"Open and Affirming"

The headline in the paper reads, “A Message of Inclusiveness.”  The article highlighted a decision made by a local church in Grand Junction regarding their status as an “Open and Affirming” congregation.  According to the article, by adopting this policy, the church has agreed to be “open, affirming and accessible…[striving] to follow the teachings of Jesus…[which includes] welcoming, honoring, and respecting all people.”

Part of my response to this decision is to say, “Well, of course.  That’s what we’re called to do and be for the sake of Christ.”  The church across the world is called to welcome all people into our midst with grace and hospitality, which is not a trait other institutions are necessarily responsible for carrying.  When I worked for a gym, one of the taglines we used to pose in our marketing material is that our gym is “a place for everyone.”  That wasn't completely true.  Because our gym took care of hundreds of children through day care and other efforts, we had to be very careful about screening membership applications for one particular group of people: registered sex offenders.  So in reality, anyone can join that gym – except registered sex offenders, for obvious reasons.

Even thought the church cares for children as well and desires to protect our kids from harm, we actually cannot make a stipulation like the gym did.  As a church, we abide by clearly-stated policies regarding people whose past includes sexual crimes.  If anyone wants to volunteer here, we ask them to disclose those details and complete a thorough background check.  But that’s a volitional decision – we can’t force people to disclose that information.  We welcome people into our midst every week in our worship services and other ministries without any background check or Google search.  In one sense of the world, the church mentioned in the newspaper article is simply re-stating the obvious.

However, the moniker of “Open and Affirming” doesn’t usually cultivate that kind of attitude in real life – at least not in my experience.  The article went on to explain that the focus of their efforts is primarily concerned with groups of people who, historically, have not felt very welcomed in the church: the gay community, people with varying concerns about gender identity, and other hot-button issues.  And let me again be clear: people of any background should be welcomed in a church.

But here’s the problem with the title chosen by this particular church in Grand Junction.  People are most fully welcomed and embraced through one avenue: the gospel of Jesus Christ.  All sinners.  All backgrounds.  Everybody.  The central connecting point of any church is and must always be Jesus Christ and the gospel he still proclaims.  By simply saying, “We are an open and affirming church,” using the terminology and criteria chosen by this particular church, many people will not actually feel welcomed, embraced, and accepted.  People who are uncomfortable around such terms and implications as “open and affirming” will not feel welcome or affirmed in your congregation.  And frankly, most of the congregations I know who have chosen to take a stance like this do not demonstrate a high level of inclusiveness or tolerance for diverse viewpoints about hot-button issues.  Sexuality, for example, is OK to discuss in these settings if one agrees with mainline culture.  But if someone tries to follow the witness of Scripture regarding human sexuality and go against the viewpoint of their church’s culture or our culture at-large, those views are unwelcome and dismissed.  The effectual meaning of something like “Open and Affirming” actually becomes “Open and Affirming – if you agree with us.”

That’s not what the church is called to be.  I believe this local church and any church has the right to make statements like they’ve chosen to do.  But let’s be clear about what is actually meant by our statements.  Let’s not simply assume that everyone will feel welcome because we take a stance on a complex and difficult issue, or that individual feelings about that issue (which are important) are somehow the most important thing the church is called to bless and encourage.

This is an ongoing conversation.  If you’d like to hear a civil, clear message about some of the root issues of this discussion, please listen to the following message from Dan Baumgartner, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Hollywood CA.  Click the link for the sermon from July 24 called “Core Identity.”

http://www.fpch.org/media-a-resources/listen-online?start=180

To this day, I have yet to encounter a message quite as gracious and clear as what Dan preached several years ago.  I hope you find it helpful, even if you disagree with what he has to say.

Solo Dei gloria,

Travis

Laying Down Our Lives

The Amani mission team (Laurel Walters, Janis McBee, Beth Dickson, Sean Moats, and I) is less than a month away from our journey to Uganda.  Most of us have at least some experience in international travel.  Laurel certainly knows the way.  I don’t think any of us have the illusion that we are ever going to be fully prepared for what God has in-store for us in Africa.

Part of our preparation together has involved reading a short yet profound book together: Henri Nouwen’s In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership.  Sean suggested it, and his instinct for good spiritual resources has been right-on.  A passage which has recently challenged me speaks to a unique dynamic Christian leaders appreciate regarding our personal connection to leadership:

“Somehow we have come to believe that good leadership requires a safe distance from those we are called to lead.  Medicine, psychiatry, and social work all offer us models in which ‘service’ takes place in a one-way direction.  Someone serves, someone else is being served, and be sure not to mix up the roles!  But how can we lay down our life for those with whom we are not even allowed to enter into deep personal relationship?  Laying down your life means making your own faith and doubt, hope and despair, joy and sadness, courage and fear available to others as ways of getting in touch with the Lord of life.” – Nouwen, p. 61

We all know leaders who make little impact and lack a personal connection with those they serve.  Nouwen challenges his readers to identify that dynamic and become skillful in removing it.  Our team won’t enter Uganda perfectly.  We won’t serve the people of Jinja or the Amani Baby Cottage without any hiccups or stumbles.  But we will do our best to share our lives with our brothers and sisters in Uganda.  I think we’ll find ourselves in the good company of other imperfect leaders who are willing to lay down their lives for the sake of the gospel.  Our travel dates are June 4-16.  Thanks for praying for us. 

Solo Dei gloria,

Travis

Conversation, Debate, and Being Prepared

I like to be prepared.  It’s the Boy Scout motto – be prepared – and it’s a value I saw lifted up by both of my parents in their careers.  My dad prides himself on being the best-prepared attorney in the courtroom, knowing the case inside and out.  My mom teaches her students that success in college and beyond hinges on good preparation.  It’s probably not surprising, then, that I felt a little out-of-place as I came to an event where I wasn’t – and couldn’t really – be prepared.

A friend of mine is connected to the Philosophy Club at CMU.  There’s no major in philosophy at the college, although they have several excellent professors focusing on that subject.  In lieu of a major, students and faculty get together monthly to discuss ideas, great writers and thinkers of the past, and also host events like an annual science-and-religion “debate.”   I say “debate” because one of my heroes, Dallas Willard, when invited to one of these “debates,” would respond by calling it a “conversation.”  I like that better.

My friend invited me to come to the science-and-religion debate/conversation last week, and I was quite humbled to do so.  I enjoy thinking on my feet, and I’ve been told I can do it fairly well.  Before the debate, I spent some time with the Philosophy Club at one of their gatherings, and later the president of the club and I went to lunch together.  He’s a sharp student and a good leader for their club, and I was grateful that he moderated our debate and set up the format for us quite skillfully.  In that sense, I “prepared” by getting to know the students and faculty who are committed to something really important to the gospel – ideas.

The debate was held at my friend Steve’s church, which is just a stone’s throw from campus.  About 20-30 people showed up, and although they’ve had much higher numbers in the past, I felt like it was wonderful that even that many people showed up.  It’s a philosophy club debate, right?  Most people’s eyes glaze over when they hear the word philosophy.  My co-panelists included two professors of philosophy and one student (our lone female panelist member and a well-spoken young woman) who serves as president of the university’s atheist club.

I feel really grateful and humbled as I think back on our conversation.  We kept our feet firmly rooted in civility, but we also got to engage each other deeply.  Being “nice” didn’t get in the way of being substantive in our discussion.  We spent about an hour discussing issues like the separation of church and state, the relationship between science and religion, freedom, conviction, and other issues related to both faith and science.  After a short break, we returned for audience questions, which was also a great experience.

Right off the bat, one of the audience members – a student from CMU – asked me, “Why do people need God?”

Let that sink in for a moment.  I felt like time slowed down after he asked me his question, and I remembered something my wife said to me before the debate: “Don’t try to be an expert in anything but what you know.  Speak to what you know about God.”  Good advice!  In response to the young man’s question, I said that the only way I knew how to answer that question was personally, not academically.  I talked about my brokenness and need for hope in Christ.  I spoke about the resurrection and the truth of the gospel – that people can’t fix themselves, nor can we truly fix our world, and that faith is a response to the goodness and mercy of God.  I think I did an OK job of answering his question.

And then a surprising thing happened.  After I finished responding to the question, one of the philosophy professors sitting next to me said to the young man, “Why do people need science?”  That led to another great dialogue.  The professor's question demonstrated our shared (unspoken) commitment to parity and engaging a variety of viewpoints which made our conversation feel weighty and yet still fun.

I’m grateful to God for the Philosophy Club and for the freedom to talk about what we believe.  The next time one of these debates rolls around, I’ll be sure to let you know.

Solo Dei gloria,

Travis