Anyone who is even remotely conscious knows that one of the major issues threatening to divide groups within the church is the topic of human sexuality. Even as I type this, my former denomination, The United Methodist Church, seems headed inevitably toward some sort of split that is (on the surface) about this very issue.
This is a big, complex topic. Unfortunately, as is often the case, most conversations tend to pull all the important subtopics and issues behind this one topic into one conversation. The main result of this is that they try to accomplish too much at once. For example, the issue in The United Methodist Church isn’t really about sexuality. It’s about issues of truth and authority. From where does truth come?
I don’t wish to pretend (a) that I’m skilled enough to address the topic of human sexuality authoritatively or (b) that I can “solve the problems” in something like a blog. Sadly, I sense that the people who chime in the loudest on topics such as these are often those who know the least. People on both sides have been guilty of not listening to the other.
One line of argumentation that I’ve seen repeated by those who are on what’s called the “affirming” side of the discussion around homosexuality — that is, they wish to include and affirm homosexual practice in the life of the church — is that the church should be more like Jesus, more loving, etc., etc., which will obviously be demonstrated by their more inclusive acceptance of alternative lifestyles. We should “accept people as they are.”
Let’s be honest, though: people on the so-called “non-affirming” side have been just as prone to accept people as they are, in action if not in word. They have tolerated — in their own lives, in their churches, in their societies — what they themselves would call sinful activities.
The idea of “accepting me as I am” demonstrates some erroneous, and anti-gospel, logic, from my perspective. First, it harmfully opens up a path of removing all limitations on appropriate human behavior. Let’s be honest: people who tout themselves as being inclusive aren’t really fully inclusive. There are certain forms of sexual behavior that they would not tolerate. Either they have a limited view of “inclusive,” or they actually wish to affirm certain practices that the majority of people would not accept. Heck, anyone who’s a parent knows how terrible it would be to accept kids as they are!
Second, it devastatingly assumes that Jesus, the gospel, etc., is concerned with accepting me as I am. This is odd, especially considering that, for instance, Jesus’ opening words in the Gospel according to Mark are, “Change . . . , for the kingdom of God is here.” The gospel message is all about challenging me as I am with a vision of what God desires me to be. So to assume that we should start by accepting people as they are, and never hoping to see them changed, is immediately to pull the rug out from under our own feet.
These two points are not intended to belittle anyone or any position on any issue, per se. Rather, I think they apply to all people who seek to reflect deeply and meaningfully on important issues.
Please, church, don’t accept me as I am. Challenge me to escape the limited and selfish view I have of myself to embrace the view God has of who I am and, more importantly, who I can be.