All means ALL

Well shit, wouldn’t you know it. There I go again. Getting all rightous and ‘hey what about blah blah blah’ today. But honestly I have a stick, and its stuck up my craw, and it apparently won’t shake loose until I say something. So here goes.

Last year an amazing event took place in the Twin Cities. Christianity 21 was to be  a transformational, game changing event. I went. It was.

But not even a year later–how is it that when we are talking about who is in, and how the church connects with the “other”, in this case “the gays” we get an all white male panel? (see Patheos’ conversation called Rebuilding Bridges: Evangelicals and Gays) Don’t get me wrong, I am all about civilized, respectful dialog for sure. And I appreciate the stance that some have boldly taken, to a great cost in some cases, to be allies to the LGBT community. But no people of color? No women? Come on Patheos folks. Why? When we are talking about building bridges, ideal relationships, I don’t care with whom–its all G-d’s people and creation–why are we still stuck in a time when the “expert answerers or panel” does not at all fully represent the (evangelical) church. Where is the Kingdom perspective?

Here is the question they pose – and to be fair, my response.

Evangelicals are often portrayed as homophobic or hateful toward gays. If you could envision the ideal relationship between evangelical churches and gays, what would that relationship look like?

Be the church, a hip phrase perhaps you have heard, a spin on Ghandi’s quote “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” So–yes, I suppose there are many people who believe that evangelicals are the same as evenagelical churches. I, however, am not one of those people. Why? Because I am an evangelical, and the implied evangelical churches I hear this question talking about imply something else than the communities of faith that I belong to.

Yes, some of you may want me to drop that label, you may say I am not that kind of evangelical, but here I stand, I can do no other than to claim the name of Christ crucified and say unequivicolly that I believe it is my call to live out the promises I made in my baptism (see here and here), to seek and serve and love all persons, with G-d’s help.

But, what would I want the relationship to look like, between churches and gays? Simply, in a word, open.

Open to hear what the Spirit is saying to the church in that place. Open to anyone who might walk in the door, or who may be a neighbor. Be open to the wonder and mystery of G-d’s creation–which is good. Open to a new relationship–one that may challenge or frustrate. Lord knows, I am challenged and frustrated with rich people, compulsive gamblers, depressed people (like myself), suburbanites, and people who think I am stupid or should be dismissed. Its frustrating to be in relationships, period. But that should not mean shut the door, walk away, judge and/or crucify. It means move closer in, listen to G-d’s people–the beautiful, broken, hurtful, comforting, lovely bunch of mess that we are. And listen to what G-d is doing/saying/breathing/whispering.

Someone recently asked me to imagine that the person who I am engaged in conversation with is saying whatever it is that they are saying, with the best of intentions. I think this is a helpful and productive way to move forward, with respect and good intentions.

Lord, help me to remember. I WILL seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving my neighbor (yes even the annoying jerky ones) as myself (for I know I am one of those annoying jerky ones too). I will do it, with Your help. Amen.

(p.s.  No “women voices who are classically trained evangelical missiologists” really? If you know some, would you add them to the list? Thanks.)

Here ends the rant.


5 thoughts on “All means ALL

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention All means ALL « The Sweet Bi and Bi --

  2. I don’t even like the question. How would it sound to ask what the relationship between the church and white people is? Or between the church and octogenarians? Or between the church and babies with curly hair?

    The assumption is that gays/whites/octogenarians/curly-headed-babies aren’t already part of the church. This is obviously not the case.

    If we think of the church in institutional terms (which at times is necessary), then I agree with you that the relationship ought to be open, repentant (on the part of the church), and restorative (not in the ‘therapy’ sense, but as in restoring relationship).

    Unfortunately, as long as we draw lines, pointing out our differences, we’ll continue keeping some out of the club, or at least we’ll keep wondering why they can’t be like us ~ which is about as far from Reign of G-d as I can imagine.

    I’m probably naive, but I’d just as soon this question wasn’t necessary.


  3. Yep, again no women, no folks of color. No queer folk, either, and Heaven knows there are out LGBT evangelicals with a useful opinion or two. 😉

    Keep on fighting that good fight, Sister!

Comments are closed.