On “sin” and the “robust conscience”

Here is a line of thought I’ve tried to develop a bit before:

Too often we Christians are heard as saying something along the following lines: “Your life of casual sex (or cohabitation, or homosexuality) surely must be leading you to feel empty, unfulfilled, and jaded. But we have the solution for those unpleasant feelings!” To which the reply is often: “I’m sorry to disappoint, but I don’t feel excessively guilty or ashamed or unfulfilled. On the contrary, my gay partnership has given me more emotional peace than I’ve ever had.”

In other words, we Christians are often found making Stendahl’s mistake: in our rush to defend our understanding of sin and human flourishing, we too easily assume that the same emotions must be the universal human result of certain behavioral choices. When those expected emotions aren’t present—when Paul, for instance, feels no guilt after persecuting the early Christians—we’re suddenly left wondering what went wrong with our doctrine of sin.

I’m not sure I’ve said it here any better than I’ve attempted to say it in the past, but perhaps bringing in the counterpoint between Stendahl and Bonhoeffer will turn out to be illuminating for others, as it was for me.

Exploring friendship

Well, dear readers, I’m happy to be able to announce that over the weekend I signed a contract with Brazos Press to write a book about the theology and practice of Christian friendship.

The goal of this writing project is to take some of the themes we’ve been exploring on this blog (see, for instance, Ron’s very clear and helpful post here) and make them more widely accessible, with a special emphasis on the questions and concerns of gay and lesbian Christians. Over the next year and a half or so, this is what I’ll be working on.

During the writing process, I’ll be really eager to try out ideas here and receive feedback from you. And if any of you have resources — books, poems, stories, articles, talks, blog posts, etc. — on the theme of friendship that you think might be useful for this project, please don’t hesitate to mention them in the comment section.

Thanks for celebrating with me! Your prayers and well wishes are especially welcome.

Recommended reading

I’ve got a brief list in the latest issue of Christianity Today of some books I’ve found useful in thinking through gay Christian questions.

The editors limited me to five, and I would have liked to include a couple of others (like Oliver O’Donovan’s Church in Crisis, for instance), but, honestly, at this point, there simply aren’t as many good books out there on these matters as you might think. I’m hoping that will change soon, with both Eve Tushnet and a couple of others associated with this blog working on new projects…

Stay tuned.

“The Love We Dare Not Ignore”

My review of Justin Lee’s new book, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate, is up over at Christianity Today.

An excerpt:

Many of us evangelicals may believe that LGBTQ ("lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning") folks are far removed from our churches and ministries. Surely gays and lesbians are out there, somewhere else, not here in our discipleship small groups, or kneeling at the Communion rail beside us—are they? But if Lee, the God Boy of his high school who could quote John 3:16 in his sleep, is an example of what it means to be "gay," then yes, they are. They’re here in our churches, and they’re here to stay, forcing us to reconsider what it might mean to love our own spiritual siblings.

For me, this is where the real importance of Justin’s book lies. For quite a while now, evangelical Christians have been able to take for granted that "gay affirming" theology and pastoral practice is the preserve of liberal, mainline denominations. But what Justin’s book forces us to recognize is that many people inside the evangelical movement—who are otherwise very traditional in doctrine and practice—are experiencing a shift in their convictions about homosexuality. I don’t presume to know what this might mean for the future of evangelicalism, but I think it’s a significant point to observe.

I hope many people read Justin’s book. Despite my strong disagreements with it, I think it’s smart, thoughtful, charitable, and shows a remarkable commitment to take the Bible seriously.

An Unformed Pauline Thought on Living and Dying with Christ

In the Pauline Epistles class I teach, we talked today about the “overlap of the ages” that Paul portrays in his depiction of the redemption of the world in Jesus Christ. Believers exist in a present age that is “evil” (Galatians 1:4) and marked by sin and death (Romans 5:12-21), but in the death and resurrection of Jesus the “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17) has dawned and now exists as an incursion of the future into the present. The light of the new creation’s dawn is diffused into the fog of this present age (2 Corinthians 4:4) in such a way that we have real hope that the light will one day burn the fog away completely. Nonetheless, that day is not yet. And so we groan, eagerly awaiting the consummation of the redemption that has been inaugurated (Romans 8:23). The light has come, but not yet in its fullest glory.

Continue reading

On starting with friendship

Josh Weed’s post about being a gay Mormon married to a woman has been making the rounds, and I assume most of our readers will have seen it already. Yesterday Alan Jacobs posted a comment on Noah Millman’s take on the piece, which I thought was good fodder for further conversation:

Noah, you write, “The radicalism of modern Western marriage is the assertion that these feelings [of passion] should have something to do with marriage – indeed, should have primacy over the far more traditional bases of marriage, namely property and eugenics.” I think you’re leaving out the other possibilities that are key to the story. It’s not just passion on the one side and property and eugenics on the other. What this story is pointing to is the possibility of personally chosen, not arranged, marriages built around a kind of regard for one another that is not primarily erotic, in the narrower sense. Here the key word is “intimacy.” These people married each other because they loved each other and wanted to share deep intimacy, but that intimacy was not characterized primarily by sexual passion. And yet the couple insists that they have a strong sexual relationship. The really interesting thing about the story has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with the possibility that our society has the logic of attraction all backwards: we start with sexual desire and hope to generate other forms of intimacy from that, but this model suggests that it could make more sense to start with the kind of intimacy that is more like friendship than anything else, and to trust that sexual satisfaction will arise from that.

I don’t think this is a new idea, but it feels new. When we read Jane Austen novels we think that the attraction between the protagonist and her beau had to have been primarily sexual but the topic just couldn’t be broached in those prudish days, but what if that’s just our narrowly sexual cultural formation talking? Maybe we need to think more seriously about the Weed family as a model for others — and not just for people who, as we Christians often say, “struggle with same-sex attraction.”

Continue reading