Homosexuality Is Not Ammo
It has been nearly 8 months since I first posted my "Homosexuality: A Personal Reflection" post. I was touched by all the encouragement and honesty people expressed as a result. It was a challenging time for me, but very rewarding in so many ways. However, not wanting the topic to become the central focus of my blog, I decided to put it aside for awhile.
However, a recent post by John Stackhouse entitled "Jesus, I'm NOT in Love with You" (ht: Bill Kinnon) brought something to mind. In the post, Stackhouse bemoans the increasing appearance of what he calls the "love songs to Jesus" genre of worship. In a largely fair critique, he points out that to say that we are "in love" with Jesus is an inappropriate expression of worship for any Christian. Jesus, he reminds us, "is not your boyfriend, not your fiancé, and not your eventual husband". (On a side note, I think that Stackhouse misses the point a little on this one, not placing enough emphasis on the part individualism and poor concepts of romance play in this problem. He also underplays the significance of Christ as bridegroom to be fair).
It was when he said "...it gives me the homoerotic creeps to declare that I am 'in love with' another man" that I feel he crossed the line. That he would make such an insensitive and irresponsible comment surprised me a great deal. If he has an issue with saying he is "in love with' another man, that is his right. However, to say it gives him the "homoerotic creeps" shows no consideration to those of us who live with homosexual orientation every day. Further, if he real experiences homoerotic creeps, that is an issue of his own he needs to deal with, regardless of how legitimate his point might be. He finishes the sentence with "And I don’t apologize for saying so", which seems to suggest to me that he considered how some might take this comment, but still felt it appropriate to say it.
Let me be clear. I have a great deal of respect for John Stackhouse. I think he is responding to a real issue in this post. It is not my intention to single him out. Rather, I think the fact that this came from someone as widely respected as him, can help us see how easily and thoughtlessly we can casually or inappropriately reference homosexuality. Whether we are trying to be emphatic or deliberately shocking, given the current experience of most homosexuals with Christianity, this is something that we all need to stop doing.
Am I being over-sensitive? Let me know what you think.
I agree. Wanting to focus on the one topic, I brushed over the other issue you mention here. Thanks for sharing.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
to be honest, I'm not really sure what the phrase "in love with" means anyway. I don't think I actually identify with that phrase in an American context even when it comes to my husband...it actually makes me think of my teenage years more than how I feel about my marriage today.
the homo erotic creeps statement immediately made me cringe...and I agree Jamie, he clearly knew that it would offend and even cause hurt and CHOSE to use that turn of phrase anyway. IMO, that was a bad choice.
I struggle with the increased mentions of how much people are against "love song" type worship. I know Michael Frost, of whom I am a fan, pretty much has put the kibosh on all worship singing for all intensive purposes (hopefully I'll get a chance to talk with him a bit about this in October because I'm curious about it). And I have read A LOT lately from people who think worship singing is outright wrong.
On one hand, I can understand and relate but I think it's an overreaction to say that communicating passionate, emotionally charged feelings of love (or even anger, frustration, irritation, confusion...) to Jesus is wrong. We come from a history, a "story" if you will of passionate, emotionally charged communications with God, there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this point.
thanks for sharing your thoughts on this jamie - I felt some twinges of "yeah but..." and you articulated well some of my concerns. (Comment this)
Thanks for your great thoughts. It is quite interesting that this should come up now as I am studying Saint Francis. Before conversion, Francis desired above all else to be a troubadour. After conversion, rather than embrace the abandonment of culture and self-denial of traditional monasticism, he started something new. Here's an example.
At one point, Francis went into the woods, picked up two sticks, pretended to be playing on a passionate sonnet, singing to Christ, serenading Jesus, His truest love. In an unprecedented shift, he embraced the best of culture and the best of monasticism. He is honoured across traditions for his genuine worship and devotion.
It will take work and won't be easy, but I really believe it is worth it.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I couldn't disagree more. I know John was not trying to be crass, but to say that it was a genuine feeling and therefore is justified to put in such a public forum is irresponsible. He not only gave no thought on how this could alienate and offend certain people, but defended using the statement as though this was an appropriate reaction to have. He was not simply expressing an honest reaction, but stating that said reaction was only natural given the situation.
Again, this is a pastoral issue. His blog is in an unmediated public forum. If a person who lives with homosexual orientation reads this, are they going see a person owning a personal, if flawed (and be sure, it is flaw), physical reaction? Not at all, given how John wrote that sentence. Rather, they are going to read another example of a respected Christian leader "grossed out" about the idea of homosexual attraction/affection. Do you this is likely to encourage or discourage this person to seek pastoral support from other Christians? It will scare them off. I know this because I have had this very experience in my own journey with homosexuality.
So, while his use of the phrase might be permissible, it is by no means beneficial.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
i am sure i overcompensate as well for the things i am most insecure about as well. just my observation. as you may feel over-sensitive about it, so might others in different ways. (Comment this)
I think you might be right. I also see a pattern in much of Evangelicalism to overstate things as they relate to homosexuality, as it can be the litmus test for many believers. Sadly, this comes at the expense of others. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
At the risk of appearing argumentative (which I don't want to do - I really want to understand) I'd like to follow up.
Would you have the same criticism if he had said, "it makes me uncomfortable to declare that I am 'in love with' another man"? Is the problem just that he was too explicit about how uncomfortable it made him, or is any such statement off limits?
Is there a difference between being "grossed out" by something generally, and being "grossed out" by being asked to take part in that something oneself? Could a person who wishes to be pastorally sensitive say that s/he has no problem with homosexuality generally (or even biblically), but finds that thought of personal participation makes him/her (perhaps quite) uncomfortable? (Comment this)
It isn't so much an issue of it causing one to feel uncomfortable with the idea. I can understand that. It was the choice of language that showed no sensitivity to those people who DO experience that kind of attraction. Aside from the fact that he would have such a reaction reflects (on some level) his own issues, it alienates further a group of people who the church has already failed to love properly.
So, I am not so much concerned about WHAT he feels, but rather HOW he chooses to publicly say it.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
So personally i wouldn't of phrased it like that but it does throw open the potential for dialogue and self-reflection which is why it's great that you can write your post to aid in that process. Highlighting a blind spot is no bad thang. (Comment this)
I agree that this is an opportunity to dialogue, but I fear that we risk doing so at the expense of real people and real emotions. Remember, the suicide rate among homosexual teens is high, with a fair number of those coming out of Evangelicalism. We need to see how much is at stake.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
however, i disagree with stackhouse in that there is more than an overtone of marriage to christ. how is this overlooked? i absolutely disagree with him in regards to the biblical implications of the corporate church as the bride of christ. and isn't it corporately that we sing these songs?
i do love Jesus Christ. it's not everyday that i 'feel' in love with him...but i am. by choice. it's not an 'american romance' type of thing. i don't appreciate the individual center of most of worship today. however, there is a relationship here.
i believe it was irresponsible of stackhouse to use the terms he did in reference to being 'creeped out'. however, if that is how he chooses to refer to how he feels, then it explains a lot about his post and about him.
brad (Comment this)
You make some excellent points all around. Well said.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
so for jamie and many of us, to say that the comment was irresponsible is not saying that he doesn't have a right to feel "weird" about telling Jesus he's in love with him but the right to feel it doesn't give him the instant right to express that discomfort in any way he wants.
(Comment this)
Irresponsible because it is the same as condoning gay bashing. It's just done in a very sly manner. It's what a previous poster in a previous discussion was trying so desperately and passionately to get across. As long as supposedly "christian" leaders or any leaders for that matter, use these terms, gay bashing and hate crimes will not stop.
marty (Comment this)
As always, you say far more clearly what I fumble to express. Thanks.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Some might say that you are over-stating the problem, I think you make an important point. When the casual abuse of such language exists by respected leaders in public contexts, it contributes to those who would take it too far. Even if that contribution is only marginal, would anyone want that on their conscience? Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
There is nothing "real" about being purposefully offensive, particularly when there are many other ways to make the same point.
I know Prof. Stackhouse has not taken this approach, but I get a vague sense of the attitude that says, "Just be quiet and get over it already." Unfortunately, when leaders display a lack of empathy, we drive people away from Christ.
While I agree with many of his points about the state of modern worship music, I take issue with his belief that his particular views on worship, music and singing are normative for everyone. Even for a person with strongly held biblical convictions (and who wants others to come around to his point of view) it is still important to recognize that faithful followers of Christ will come to different conclusions on these kinds of matters.
Of course, it's his blog and he is free to speak in absolutes, but to me, this is not a central tenet of our faith. In this kind of discussion, phrases like "It's wrong" and "They shouldn't be" only serve to divide people into "my camp" and "your camp." (Comment this)
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I wonder if Stackhouse could imagine being in Peter's position of being pointedly asked, not just once, but three times, "Do you really LOVE me?" I don't know any 'straight' males who would ask each other that question!! Perhaps this is a cultural issue... I know that men relate on a physical level differently depending on which culture they live in (eg, in PNG straight men walk around holding hands, in Aust they slap each other on the back but would get the 'ew' factor about holding hands!!) Stackhouse seems to have the 'ew' factor happening with this kind of expression towards Christ.
Could the criticism of the "love songs to Jesus" music, written from some genuine, emotional songwriter's heart, be comparable to the criticism that Simon and the disciples leveled at Mary Magdalene for her inappropriate display of affection??? It may not be the music I would write or sing, but who am I to elevate my own choice of expression of love to God on any higher pedestal?
About Christ as bridegroom... what are your thoughts on Isaiah 54:4-7? I know women who have been through painful divorce who have found those words to be very comforting.
Peace... really appreciate your bravery :) (Comment this)
Interesting thoughts. Thanks! John did respond to my comment over at his blog and did not see any merit in my taking issue. He believes he needed to write it in that way in order for his point to be made. I hope my response helps bring clarity.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
I considered not quoting that paragraph in the post I did on Stackhouse's response to J-I-M-B songs and I probably shouldn't have. I agree that "homoerotic" line was over the top and not necessary for his argument - and I'm sorry for adding to the offense that it caused. My apologies. (Comment this)
No worries. I've dialogued with him about at his blog. In the end, he felt it was necessary and I do not. Alas! Thanks though.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)
Christopher (Comment this)
Long time no comment! Thanks for your thoughts. I agree.
Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)