My good friend, Mary Cronin, wrote a letter to the editor about the church fair. In it she wrote, “We need hymns that nurture us and church families that embrace us as we are. We need liturgy that tells a story we can find a space in, not meta-narratives that always exclude someone.” These words have influenced me; specifically when I think of my own relationship with the LGBT community.
I do not think conservative Christians are aware of how deeply they have ostracized the LGBT community from the “Christian meta-narrative”. We elevate traditional marriage as the highest ideal and define it in ways that the LGBT community simply cannot identify. Furthermore, we idealize marriage; church culture has offered no viable alternative lifestyles for individuals who were excluded for its definition and has no language to talk about any sexualities out of this context. Thus, we marginalize the LGBT community. We actively write them out of the Christian narrative and we apathetically respond(ed) to their protests. This predominant attitude in Conservative circles is wrong and needs to be acknowledged.
To my LGBT friends—I am sorry.
Please, forgive us.
I ask that you hear my apology and yet I am aware that it is insufficient for complete reconciliation. I know this—because although I am deeply repentant of conservative attitudes towards the LGBT community, I still interpret the biblical view of sexuality in ways that liberal interpreters do not accept; in ways that the LGBT community may find difficult. These differences shape my ideal narrative differently from others. We disagree—and that can make reconciliation difficult—but not impossible.
***
People have a tendency to assume complete understanding of another to be synonymous with genuine love. This is why they have difficulty relating to people who are different from themselves, because they do not understand them. But, the reality is that you and I will never completely understand or agree with anybody. Disagreement and, at times, intense conflict is simply an inextricable part of the human experience. In many ways I will not understand or agree with everything my LGBT friends share with me—not just because of their philosophical and theological conclusions—but because they are different people; they are not me.
Nobody intrinsically and completely understands anybody, it takes time and we have to stop using it as the only measure of love. Mutual understanding is a measure of intimacy, but the definition of love is broader. It is not only the foundation of intimacy, but the root of all meaningful interaction. Therefore, when I relate to another person, specifically one with whom I disagree, I should engage with an active love: a love that wishes to bless my dialogue partner, even in the presence of intense disagreement. This element of relationship is not always easy, but it is the only way people can remain true to their personal convictions and yet exist in relationship amidst plurality. I plead for members of both sides of the argument to embrace such an attitude. We cannot keep seeing one another as obstacles to our own narrations. It is very likely that we may never agree—but regardless, we must use the attitude of love. Besides, it is the only language in which the Gospels were ever written.
***
There is so much I wish I could say regarding this issue, but I want to end with a cautious warning to my readers. This concept of engagement is greater than issues of gender and sexuality. The world is becoming more diverse and pluralistic—in this diversity the Church needs individuals who are actively and thoughtfully relating with it. Whether it be inside or outside of the church, we cannot afford any more insensitive dialogue with those whom we disagree. You are mistaken if you think you there is no relational dimension to philosophical and theological ideas. An insisted preference of ideas over people will create a schism so deep that even a Christian embrace will leave the world untouched. Be motivated by love— this is not the time for clanging cymbals.