The Gay Christian Forum

Not sure what's up with the music at the beginning (I hate patriotic songs), but the panel discussion is a blessing. Enjoy!


powered by ODEO

Christian Improvisation

I discovered jazz during my seminary years in New Orleans. Ah ... the Big Easy, the Crescent City. Of course, I had heard jazz before, either played well on compact disc, or played poorly by live bands in my hometown of Pensacola. But nothing prepared me for the spiritual encounter that was live jazz in the clubs of New Orleans. It was not just an auditory experience, but a whole body involvment. I found my legs and hands moving to the zig-zag rhythms without conscious thought, my astral body merging with those of the performers, feeling their heartbeats played out on the drums, guitars, piano, sax. My love affair with jazz wasn't a simple tango with the music, but a surrender to the culture surrounding the music: all types of people, from all walks of life, actively participating in a common mystical union around the players.

Recently, I've begun thinking about the relationship of jazz culture with the Christian life. Rather than Christianity being a set of creeds to which assent is expected, I think a more real Christianity will look like a hodge-podge of people gathered around a common Person experiencing life in so many different ways. So, how is Christianity like improvised jazz to me?

1. Real Christianity isn't boring! Who knew? It's an active, full-body experience to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and physicality.
2. Real Christianity is rhythmic, but in myriad ways. In other words, it ain't just done one way. The person is my brother who prefers easy listening jazz, though I prefer funky, innovative jazz. The rhythms all lead to the Performer. Please do not think I'm talking about worship styles here:)
3. Real Christianity is about community. The joy of joining others in mututal worship of the Performer, whether by foot-stomping, hand-clapping, or crying is so much more fun than just listening all by myself. Yes, I said FUN (see # 1).
4. Real Christianity is about people. Jesus ate with everybody - usually with the people Christians won't even talk to. He didn't prefer the Samaritans over the Jews; the prostitutes over the married women; the dishonest government workers over his disciples. He welcomed every single person to His table, or asked if He was welcome at theirs.
5. Real Christianity is about imagination, about telling a story. The story is the greatest one ever told, and it's told in so many different ways. The story characters have different faces, different voices, different lifetsyles. But the story is always told, and the Performer is always recognized.

Live an improvised, invigorating Christian life. Follow the rhythms into the gracious arms of Christ. Don't let your journey with God grow stale.

Peace & Blessings.

Surface Christianity

I suppose dogmas have always been a part of the organizational church since the times of the Church Fathers. Though there is much controversy surrounding the formation and use of the following passage from Philippians, it is considered by many scholars to be one of the first hymns used in the early church, and may also have served as a type of creed:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As a hymn, this is beautiful, and there is not much in it to ruffle the feathers of orthodox Christians. However, it is a product of Pauline theology, and it should be noted that Christ never promoted or suggested creeds of any kind. He usually taught in parables which were (and are) constantly subject to various interpretations. It seems that the teaching style of Christ, and most other teachers of his time, was designed to make people come to their own conclusions. I am not saying there was no point of truth in the teachings of Christ, but that the truth was multi-layered and relative to the hearer's progress on life's journey. Unlike Paul and other NT writers, Jesus rarely presented a statement of doctrinal truth as necessary belief. His whole ministry was designed to attract followers, not doctrinally correct theologians.

I think two portions of the gospels present this side of Jesus better than any others: Matthew 11:28-29, and John 21:15-19.

28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." 17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." 18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

Following Christ is the focus of the gospel. Some of his disciples did not really know who Jesus was. Matthew 16 tells the story of Jesus asking his followers who they thought he was. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, and some said Jeremiah. Peter eventually says that Jesus is Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses Peter for his answer, but does not scold the others for their answers. Though this passage is often used by preachers to proclaim the divinity of Christ (and I have no argument with that), a deeper point is that Jesus accepted followers who were not aware of his divinity.

So what about creeds and dogmas? What purpose do they really serve in light of Jesus' acceptance of followers not aware of his divinity? From a human standpoint, I think dogmas serve to massage the ego, to place certain people within a community, and to place others outside the community. It's really all about a reversion to law vs. grace. People with correct answers are in; people who are passionate disciples but don't believe the dogmas are out. This may be a Pauline way of doing things, but it certainly isn't a Jesus was of doing things. [Don't get me wrong, I love Paul, but I am a disciple of Christ]

Surface Christianity depends too much on right belief, and too little on right action. It seems that Jesus was more concerned with conversion as process (i.e. following him) than conversion as belief. When Christianity becomes a set of beliefs, a series of creeds, it diminishes into something Christ never intended. He desires zealous followers who love him, no matter what idenity they assign to him. No doubt, there are myriad more zealous "Christians" who've never heard the name of Christ, than those who claim the name "Christian" and have all the correct answers.

Peace & Blessings.

Good vs. Evil, Part 2

If you know anything about open theism, you already know the main points I'm going to flesh out: (1) God is not omnipotent, (2) God is not omniscient, and (3) God is engaged in real war. Of course, most of the open theists within evangelicalism tend to want to keep the traditional terminology while re-defining what that terminology means. I think it's better to just discard the terminology for the sake of clarity. I have claimed what I believe God is not. It follows that I should try to attempt to explain what God is, at least in my experience of Her. Let's take it point by point.

God is not omnipotent, but powerful.

Traditional Christians are scared silly when they see this sentence, which is why there is such an uproar in evangelical communities surrounding open theism. Of all the open theistic writers I've read, Clark Pinnock does the most justice to this idea. [Disclaimer: just because I mention Clark Pinnock doesn't mean he wants to be mentioned in the vicinity of my writings]. However, as I mentioned before, he tends to want to keep the traditional word while re-defining it. Omnipotence, in its traditional reference to God, means He is able to do anything that does not contradict His own nature. In other words, He is able to stop the rape of the afore-mentioned 9 year-old girl if He so chooses. For any thinking Christian, it is easy to see where the problem arises. If God is good, and also omnipotent, then why would She allow such horrible, senseless things to take place? Now, I use the word senseless for a very good reason. Most traditionalists would argue that there must be some unrecognized good purpose to come of the girl's rape. That is why God allows it. Can such a rationalization, as much as it grates against everything we know of God, be true? Wouldn't the Spirit give some kind of assent to that view if it was in fact, correct? What do we feel horrible when defending God with this excuse?

I think the answer lies in its inherent falsity. As Christians, we all know God is good by our experience of Her. She doesn't give a stone when we need bread. She loves us more than our earthly parents love us. Would any earthly parent allow their child to be raped? Is there any good future thing that could come of that? No. God is completely loving, and limited in Her actions. There are some things She simply cannot interfere with. This has nothing to do with man's free will, but everything to do with real spiritual warfare (see # 3).

God is not omniscient, but learning.

Traditionally, God's omniscience means that He is able to know everything in the past, present, and future. Current open theists re-define omniscience to mean that God knows everything that can be possibly be known, then proceed to discuss what can truly be known vs. what cannot be known. I do not see the sense in sticking with the term omniscience. It's just confusing. For too long, the term has been used to mean that God simply knows everything. In other words, before the girl's rapist was born, God knew he was going to be a rapist, yet went ahead and allowed his birth. If omnipotence and omniscience are true as traditionally believed, then God is directly responsible for the girl's rape because He had the power and knowledge to put a stop to it. How could a loving God, who is also all-knowing and all-powerful, not put a stop to it? Yeah, yeah - the free will thing. But if God had prevented the birth of the rapist, free will would not have even been an issue.

Therefore, along with omnipotence, I also believe omniscience should be discarded. Because God loves freedom, and freedom requires real choices, God creates the universe in a way that She cannot possibly know the real possibilities that can occur in Her universe. She has to work with the things that happen. The rapist could have been a humanitarian with good character, but he chose to be a rapist. This occurred from an infinite number of possibilities, none of which God knew beforehand. God only knows the present reality, and a limited amount of future choices which she deduces from the current actions of free beings. This is basically what current open theists teach, though most of them insist on keeping the tricky work, omniscience.

God is engaged in real war.

Though I've already discarded two major traditional Christian beliefs, I think this third point is the most important. It also satisfactorily answers (at least to many pre-modernists and postmodernists) why God cannot be omnipotent as traditionally believed. Satan is a real being, and he has legions of real demons that follow his rebellious lead. I dare you to tell a friend you believe Satan is a real personality, and see the response you get. It's not a popular belief in our modernist-entrenched culture. However, it fits well with the entire biblical story (not that that's a prerequisite for truth), and makes sense of evil.

Think about the facts of war in our physical reality. There is rarely a winner or loser at the outset, though certain factors may give a side some advantage. Fighting must occur, losses and wins experienced, for a victor to emerge. Why would it be any different in the spiritual realm? Why would biblical writers describe battles of evil and good forces with such detail and life likeness if there was not some truth to it? More to the point, why would a young girl be raped if there was not some evil force fighting off God's protective hand?

Evil exists, not because God is capricious or ordains evil, but because She is involved in a real battle with the forces of evil, with free creatures of immense strength who want nothing less than to rule this world. Scripture and the Spirit give us hope that good will eventually prevail, but in the meantime, we as humans are in the crossfire. Not only that, but we are also called to participate by bringing love and grace into our own relationships and communities.

All of this doesn't answer every question concerning the existence of evil. It may raise even more questions. However, it does give us a congruent feeling with the Spirit that God is pure love, and only wants the best for all Her children.

Peace & Blessings.

Emerging, the Journey

Until very recently, I never thought there would be a spiritual place to call home. Everything Christian seemed so entrenched in propositions, that mystery had lost its rightful place in the journey of faith. I wondered if there was anyone else in the world who saw God as Mystery and faith as journey. Enter the Emergent Conversation.

Growing up in the deep South, a physical child of wonderful parents, but a spiritual child of modernist fundamentalism, I carried some baggage. "Some" doesn't quite do the amount of baggage I carried justice - it was (and sometimes still is) a U-Haul full of packed baggage. Despite the good intentions of my Christian school teachers, and hell-and-brimstone preachers, I was in a constant state of wondering about the security of my eternal salvation. Did I say the sinner's prayer correctly? With enough conviction? The onslaught of adolescence provoked uneasy questions, which sought heretical answers, producing guilty feelings and a deep sense of spiritual isolation.

Keeping up the act was paramount though, especially if I didn't want to lose my one and only personal money source - being the church pianist. On top of that, I was coming to realize the unwelcome fact that I was attracted to my best friend who just happened to be a boy. I sang about the love of Jesus, then endured a sermon on the fires of hell prepared especially for sodomites.

Keeping up the act led me to the hypocritical decision to marry, and attend a seminary (a Southern Baptist one to boot). All the while dreaming of a relationship with another man, and a God who would bless it, I finished my Bachelor's degree while my now ex-wife finished her Master of Divinity degree. Though she knew of my religious doubts, and my homosexuality, we both agreed to go into missions upon our graduation. After attending the missionary training course for our denomination, we were sent off to Asia for a two-year term.

It was unbearable after six months. I despised myself for being so hypocritical, for saying I believed so many things I did not, for "converting" people who I sensed were already covered by God's grace. It's strange that I always sensed God's grace on others, but never on myself. Had it not been of the culture shock accompanying everything else during our service, I would likely still be living in a framwork of legalism. Praise God for the things that seem as if they are going to destroy us, but only exist to bring us into His loving embrace!

The breaking point having occurred, my now ex-wife and I separated. The first thing I needed on the way to a realization of the all-enveloping grace of God was to recognize the sacredness of who I am in God's image. Coming to terms with God's willingness to bless my relationship with another man was step number one. Interestingly enough, celebration of my sexuality was not experienced as a part of God's plan at first. I hedonistically ran with it, doing all the things I ever dreamed of. I denied God's existence, proclaiming myself a queer atheist. And it felt good! I had never experienced such freedom. In hindsight, this experience shows me that journeys of faith rarely appear as puritanical as many think they should. However, they always lead to God's grace, love, acceptance, and truth.

I was then (and still am) living in Korea, teaching during the day, and partying at night. The partying was fun, but after a few months, I sensed something was missing. It started out as a small vacuum within, growing bigger until I finally questioned whether this "freedom" was the end of my story. Perhaps there was something more. I never really lost my attraction to Jesus, and my dusty Bible always "stared" at me from the bookshelf. I hated the Bible, but loved Jesus.

There was no really dramatic re-conversion experience for me. In fact, conversion as it is commonly seen by most evangelicals seems silly to me. How are a few words supposed to change anything? Isn't conversion supposed to be a process? A journey with Christ instead of a point approached and left behind? Isn't living a Christ-life more important than assenting to right theology? I came to see the Christian life in a much deeper way than my upbringing showed me. Anyone can rattle off rote theological truisms; the challenge lies in truly following. I don't even think many people know what following really means, particularly in Western culture, even more particularly in American culture. Aren't we too individualistic to follow someone, even Christ? Anyway, I knew things had to be different.

I desired mystery and journey. I "desired" them, not in the sense of wanting a piece of candy, but in the sense of deeply needing them. Then, I remembered God's words to Moses at the burning bush, "I Am." Period. What the hell is that? No explanations, no descriptions, no syste-freakin-matic theology! And then I thought, "There's a load of mystery in that, and I'm lovin' it!" What's the point in conversing/journeying with Someone you already know everything about?

All that to say, I am thankful God has brought me to the point in my life in which I realize His mystery, and by that, His immense beauty. And the strange thing is, the more mysterious He seems, the more wrapped up in His grace I feel. The more I love to worship and adore Him. Systematic theology kills that for me. It might do it for some people, but it kills the joy in following Christ for me.

So where am I now? In the middle of Nowhere with the Ultimate Someone. I can't speak Korean, and not many people I come into contact with can communicate with me well enough in English to be satisfying. I don't go to church, not because I think I'm better than my brothers and sisters here, but just because after experiencing God anew, I cannot go back to the old systems. And there's no emerging, postmodern fellowship here that I know of. But I do experience some amazing worship times in the most profane (see Eliade's usage) things: when one of my students shows pride in work well done, while listening to a superb organist, while making love to me partner, etc. I thank God for bringing me to Himself in exactly the way I needed, and for doing it while I'm in Korea. I know upon my return to the States, I'll never take for granted the accessibility of emerging fellowships to which I can belong and contribute.

Peace & blessings to all who read this.

*Anyone new to the Emergent Conversation within Christianity should not assume that all emergent participants approve of homosexual relationships by the content of my writings*