It has been several weeks since the publication of the Nashville Statement. By most accounts, it came and went. Several anecdotal conversations with friends and colleagues around the country suggest to me that the Statement created some immediate attention and much of it negative – even from Evangelical leaders who might otherwise find much in it agreeable – but is either little known especially among millennials on college campuses or has made little impact even where considered.
My reaction to the statement surprised me and perhaps some others. It made me angry. I mean really angry. I found myself wanting to fight; and I did more than little on social media - I mean its just right there. And, strangely to me, my anger felt right to me. It felt "righteous." I'm not claiming it was; I'm just truthfully saying it did. I felt empowered deep from inside me to step into the arena and contend. The anger came from a very raw and authentic place.
Some of my close friends reached out and cautioned me to be careful of my tone. I couldn’t figure out why they would say that? I respond to them: “No, this is not right!” The statement is a bullying tactic even if they don't see it! But they didn't seem to see it as clearly as I did.
I respected and understood why these friends were cautioning me; and why they may have even felt it was out of character for me. I was conflicted. I felt these well-meaning friends were trying to silence me, or at least take the sharp edge off my words and be nicer. "Joel, your anger will obscure your message," they told me. "People won't hear what you are saying because all they'll get is your anger."
But I just couldn't let go of the necessity of the emotion as it was just as much part of the message. Some things are not simply communicated with an exchange of ideas. Sexuality should leave little room for neutrality. This is a point on which I have full agreement with the Nashville Statement's intent.
To be "softer" seemed to me to be inauthentic. Seemed to dilute the message I felt not only from my head, but from within my bones. My anger was my body speaking along with my mind.
Enter my wise friend Pete Sutton. While we were on one of our 5:15 AM runs,Pete both blessed my anger – and I so needed someone to bless my anger and say, "Joel your anger is good; I see you; you are present." I was in an authentic place. I showed up as me, not as a projection of what one should be. To do otherwise was to not be true to my soul and body. Pete offered wise advice and gave me an imagination for how I could offer my whole self vulnerably with the anger, but use it for a redemptive, instead of a cynical, end.
In the subsequent weeks after its publication, I’ve wrestled with my reaction to the Statement. Why was I angry? And against what or who was I angry? This essay is the outcome of that wrestling.
This is a lengthy openhearted essay, not simply a quick hit blog post. I know we are conditioned to stop reading posts when they get much beyond 800 words. But I hope you will stick with me to the end.
I want to make clear though, this is not a commentary on the Statement itself. It is a reflection on my response. It is an attempt to name what is true. I had an instinctual compulsion to fight for my own body and soul and for that of others who share aspects of my own story.
The Nashville Statement comes off to me as bullying. And I feel the need to fight the bully.
Recently, I have been speaking and writing about my complex sexuality. Someone needed to finally say something. .
The more work I do in discipleship, education and therapy on understanding it, the more bewilderingly confusing it becomes. I have a bent sexuality. Sex is not a gift received in gratitude; it is a burden to bear. If it is a gift, it is a cruel one indeed. Sexuality is an enigma I am unable to solve. Whatever blessing God may have intended sex to be, it is experienced by me as a curse. And I curse it.
My sexuality was bent irreparably over a period of 3 years, between the ages of 13-16, when repeatedly sexually abused by my step-brother. My brother groomed me to a place of compliance with and desire for his dark sexual games. So, brilliant a predator was he, I believed I was a co-equal participant in the sexually explorative affairs. My perception of being his wholehearted partner in the hidden sex games taking place just inside the door of the bedroom we shared has oriented my self-perception toward severe contempt. And, as devastating, my sexual formation, by an agent of Evil’s harm, has structured by sexual orientation to this day.
On account of absolutely no fault of my own, my sexuality was warped; it was bent.
The sexual dysfunctions, the sexual “sins” and the ongoing sexual struggles of my adulthood can not be reduced to an explanation of my own inherit sin nature. A message that was the basis of all reference to sexuality in the context of church. I'm not the only one at fault. I'm not the only or even primary culpable party.
I did not ask to be bent.
I don’t want to have this sexuality.
I would have never wanted a sexuality that felt most at home in the dark of impurity.
But that is what I’ve received.
And I refuse to take ultimate responsible for what I became.
As a 13-year old, I had no agency.
I could not say no!
I could not tell. I could not scream.
And, no, I could not avoid being aroused by his touch and his caress; I could not avoid being captured erotically in my role in the sexual arousal of another man. I was a pubescent boy.
Yeah, I’m angry.
And, yeah, I take the statement personally.
I'm telling it now!
I'm yelling out now!
I'm yelling at you framers and signatures of the NS statement.
You bully me because of my bent sexuality.
While I do have sympathy with the interests of those who maintain a historic Christian perspective on gender and sexuality, I’m also more keenly aware of my own basic self-unawareness and my complete cognitive disconnection from my own body’s story of sexual trauma. A fact that is in no small part due to the fragmentation cultivated in my Evangelical experience.
Just since entering my 40’s, I have begun to acknowledge the complexities, the tensions, the absurdities, and the contradictions of my own sexual identity. A set of issues, of which until now, I have not been aware.
Years of white knuckling discipline and the absence of real lasting progression in sexual purity brought me to a place of hopelessness and resignation. There was never an invitation to name kindly the parts of my bent sexuality of which I was aware, and an ongoing space of kind care that allowed the many, many elements of my trauma of which my conscious mind was unaware.
I was never invited to lament the bentness of my sexual identity because of what Evil had done. Hear this correctly. By lament, I don't mean a hatred of the bentness. I mean a kind grief for the harm done. Instead, there was only one direction of communication and only one message: “God loves sex; He loves sinners, but he doesn’t put up long with an impaired sexuality!”
But here’s the unvarnished truth that no one adult youth leader or pastor ever attuned to about me.
It’s a contradiction that is madding!
At the same time my high school youth pastor was teaching me to abstain from sex with a girl until marriage and under no circumstances ever masturbate —at that very same time—I was being discipled by my adult step-brother into a dark sexuality that taught me the arts of sexually pleasuring a man!
I don’t so much blame my youth pastor for this - such little attention was paid to sexual abuse in and outside the church - But I do feel it was a serious dereliction of his duty as a shepherd; he, along with other adults in my life paid insufficient attention to what was going on with me, adults such as my mom, step-dad and my dad, whose primary task was my protection. I blame the religious culture around sexuality mostly of which my religious leaders were products. My youth pastor gave me a biblical ethic on sexuality, I definitely learned that God wants my sexuality to be with a woman with whom I’m betrothed.
But that didn’t happen.
Instead my initial sexual formation was in the context of sexual abuse, an abuse of which my youth pastor was completely ignorant.
Yeah, the Statement feels like one big bully!
Whether intended or unintended, and I don’t presume to know the intentions and motives of those who signed the Statement, it’s attitude and form, makes me want to scream and say: “You still just don’t get it! You are still the same insensitive, inattentive, self-righteous blind religious leaders who pronounce a curse while thinking it a blessing. And when you are told it’s a curse you don’t reconsider; you don’t listen; you don’t lean in and try to read my story. No, you double down. You preach louder. You curse harder and deeper.”
I understand that none involved with the Statement would likely recognize themselves in my perspective of them and the Statement. But their inability to anticipate the way Evil will use this statement in his war of accusation against genuine children of God is infuriating to me. The whole thing lacks wisdom. I say, “What in the hell were you thinking?!”
Congratulations Nashville Statement framers and signatories, you have made the shame of the wound people deeper and the task of pastoring them even more difficult!
When I read the statement, the framers and signatories feel to me like my youth leaders who were telling me to wait for sex till marriage cause “it’s such a wonderful gift from God that should be protected; don’t masturbate; anything below the neck is too far; and promise to never have sex until marriage because God’s vengeance is primarily and uniquely – at least that’s what it seems the implication of the message in the Statement – poured out on the sexually immoral.” All the while, I was learning the art of bringing a man to orgasm a several times a week!
The Nashville Statement reveals just how far away a segment of Evangelicals are from really having anything to say about sexuality that will actually make a difference in our church and world. I know that is a brash and strong assertion. I know it won’t engender me to those who are in support of it. I can accept that. My desire is not actually to influence them. I believe it is more than likely we will never see eye to eye on this.
But the irony is that at a very basic level I want the same thing they do: as many people as possible discovering and living into a flourishing life in the way of Jesus through the practice of God’s wise ordering of life.
My purpose in this essay is to extend an alternative invitation to the many followers of Jesus in our churches who, through no fault of their own, are either sexual minorities or for whom sexuality is bent, broken or disoriented. These many have spent their adolescence, emerging adulthood, early and middle adulthood (perhaps) in the Evangelical church hearing, in some cases teaching (as I had as a youth pastor), and in every case definitely white-knuckle fighting to practice the Evangelical sexual purity line.
These survivors of faith never heard the word, whether it was “Why Wait” in the 80’s or “True Love Waits” in the 90’s or some other more recent version of a heterosexual abstinence education as an invitation to a flourishing life. Instead, such campaigns of “sexuality” were experienced by our bodies, and mostly at a subconscious level, as a pronouncement of condemnation and contempt. Importantly, and against the assumptions of these Evangelical campaigns, a good many of the students who struggle with sexual purity do so not because these faithful disciples of Jesus had some unhinged, lustful sexuality that just needed more knowledge, more discipline.
Of course, there is that and the life of Godly wisdom invites us to practice self-control in all things.” Yes, of course I grant there’s a place for advocating a vision of human sexuality that brings our humanity to one of its highest joys. And all humans need to be encouraged to make right choices along the path to flourishing. Some simply need to be told, “It’s not a good idea to look at porn and masturbate!” or that sexuality has been designed by God to be practice in the context of a historically Christian view of marriage consisting of a male and female and is one of the most powerful realities in our lives.
There are sexually healthy adolescents and emerging adults who have been raised in supportive and godly family systems who may only require a curriculum and a clear statement on a biblical sexual ethic from their church community to confirm and support the cultivation of a godly and healthy human sexuality. Though, of course, healthy family systems are no guarantee of this.
But therein lies one of the real problems I have curriculums and statements, like the Nashville Statement (NS). They do very little for those who do not have a healthy sexuality through no fault of their own.
This beleaguered group of wounded, but deeply committed lovers of Jesus, is so much larger than we acknowledge; whether it is sexual addiction, sexual dysfunction or the unrelenting desire for erotic sexual connection with someone of the same gender. And even if you’re thinking, “I don’t have SS attraction; I don’t have a story of sexual abuse; I don’t have an awareness of dysfunction,” there is more than enough data from a variety of sources these days to say without qualification that no one on the planet can avoid some level of sexual trauma. It is frankly the cost of being human in the kind of world we inhabit post-Eden.
Sexual trauma is not about some of us, it’s about all of us; it’s not a question of whether we’ve been traumatized, it’s a question of the extent of the trauma.
So, in response to criticisms, the attempts by some advocates of the Nashville Statement to bracket the Statement’s purpose from the real lived existence of being human reveals a complete lack of clear-eyed self-awareness or a case of religious Asperger’s Syndrome, which, though intellectually bright and brilliant, these folks are emotionally clumsy and tone-deaf to social subtleties of others. The attempt to offer something less than a holistic vision of human sexuality is just stupid in the culture in which we live and in view of the terrible track record of Evangelicals have on sexuality.
It is for this reason, I am angered by the publication of yet another “ideology” from our evangelical side that is seemingly, if not actually, wholly unaware of just how complex human sexuality is in the kind of world we inhabit until the “renewal of all things” (Matt 19:28), which, as far as I can tell, has not yet taken place.
I write this essay as an advocate for those that have no voice. I write for the gay couple who courageously refuses to accept the revisionist position on historic Christian sexuality. But because they have not been [quote-unquote] “healed” of their SS attraction and erotic desire, they choose a path of suffering. They willingly attend a conservative evangelical church which, both implicitly and explicitly, calls their pattern life an abomination to God. Why do they choose a path of suffering when there are other options? Because they believe that it’s in this kind of church they will hear the truth of the Bible taught and connect with God. I’m inclined to view it as an even more sacrificial pattern of life than the gay celibate alterative strongly advocated by a growing number of Evangelicals.
These dear brothers and sisters who know no other way to be, live at the mercy of God, it seems to me, the same way the tax collector did in Jesus’ parable in Luke 18:13: “He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
I write also for the precious and beautiful image bearers who sit in isolated shame in our churches, who are bullied regularly by predominately male pastors who teach a so-called “biblical sexuality” that is more the product of their own experience than it is what the Bible essentially teaches, a sexuality that the pastor creates out of his own lived experience and, then, co-opts the Bible to make that experience normative. Like the pastor who deduces from the biological data of a penis and a vagina, that God designed a man to be a pursuer, and the female to be a receiver. And from there develops an interpretation of Ephesians 5 that validates that view. But because he knows that such neat classifications breakdown in real lived experience, he hedges his bets by referring to “necessary” exemptions.
My patience has run thin with ideological statements as our preferred method of engaging sexuality both inside and outside, our very small sphere of Christian faith. I’m angry about the toxic combination of self-righteousness and self-unawareness in the use of the Bible.
My anger is redemptive because it gives me courage to protect myself; to say enough is enough on the sex thing people! It’s significant I realize, but we need to have a conversation not a statement. A conversation that reconsiders both the Bible’s teaching but, more than that, the lack of empathetic context for being human in the kind of world we inhabit.
We need a biblical sexual ethic that allows the complexities of sexuality not only to be acknowledged in the very message of our vision of sexuality – in other words it must be in a statement! To be otherwise is to not be biblical. But also the very form our faithful presence takes in communicating and embodying that message must be different than only or primarily statements, curriculums and ideologies. What’s more, my anger induces active movement as a first responder to stand between false theological judgement and the silent and shamed majority in our evangelical churches, who are both in the pew and, yes, many who are also behind the pulpit.
Not Essentially Biblical in All it Affirms and Denies
The Nashville statement is the most recent example of many of a wrong-footed evangelical approach to sexual minorities and those who are bent sexually. I'm focusing on it because it provides a case study. The NS presents biblically “true” statements embedded in an ideologically informed interpretation of the biblical truths. The ideology or framework informing the reading of Scripture may very well have been informed by Scripture – meaning its thrust and assumptions derive from a synthesis of the whole Bible. But it must be stated transparently: at least some of the positions on sexuality articulated in the Statement’s articles are not essentially scriptural.
By “essentially scriptural” I mean: since the Bible does not prove clear on a number of the elements the Statement addresses, it goes beyond the Bible by filling in gaps where there are ambiguities especially related to sanctification. So, some of the articles or parts of the articles in the NS result not from some kind of “plain reading” of the Bible, but from a certain kind of mediation of Scripture, which has, consequently, resulted in a certain kind of vision of concrete Christian living.
To put it simply, some biblical truths expressed in the Statement are mediated truths; they are not direct biblical truths. They are contextualized in a vision of Christian living by something outside the Bible itself. Have I lost you? Let me put it this way. The Bible reveals the truth about God, the world and humanity. We agree. But we need to be clear that the truth of the Bible is not the same thing as our interpretation of the Bible. Scripture and an interpretation of Scripture are not the same. One is timeless divine truth; the other is a subjective attempt to render that truth into human and contemporary vernacular. Because of this it is possible to agree with elements of an article, while rejecting its overall intention.
I readily admit this hermeneutical reality is not only true for the NS, but it is true for every interpretation, mine included. No one interprets the Bible in an immediate or direct way, that is, apart from a context of reading that is informed by ideologies. What frustrates me about the NS is that it presumes a one-to-one correspondence between its interpretation of Christian sexuality and the Bible truth; there’s no acknowledgment of the hermeneutical reality; there’s absolutely no openheartedness to the other. There’s no hint of doubt.
Their certainty is breathtaking! And it comes off to me as bullying because it does not generously acknowledge the possibility of error or recognize any ambiguity in Scripture.
Having made such a strong point, I need to provide at least an example. I discern in the NS a broader evangelical tendency to an:
(1) Over-realized eschatology coupled with a
(2) Thorough-going Puritan understanding of sanctification
Neither of which is essentially biblical. And arguably is deeply flawed.
It is difficult for me not to be cynical of the Statement when it claims to be a “true story of the world and our place in it.” Brief attention on Article 12, will suffice to demonstrate the point. The Article states:
WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ gives both merciful pardon and transforming power, and that this pardon and power enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires . . .
WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins and to give power for holiness to every believer . . .
I wholeheartedly agree that the Bible teaches what is stated in the first half of both the affirmation and the denial, namely God’s grace is sufficient to forgive sexual sin and to provide the resources spiritually, emotionally and physically to transform and heal. I do, in other words, believe in God’s healing power of wounds that are in hidden inside the body as much as He is able to heal the visible wounds of the body.
However, when it comes to the second half of the two statements, problems emerge. I can agree quite readily that Scripture, particularly Paul’s letters, is full of admonitions to holiness by means of metaphors like “putting to death” and “taking off” the deeds of the flesh and the like. But, and here’s the rub, the actual extent of that death or that putting off activity of the believer – that is to say the extent of sanctification – is biblically much more ambiguous. The ambiguity is present even in the fact that Paul must exhort believers to bring their desires and their thinking into conformity to Christ.
So, while the first part of the statement and the supposition of the second have biblical clear warrant to be sure, the primary intent of the statement moves well beyond the Bible’s teaching in implying, quite transparently I might add (!), that somehow there can be something of an ultimate “overcoming” of the realities of the present evil age in the “already-not yet,” the eschatological scenario that most Evangelicals, since E.G. Ladd, espouse.
This should at least have caused a clearing-of-the-throat qualification of the Bible’s teaching on sanctification related to sexuality, that is, the limited degree of sanctification possible on this side of creation’s restoration. I believe what Paul taught his young believers is that we who follow Jesus, who are in wait of Jesus’ return, wait in a posture of hope for the future and for the full redemption of our bodies (Rom 8); we don’t, then, live now in the realization of that redemption!
I am so deeply grateful to God that He is kind – much kinder than this Statement would imply – and that he is well aware and fully acquainted with how damn hard it is simply to be human in the kind of world we inhabit. It is in fact out of his empathy for humanity he gives forgiveness and consolation. His grace is grief-generated.
The picture of Jesus in the center of a woman’s shame in the story of the so-called “woman caught in adultery,” found in the canonical gospels in John 8, is deeply formative for me in relationship to thinking about God and bent sexuality. I’ve written more about it elsewhere (See Todd Wilson’s recent book Mere Sexuality (Zondervan, 2017) where I have written an appendix). “Sexually bent” is my phrase for describing people, more than most of us realize or are willing to admit, whose sexuality has been warped by experiences as a human being in this world for which they have no culpability.
Article 12 of the NS presents a biblical truth, God’s grace forgives and transforms, but it is framed within the excessively impatient, contempt-driven, fear-based puritan vision of God and Christian sanctification which is simply not singularly or essentially taught in Scripture.
One could equally frame the biblical truths in the NS in a much more generous, compassionate, longsuffering picture of the Fatherhood of God. I’m 10 years a father. I have come to learn – through many failures and still imperfectly – the fundamental lesson about how to father my kids into a humble submission to my authority and into a space of human flourishing. Such outcomes for sustained character transformation come from a fathering that is above all kind, empathetic and attentive, one that is characterized by listening through the “sin” to the divinely created desire within the child that led to their inappropriate grasping for what God always intended beautifully and perfectly to give.
Fear-producing indignation, impatience, intimidation – these are effective in the short-term to generate compliance not doubt, but they do little to shape the heart toward the good in the long run.
As followers of Jesus, when we get to heaven, God will embrace us as His sons and daughters, not because we reached the appropriate level of “sin management,” to use a term coined by Dallas Willard, but because we are family.
The Nashville Statement is presents a Puritan mediation of the Bible. The Puritans were the Christian sect that made up a large part of the early colonists of North America. Fleeing the persecution of the State Church of England, they sought to establish the new world as a “city on a hill.” Their approach to Christian spirituality and sanctification has left a deep imprint on Evangelicalism. A fundamental element of their view of sanctification is the idea of progression forward toward holiness. Holiness in a Puritan view has a distinct definition of holiness that includes a grave afraid-ness of God, a severe self-introspection and a austerity of life.
One of the most famous Puritans was Jonathan Edwards. His perspective can be grasped easily by his most famous sermon: “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” which was required reading in High School American Lit.
But Puritanism is only one approach to understanding Christian formation and sanctification; it cannot rightly be seen as the “biblical” understanding.
In my view, the Statement, and efforts like it informed by Puritanism, will do more harm than good by solidifying self-righteousness and contempt. It certainly does not create a culture of kindness around the complex issues of human sexuality. It will not invite followers of Jesus to come out of the dark corners and isolated closets and tell the truth finally and fully. All such a statement will do is drive wounded people further into hiding.
I predict the most signifiant impact of the Nashville Statement’s hermeneutical naiveté and its inappropriate certainty in its utilization of a Puritan shape of spiritual life will, on the one hand, heap unnecessary shame on wounded people, burying them deeper and making the task of pastoring them even more difficult, and, on the other, further entrench those under its authority against a world that needs the repentance only God's kindness will produce.
Idea-ism Does Not Heal, Impatience Is Unbiblical and Shame is the Only Outcome
In my experience, these kinds of statements and similar attempts to form a sexual ethic have shown themselves largely if not completely ineffective. Just think for a moment how much was invested in the 80’s and 90’s to foster an abstinence Evangelical sexual culture in response to the crazy 70’s.
I know! I was both the product of it, graduating from high school in 1989, and I’m ashamed to admit now, a purveyor of it as a youth pastor in the decade of 1990’s. The amount of curriculum and pastoral staff hours dedicated to this topic if converted to dollars would be extraordinarily high. I can’t even imagine. And what has been the return on this investment? Well, I encourage you to read the preamble of the Nashville Statement and you will see exactly what we Evangelicals got for our money and time.
Because of the Statement’s underlying reductionistic anthropology that implicitly reduces human character formation to a cognitive process of knowing right then doing right, its attendant methodology of statement-making is unsurprisingly as ineffectual as the previous attempts at moral formation through cognitive formulation.
Let me correct that; it has proven extremely effective in producing shame. And it is precisely this the reason I responded so strongly against the statement.
The ongoing marginalization of the sexually bent disturbs and angers me.
My sexuality would never and has never been the same. I have worked so hard for so long to straighten my bent sexuality, although it was not until very recently I realized that a recognition of its fact in 1991 while in college was not nearly enough to address the spiritual, emotional and bodily warping that had happened to my sexuality. It took a three of decades, years of struggling unsuccessfully to be quote-unquote “sexually pure,” that for the most part I had given up the fight. Thankfully, at just that moment, someone invited me to grieve, to lament. To just simply be sad for the innocence that had been lost. I no longer believe in the concepts of “spiritual virgin” or “second virginity” that I was taught. The idea that somehow the sexual trauma of an childhood experience can be erased from one's body. Sexual trauma leaves internal bodily wounds not only spiritual or emotional ones. And these hidden bodily injuries must also be attended to.
I have for decades attempted to order my life by such Idea-ism – an approach that teaches “Think Right, Live Right.” A vacuous approach to spiritual formation, I believe, that takes little-to-no account of the body in Christian formation other than as it sees it as an obstacle to practical righteousness that must be reined in and subdued.
The idea-ism has a short-term effect, but does not produced long term transformation. I regularly failed and fail. But as it turned out, this idea-ism is a gift that keeps giving. Because even the failure became an effective resource for me.
The failure produced a shame that cultivated a contempt. The shame and contempt kept me “sinless” for a time—sometimes months, years or weeks or days. The more shame I felt and the longer I felt the shame the longer the duration between failures. Shame became a tool for sanctification. How about that! I grew to be thankful for it. Shame was a partner in the fight. I used shame to maintain the highest level of morality. I could stand up and have integrity because of my shame-produced morality.
I’ve learned that the best approach to the path of sexual healing – really the only effectively healing approach – is one that is inexhaustibly patient, expansively empathetic, tenderly kind and insatiably curious about a person’s story without a shadow of contempt. It’s an approach that has ultimate confidence in the God of truth and goodness who has shown himself to be far more empathetic about our human condition than we are towards either ourselves or others.
God does require us to repent and turn from sin; God doesn’t “condone” or “approve” or “bless” sin; but neither does he show us contempt because we are sinful. Because that is what we are until our redemption. Our level of brokenness in our humanness is far more complex than we admit.
Do we really think, that after we sit silently for 30 minutes praying for God to point out any sin in us, and having identify a few things we’ve actually “kept a short sin account before God?” We are so utterly self-unconscious most of the time to our true state of being. The spiritualty of a “short sin account” is so sorely naïve; its underlying anthropology is absolutely insufficient for describing what we are as human animals, creations of God.
Most of the deepest levels of our sinfulness, function below our rational consciousness. Our position with the father is not because we’ve “kept a short account.” It’s because God is our father. The truth is, “Ain’t nobody straight, we’re all are bent.” And most of us have so little self-awareness we don’t know extent of the angle of the bentness.
Our puritan tradition has led us to think we are more capable of holiness in the kind of world we inhabit than we are able. I think while our evangelical biblical theology has largely adopted the scheme of the so-called “already - not yet” of an inaugurated eschatology, our spiritual formation functions with a realized one. But the Apostle Paul said in Romans 8:23, “Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.”
A lack of a robust sense of the “not yet” leads to an impatient community lacking kindness and empathy. I think our bodies are much more traumatized and wounded than we have imagination to admit. I think the culture of Evangelical Christianity has contributed to the problem of marginalization and misunderstanding and judgmentalism around sexuality because of this impatient spirituality.The fight is too hard; the cost too high; and the church community too impatient that the “change” is not happening fast enough.
What then is an approach that will bring redemption to our world?
Learn how to pay attention to the sexually traumatized among your dear people; have you ever thought that maybe the one who has a sexual addiction may have it, not simply because they are sinners and the lust of their hearts has run amuck, biblically and theologically that is just too damn simplistic! We are, of course, sinners, but there is a category of sin that comes from without; and many of these sexually struggling brothers and sisters were sexually abused as children; they were seized by Evil. Their bentness was set initially by a violence of their bodies – a wound lasts the length of a lifetime.
We don’t need your idea-ism; we don’t need your impatience; we don’t need your word of discipline; we need your presence, your persevering hospitality and your empathy; we need the presence of Christ in you to love us beyond our lack of recovery and healing.
They need you to pay attention and be curious about their story and invite them into a space of grief. They need you to stop focusing on the sin and see through the sin to the God-given longing of their heart that the Evil One has bent and warped. Their repentance, my repentance, comes from the experience of the kindness of God (Rom 2:4), not your contempt!
The path toward healing, if there will be any before the restoration of all things, will be through the kindness of the expansive, boundless grace of God.
Don’t write a statement.
And, be patient.
Trauma and Grace
I invite Evangelicals sympathetic to the Nashville Statement to read Serene Jones’ book Trauma and Grace: Theology in a Ruptured World if they have not done so. The book will extend my reflections and plant them more deeply in a biblical theology of sin, lament and grace.
Close to the end of the book, Jones tells a fictional story about two women who meet at the foot of the cross in Jerusalem the day Jesus is crucified; one of them she calls Rachel. Rachel has experienced “befallen” sin, sin that doesn’t derive from one’s interior depravity, but is sin that is perpetrated against her by evil. It is a sin in that captures and entraps; a sin that makes it impossible to see the depths of the evil that still inhabits the body and soul (114).
Jones puts Rachel at the foot of Jesus’ cross. She imagines what possible glory mightRachel perceive in the Cross in her powerless, blank, disassociated, contempt-filled life. In what may be the most profound passage of the entire book, Jones captures the beauty of the gospel for the traumatized human: to know, without doubt, that if we were never able to straighten out the angle of our bent sexuality even a degree while we have breath, God loves me.
I close the essay with Jones’ eloquence: