by Bob Davies and “Out of Egypt” by Jeannette Howard were both excellent for me. COH confirmed what I had been going thru. About 80% of that book was exactly what I had been experiencing, so when I read it, it was a huge relief to know that I was not the only person in the world who was leaving “the lifestyle.”

Two more books that I've found helpful recently: Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave and When People Are Big And God is Small, both by Ed Welch.

The Bob Davies book I mentioned before was really helpful early on, as he is writing from experience and has a way of being very practical and relevant. However, I would say the Ed Welch stuff is probably better theologically, depending on where the people are coming from.

Christian: Do you think there's any real difference between homosexual struggles and heterosexual struggles? do people struggling w/ chastity, fidelity, etc need to hear something different? or do they really need to hear the same thing?

Dianne: Great question. I do think there’s a real difference between the two struggles. Chastity and fidelity are certainly a huge part of both issues. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that in a culture that abounds in sexual impurity – the worship of created things, rather than the Creator (who is to be praised forever, amen!) -- the progression of God giving them over to ‘shameful lusts’ (Romans 1:26) seems almost inevitable. I believe that the further we get from Godly heterosexual, monogamous relationships, the more homosexual activity in that culture will increase.

But, in terms of the message – turn to God and worship Him, turn from idolatry. That message is the same.

With homosexual struggles, we often deal with excessive shame and guilt (ie, “shameful lusts" – Romans 1:26.), years of hurt, rejection and abandonment or trust issues that turned us away from trusting authority. I’m not as sure whether these deeper issues are as common for heterosexual strugglers, they might be, but I wouldn’t know about it.

Christian: Any final thoughts?

Dianne: Yeah, the one other thing which made a huge difference for me is prayer - I missed that. We had prayer meetings a lot back then. It's a weak area for me these days, but back then - it was huge!!

Also, have you checked out the Exodus Int'l website? They have a lot of info online. Harvest USA in Philly also has some stuff on their website.

So there you have it - a first hand account from someone who's been there and back again. And rather than say any more about what I think, I'd like to open it up to you, the readers (all three of you). Have any thoughts? Feedback? Additional questions? Feel free to fire away...

Palindromes

So everybody knows what a palindrome is, right - a word or phrase, which is spelled exactly the same forwards or backwards. The first I ever heard was by Riders in the Sky - The Ballad of Palindrome - and it's brilliant. But then today, I ran across this - Wierd Al Yankovic remaking a Bob Dylan song in palindromes [HT: Mark T]. And it's pretty awesome too. Go ahead and listen to both, and I'll bet you find yourself smiling (both forwards and backwards) :-)

Perspectives on Homosexuality

Lot's going on lately, which is why I haven't been blogging much - in a church plant, people can (and should) take precedence over "recreational" writing. And all the while my list of "blog fodder" bookmarks continues to grow.

One thing I've been getting asked a lot lately, by unbelievers, is "So what's your position on homosexuality?" The common consensus would seem to run something like this: "Since everyone with a brain KNOWS that homosexuality is just the way people ARE (eg. the way God MADE them), how can Scripture possibly be right in condeming it? I mean, you don't really think that, do you?"

There's lots to be said on this (and I'm not going to try and be exhuastive here - I'm more just trying to capture some thoughts and sketch out a trajectory). I want to start with some comments by Justin Taylor, quoting David Powlison that resonates with how I think about the matter. Evangelical Christiants often want to object strenuously to the notion of a biological component. I think that's the wrong tack.

In light of recent postings about the genetic causes of homosexuality, I received a helpful note from David Powlison. In the book, Psychology and Christianity: Four Views (IVP, 2000), one of the contributors to that volume, David Myers (professor of psychology at Hope College), advocates a genetic basis for homosexuality. Powlison addresses that issue in the course of his response to Myers's essay. With Powlison's permission I'll reprint below the section from his response, preceded by my restatement of some of the points in his correspondence.

Powlison's perspective both broadens and nuances the discussion. For example, he discusses biological predisposition to homosexuality in the context of biological predispositions that we all have. He also digs a bit deeper into the motivational patterns for lesbianism.

He also speculates as to what sort of genetic ratio we might see if an "H-gene" is every discovered behind homosexuality (though the ratio, he says in personal correspondence, is probably stronger than anything that will be discovered). But genetic findings won't be determinative--they will only slide a bell curve one direction or the other.

Powlison often talks about his three children, and that within 10 minutes of their birth he and his wife could see instinctive qualities that showed a continuity with what would prove to be their characteristic gifts and typical tendencies.

The point is that our various "tendencies" are part of a complex picture of the way in which all of us--not just homosexuals--work.

Here's the relevant section from Powlison's essay:

...

It is no surprise that people being redeemed out of homosexual lust still battle with temptations – and that some fall back. This is true of every pattern of sexual lust, not only homosexuality: a woman whose romantic-erotic fantasies are energized by reading romance novels and watching Tom Cruise in Top Gun; a man whose eyes rove for a voyeuristic glimpse down a blouse; a woman aroused by sadomasochistic activities and implements; a man obsessed with young girls. In each of these cases, lust has been patterned around a characteristic object; love will learn a different pattern in Christ’s lifelong school for reorienting the disoriented.

But there is no reason that an energetic, ideologically committed researcher could not find some data that might suggest that each of these sexual disorientations might arise from some biological predisposition. What if future research suggests that a particular personality characteristic, brain structure, hormone level, and perceptual style correlates to adult-to-child homosexuality? To bestiality? To heterosexual promiscuity?

The last mentioned might even prove the strong case for the style of argument Myers makes. Would his argument generalize to these cases? He would have to say Yes, if the statistics seemed to tilt that way. If any of the above persons continue to struggle, or at some point slid back into old patterns, then it might mean that their particular morph of sexuality is innate and valid.

I’m not familiar with the studies of female homosexuality, but let me offer an “unscientific” observation arising from pastoral experience. I’ve known many lesbians driven more by “intimacy lusts” than by the unvarnished eroticism of many heterosexual or homosexual males. In fact, most of them had once been actively heterosexual, unsuccessfully looking for love from a man or men. They eventually found that other women were similarly wired to intimacy and companionship as the context for erotic feelings. An emotional closeness initially developed that was progressively sexualized during the process of redefining oneself as a lesbian.

Such a process makes lucid sense on the Faith’s analysis of the outworking and inworking of sin. And I’ve seen the fiercely tender grace of God break in, progressively rewiring some of these women. Statistics might give definition to words such as “most,” “many,” and “some.” But statistics could neither confirm nor disconfirm the point of view whose plausibility is established theologically, anecdotally, and pastorally.

Myers’s biological data on homosexuality was admittedly rather dim light, not something that could drag a researcher along who was not otherwise willing. But let me offer another “unscientific” comment about data that might yet be discovered. When or if the “homosexuality gene” is discovered, I predict that the facts will be of the following kind. Among people without the H-gene, say 1.5% are oriented towards homosexuality, while among people with the H-gene, say 15% are oriented towards homosexuality.

That would be a very significant statistical difference. But what would it prove? Only that characteristic temptations differ, that our bodies are one locus of temptation, that nothing is deterministic either way. It will be analogous to finding any other “gene for sin.” Those with the “worry gene,” the “anger gene,” the “addictive pleasure gene,” or the “kleptomania gene” will be prone to the respective sins.

Such findings cause no problem for the Faith. They do trouble a Pelagian view that defines sin only as conscious “choice.” But sin is an unsearchable morass of disposition, drift, willful choice, unwitting impulse, obsession, compulsion, seeming happenstance, the devil’s appetite for souls, the world’s shaping influence, and God’s hardening of hard hearts. Of course biological factors are at work: we are embodied sinners and saints. That some people may be more prone to homosexuality is no more significant that that some may be more prone to worry.

Grace is similarly personalized. Some of God’s children find Phillipians 4:4-9 breathes particular comfort amid their besetting temptation to anxiety. Others find the Spirit pacifying their fierce temper and writing James 3:1-4:12 on their hearts. Still others find Proverbs 23:29-35 clobbers them about the madness of their heavy drinking, and that they grow wiser as they quit hanging out with old drinking buddies and spend time with new, wiser companions (Prov. 13:20). Still others experience a keen-edged joy in earning a pay check, paying for things they once stole, and sharing money with people in need (Eph 4:28). Others find that Christ’s comprehensive vision for rearranging everyone’s sexuality – in the whole Bible, not just “a half dozen verses” – reaches into their particular form of disorientation, teaching them to love people, not lust after them. One and all, former neurotics, rageaholics, drunks, thieves, and gays find that truth rings true and rings with hope.

Each of us deals with what Richard Lovelace termed “characteristic flesh” (Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life, p. 110). Repeat temptations and instances of recidivism do not change the rules. Strugglers with indwelling sin genuinely grow in grace, but often the generic issue remains on stage in some manner throughout a person’s lifetime. Abiding struggles are no reason to throw over the Christian life which is defined as growth amid struggle unto a future perfection (1 John 3:1-3). Those being redeemed out of homosexualized lust are examples of the rule, not exceptions granted license to give up the fight and rationalize their sin.

We live in a culture which accepts as "given" the idea that homosexuality is "just the way I am" (and therefore ok). Want to see just how prevalent this idea is - check out a recent blog post by Anderson Cooper, called Can People Change From Gay To Straight? and then read all the comments.

Of the 50+ responses listed, all but 4 (when last I checked) basically read something like this (in you're best Napolean Dynamite voice): "Well of COURSE NOT, DUMBASS! Science has proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt! Only homophobes and bigots think this way. What kind of idiot are you, anyway, for even asking that question? Jeez..."

Wow. I had no idea it was so definite. So I spent a couple of hours researching on the web, and whaddya know, I couldn't find any scientific "proof" at all that it's purely biological. In fact, quite to the contrary, almost every expert I could locate insisted that it's much more complex - there may indeed be a biological component, but it's also influenced by enviornment and upbringing.

In other words, the "cause" of homosexuality is far from clear. What's particularly troubling is how few people care - I am continually amazed how many people quote "scientists have shown" with a flourish of their hands, and then proceed to pronounce sweeping dogmas (which themselves go well beyond any scientific "consensus").

Even worse, what about the fact that I have a good friend who spent close to 20 years in a gay lifestyle - by his own admission, that was his identity. And yet Christ changed that - he's now happily heterosexual, married, and has a beautiful young daughter. He would certainly not describe this transformation as "coerced" or "fake" - rather, he would describe it as "authentic" and "freeing".

What do scientists and skeptics say in light of such "data" as this? Well, they reject it, of course! Because it can't possibly be right! Why not? Because they know that homosexuality is just "they way people ARE... it can't be changed! That's what all the data shows!"

Hmm. Perhaps we are skeptical of data which doesn't fit our "theory". Perhaps we are not quite so "neutral" as we'd like to believe.

Powlison's point, of course, stands even if there is a "biological component" to homosexuality - he rightly suggests that if someone wants to find it, they might well be able to locate a "biological component" for lots of things. And that still will not excuse them in the eyes of God.

Rom 5:12-14 actually argues something very similar - not about homosexuality, per se, but about sin - we all die, because we are all sinners; we are all sinners, because we all share in Adam's first sin; we stand guilty because we are implicated along with him - we are his heirs (biological component).

Having said all that (probably thoroughly offending any unchurched friends who might happen to read this blog), now I'll try and tick off any remaining friends on the other side of the aisle.

I don't think homosexuality will keep someone out of heaven. I don't think someone is automatically "not a Christian" because of what they think about homosexuality. I don't think any sin is big enough to separate us from the love of God, if we are in Christ (Rom 8:31+).

And it's that last little phrase that makes all the difference, because if we are in Christ, we cannot help but be transformed - because that's the nature of Christ, the gospel, and biblical change. Being connected to Christ transforms the way God treats us - we are reconciled to him, we become his friends, rather than his enemies (Rom 5:10) - but it also transforms us (Rom 6:4). That is the nature of Christ's death and his life.

So homosexuals are welcome in our church - we're not going to try to change them (after all, I can't change anyone - only God can change a heart).

At the same time, they will hear us say that homosexuality is wrong (and before you *gasp*, ask yourselves WHY we think it is wrong - is it because we are homophobes and bigots and we want to look down on them because of this? If so, may God rightly condemn us! Or is it perhaps because we believe that this is what God's Word teaches, and we are simply trying to be obedient to it, rather than being hypocrites? If so, then you should probably condemn God rather than us). We say this not because we hate them, but because we love them.

They will also hear us say that change is possible, and that is something very distinct from anything the world is saying. Think about this for a moment. How many times do you hear of homosexuals who say "I LONG for change, I WISH I was normal, I WANT to be straight, but I just can't make it happen"?

For those who think it's simply biological, the best they can say is "get over it, that's just the way you are." Christians, however, have a different message - change is possible for those who desire it, but that change only comes as we confess ourselves to be "in the wrong" and cling to Christ that we might be transformed.

Change is possible, no matter what your sin, no matter what your disposition (whether biological, environmental, chemical, or whatever). I can point you to examples in Scripture, and I can point you to examples in real life. I myself am a case in point - a work in process, who is being transformed slowly but surely into someone who is different from what I once was.

Ok, that's probably enough for now...

[PS - re-reading through this, I notice that I've used the term 'homosexuality' throughout. I think some Christians want to differentiate between 'homosexuality' (as ontology, the way the ARE) and 'homosexual practice' (behavior, what we DO, acting upon the impulse) - and they typically say the former is ok, only the latter is sin.

It doesn't particularly bother me if someone wants to think this way, but I don't think it's particularly biblical either - Scripture never really draws a distinction between who we are and what we do - what we do flows out of who we ARE (Mk 7), and it also helps define who we are - someone who murders IS a murderer; someone who steals IS a thief (but in each of these cases, our actions originate in the desires of our heart - God is never, ever to blame).

So I'm not particularly inclined to try and soften the blow - "Yeah, homosexuality is fine, as long as you don't act on it" - I'd rather just be honest and say, "Look, any desire of our heart that is contrary to God's Word is wrong, simply because he says so - but there is always hope for change, if we are willing to repent and believe." And I realize that's a harder sell. But I think it's more honest to Scripture, and more fair to the people we interact with.

We need to remember that Christ should constantly challenge us. If I am not feeling the challenge of the gospel, I am probably not seeing Christ clearly - I have probably made him in my own image. So we need to constantly be submitting ourselves to both the challenge and the comfort of Scripture. This is still just as true for me (a Christian for 30+ years) as it is for the worst "sinner" out there.

Ok, I'll stop now. If you agree w/ this post, please don't say anything. If you disagree, I'd love to hear from you.]

The Memory Keeper's Daughter

I picked up a book last night called The Memory Keeper's Daughter, by Kim Edwards - it was terrible, not because it was bad, but because it was so good: I couldn't put it down until I finished the final pages at 3 in the morning. Argh! Not a good thing, when your alarm goes off at 5:50 AM.

What fascinates me about this book is what it has to say about "secrets." Here's the basic premise (hopefully without giving too much away) - a doctor is forced to deliver his wife's child in the middle of a raging snowstorm. The only complication is that she's actually carrying twins - the first, a healthy beautiful baby boy; the second, a Downs Syndrome baby girl. The year is 1964, when such children are regularly institutionalized - after all, babies like this rarely survive long anyway, and even if they do, their quality of life is marginal at best.

As a doctor, David Henry knows his daughters prognosis full well, and rather than force his young wife Norah to deal with such a tragedy, he makes a snap decision to try and protect her from a lifetime of unspeakable grief. His solution: hand the "defective" daughter to his nurse to deliver to an institution, while he informs his wife of the tragedy - she delivered twins, but her daughter did not survive childbirth. She is dead. Gone.

With that simple little secret, the future is inescapably changed, his doom is sealed - unbeknownst to anyone, the nurse flees into hiding to raise the child as her own.

The rest of the book is riveting, because we get to see firsthand the effects of his fall - on his relationship with his wife, his son, and eventually everyone else around him. It's a tragic book (I'm not sure I could read it again), because it's not Hollywood - it's brutally true to the lives that many of us have experienced ourselves.

The one ray of hope comes unexpectedly, as David Henry confesses everything - no more secrets - to a young woman with child.

In the silence David started talking again, trying to explain at first about the snow and the shock and the scalpel flashing in the harsh light. How he has stood outside himself and watched himself moving in the world. How he had woken up every morning of his life for eithteen years thinking maybe today, maybe this was the day he would put things right. But Phoebe was gone and he couldn't find her, so how could he possibly tell Norah?

The secret had worked its way through their marriage, an insidious vine, twisting; she drank too much, and then she began having affairs, that sleazy realtor at the beach, and then the others; he's tried not to notice, to forgive her, for he knew that in some real sense the fault was his. Photo after photo, as if he could stop time or make an image powerful enough to obscure the moment when he had turned and handed his daughter to Caroline Gill. ...

He had handed his daughter to Caroline Gill and that act had led him here, years later, to this girl in motion of her own, this girl who had decided yes, a brief moment of release in the back of a car or in the room of a silent house, this girl who had stood up later, adjusting her clothes, with no knowledge of how that moment was already shaping her life.

She cut [paper] and listened. Her silence made him free. He talked like a river, like a storm, words rushing through the old house with a force and life he could not stop. At some point he began to weep again, and he could not stop that either. Rosemary made no comment whatsoever. He talked until the words slowed, ebbed, finally ceased.

Silence welled. She did not speak. ...

"All right," she said [at last]. "You're free."

And this single act of honesty produces the deepest intimacy he has ever experienced - it's not sexual, but relational - with a human being who knows the very worst about him and yet who does not reject him for it.

He'd poured out his story to her in such a rush, the first and last time he had ever told it, and she had listened without judging him. There was freedom in that; David could be completely himself with Rosemary, who had listened to what he'd done without rejection him and without telling anyone, either....

He confesses. She accepts him as he his. And he finally finds freedom.

What if the church could be like this - a place where you could lay all your garbage on the table, all the deepest darkest secrets that you've never told anyone, and still find acceptance, forgiveness, love. There is something deeply freeing about honesty and real love - it never minimizes the wrongs we have done; it embraces us in spite of them; and it refuses to leave us in our place of desparate isolation.

I think the church must be like this, because God is like this. And this is the kind of church we desire to be, because this is the only way to experience the freedom of the gospel.