The Importance of Motivation: Fourth in a Series

From the Inside-Out

I’ve written about this before on this blog, but it may well be worth repeating. For anyone who is seeking to learn more about their attractions to the same gender, or if they are having questions about their gender identity, the key factor for benefiting from any kind of counseling is their own motivation. If you go to counseling to appease someone else – a parent or guardian or someone else you look up to, or if you go because you want to be “normal,” or to find some kind of trick that will instantly make these feelings or desires or questions go away – you will likely not find counseling helpful.

Every reputable individual offering counseling – whether they are a professional counselor or spiritual leader – will know and understand this. It is a basic truth which applies to all kinds of therapy for all kinds of reasons – if an individual does not want to be there, counseling is not likely to succeed. We cannot force someone into making decisions about their spirituality or sexuality or gender, nor should we attempt to. A good counselor will ask someone about their motivations or reasons for coming to them and start there.

So what are some examples of good motivations? Curiosity – honestly wanting to learn more about yourself, what you’re experiencing, and how that relates to your faith. Or, perhaps if you already have a good understanding of your faith, wanting to learn about how to navigate life with these desires and feelings in a way that is consistent with your beliefs. Seeking contentment, peace, understanding, practical help for building good relationships with others – these are all excellent motivations.

From the Outside-In

Years ago I wrote to a network ministry organization about what outreach to young people who were struggling with same-gender attractions could look like. I suggested that counseling for parents who come with concerns about their children be mandatory, and optional for the youth. The reason was due to the primary importance of one’s own internal motivation in benefitting from any kind of counseling. It is far too common for parents to want to try to do something to get their child through or past this experience before their child really has a grasp of what it is they are experiencing. And parents will need support over the long haul in learning how to wrestle with their own temptations to control others, over their own fears and grief, and in coming to a place where they can love their child right where they are, instead of always pushing them to be someone they want them to be.

We cannot force someone to want to seek to reconcile their faith and their attractions or view of gender. Although God can give us the will to want to do so…we read about this in Ezekiel chapter 36, verses 25-27:

“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you, and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My ordinances and do them.”

It has always blown me away that the Lord will stoop so low as to move us to love Him and to follow Him. But He will do even this, and we can pray for ourselves and for those around us to be so moved by Him. Recently, I read an article by Francis Chan about his concern for his high school friend who did not know the Lord. Every time his friend would come to mind, Francis would pray for him.

Apart from God’s working, our begging someone to see the beauty of Christ is as pointless as begging a blind man to enjoy the beauty of a sunset. Do we direct our begging, first and foremost, to God?

Jesus tells us the parable about a persistent widow to remind us that we “ought always to pray and not lose heart” (Luke 18:1). There is tremendous power in perseverant prayer. God is not like us; he is not bothered by his children asking for the same thing over and over. He is pleased by the faith demonstrated when we pray and pray for someone to be saved.

When I love particular people deeply, it’s natural to persistently pray for them. I think it would actually require more effort to refrain from praying for them. My best friend in college decided that he didn’t want to follow Jesus. It broke my heart. Ken and I went our separate ways, and our lives went in opposite directions. I never stopped praying for him though — I couldn’t. Whenever Ken’s name would pop into my mind, prayer was my natural reflex.*

God can and does pull people to Him who are in the midst of living in same-gendered relationships in all kinds of circumstances…

A self-identified gay activist in a random conversation at a coffee shop.

A tenured Professor of English with a specialization in queer theory at Syracuse Univ., researching for her book critiquing the Religious Right who was invited to dinner at a pastor’s home.

A woman in a lesbian relationship while watching TV on her sofa at home.

A woman who identified as a lesbian playing softball on a church team.**

I know of examples of people whose lives were falling apart, caught up in alcohol or drug abuse or heartbroken after their same-gendered relationships had broken up – and of people whose lives seemed to have all come together in the gay relationship of their dreams, yet who felt empty inside. It doesn’t matter what your life is like…it’s possible for God to reach in and move you to leave everything behind as a result of the love of Christ.

We can walk alongside another person as they learn and make decisions about their own lives. We can be encouraging, supportive and loving, but we cannot make those decisions for them. External factors can impact our internal motivation – having someone willing to listen and be there with you in friendship and love can mean a great deal. Let us learn to reflexively pray and ask God to move our own hearts and the hearts of those around us toward Him.

 

* https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no-soul-is-too-far-gone

** Respectively:

David Bennett: https://www.eternitynews.com.au/good-news/a-gay-rights-activist-leaves-his-old-life-behind/

Rosaria Butterfield: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KbOAXxz77w

Jackie Hill Perry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=ZLAe_JBvVwg

Christine Sneeringer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPmeR28UfWY

 

Being Responsible with Statistics & Numbers…Third in a Series

In harkening back to Stan Lee’s quote, when we use our voice in the culture at large, it is important to recognize that we have a responsibility to use it well. With a feature film there is the potential for a huge audience, and tacking on a statistic like this,* which turns out to be an estimated number with an unsubstantiated insinuation that people are being held against their will in some way – that strikes me as being irresponsible.

The truth is that accurate statistics surrounding people who experience same-gender attractions or gender identity dysphoria are difficult to obtain.** In gathering data, we don’t have a uniform definition of homosexuality, nor do we have a reliable method of gathering this information – here are a few of the commonly known reasons why:

One of the major reasons for the difference in statistical findings regarding homosexuality and bisexuality has to do with the nature of the research questions…

Most of the studies listed below rely on self-report data, which poses challenges to researchers inquiring into sensitive subject matter.

More importantly, the studies tend to pose two sets of questions. One set examines self-report data of same-sex sexual experiences and attractions while the other set examines self-report data of personal identification as homosexual or bisexual. Fewer research subjects identify as homosexual or bisexual than report having had sexual experiences or attraction to a person of the same sex…

…since many individuals may fail to report outside the heterosexual norm or define their sexuality in their own unique terms, it is difficult to fully grasp the size of the LGBT population.

The type of survey being used and the type of setting a subject is in while being surveyed may also affect the answer that the subject gives.**

 

What are we measuring?

There are three components, if you will, of sexual orientation: identity, attraction, and behavior. As noted above, when we are trying to find out these numbers in a population, we need to consider what we are looking for – not everyone who has a same-gender sexual encounter, or even several encounters, considers themself to be gay or lesbian. On the other hand, if you’ve only experienced attractions to the same gender, but never identified yourself as a homosexual, or acted on those attractions, does that mean you’re not gay? If so, then can we consider sexual orientation a state of being / personhood, or is it instead something that one does or claims to be? Are we looking at a person’s behavior, attraction, and identity over the course of their lifetime, or only in their recent history?

Along with the variety of factors to consider, a person’s identity, attractions and behavior are difficult to measure. Studies typically rely on what an individual reports about themselves, with no way to verify the accuracy of what the person states.

Does this mean that we are without a clue as to how many people are considered homosexual or lesbian? No, but we need to keep in mind that our best estimates are just that – estimates.

What’s in a Name?

So as we are left without accurate knowledge of the size of the lesbian or gay population as a whole, we are also limited in knowing how many people might have sought change or resolution of their sexuality or gender in congruence with their faith.

The question of what constitutes change in one’s orientation is not well defined: Is it the complete absence of same-gender attractions, identity, and behavior, or some combination of the lessening of any of those three things? Or, is it the capacity to sustain a satisfactory heterosexual relationship with or without continued same gender attractions? Or is it the ability to find contentment in being single with or without these continued desires?

There is a question as to what terminology we may be looking for. While it is common for someone to identify themselves as gay or lesbian, there is no consistent term or label to use in a survey format to identify someone who has experienced a change in their sexual orientation. I’ve heard of the terms “ex-gay” or “post-gay” or “changed,” but these are not ubiquitous. Further complicating matters, in the last few years there has been a growing movement of individuals calling themselves “gay Christians” – which they use to identify themselves as followers of Jesus who experience same-gender attractions but choose to live celibate lives in accordance with their faith. This trend is rejected outright by many who do not wish to add a descriptive term to their identity as Christians.

There is not an adequate descriptive term that summarizes the variety of experiences that people who call themselves gay or lesbian have (each person’s identity, behavior and attractions differ) and this is all the more true for those who are turning away from their same-gender attractions as some kind of definitive state of being…who do not wish to identify themselves by their experiences.

It is hard to measure what is not defined.

Hidden Figures

Due to the continued social stigma surrounding sexuality and gender identity, which has grown more complicated in my lifetime, people who have experienced a resolution of their faith and their sexuality or gender are not usually open about it. The tendency is to blend into the heterosexual majority and never mention their past again – and this is especially true for those who are married.

Churches seldom, if ever, call for people who have had this background to step forward to share about this part of their lives. There are no parades for us, nor class reunions. And the representation of any characters in TV shows or films is practically non-existent.

Yet we are here, quietly living our lives – teaching music, serving in the military, working in health care, or as engineers, spinning tunes as the DJ at a wedding, or crunching numbers for manufacturing companies behind a desk. We are serving in hospice care or in community counseling services after a disaster strikes; looking after children as nannies or raising children in our own homes.*** Our lives are rather normal – we move forward each day without role models, we are not waiting for anyone to validate what we are experiencing or weave us into the latest cinematic blockbuster.

Always guessing…

People in the psychological, sociological, and health care fields do the best they can with the best estimates that they can find. Comparing the best studies we have, we estimate that somewhere between 2% and 5% of the population identifies as lesbian or gay. We don’t know how many people there are who have sought to leave homosexuality behind, either with counseling or without. We have some studies that have found people who have sought change at some point in their sexual orientation and who now identify as lesbian or gay, and there are some studies being done on the fluidity of sexual orientation throughout one’s lifetime, but we have no idea how many people have chosen to not act on their same-gender attractions in an effort to live in accordance to their spiritual beliefs.

Without an idea of the number of people who make up this population, we are left without the ability to know what percentage of that population is significant in any study that would be conducted about us.

For example – if there are 100,000 people who have left homosexuality behind in the US in their pursuit of a deeper relationship with Christ, and a study is conducted with 10 people within that population, the results are not as meaningful as they would be compared to a study done with 400 people. But as noted above, the number of people who make up this population is not known in the first place – we are scattered across the country, many are reluctant to be known, and there is not a rallying point in sight.

With or without solid data, there is no excuse for using numbers in a misleading statement.* It is better to be honest about what we do not know than to be irresponsible and make things up.

 

* Referring to the quote at the end of the trailer for the film, Boy, Erased, as seen on the movie’s website – please see prior post for more details.

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

*** These are all descriptions of people whom I know who have left homosexuality behind in their lives.

 

 

 

About That Statistic…Second in a Series

“77,000 people are currently being held in conversion therapy nationwide”

What are they talking about? That was my question when I saw this slowly revealed across my computer screen…what in the world are they referring to, and where did they get this number?

For the sake of those who are unfamiliar with it, “conversion therapy” is the term often used to describe any effort to help those who have unwanted attractions to the same gender or who are questioning their gender identity to find assistance seeking a either a change in their attractions or contentment with not acting on those attractions, or resolution of their gender identity with their biological one. I will come back to this term, and the variety of meanings attached to it, in a later post.

I am interested in this subject because I have experienced same-gender attractions since childhood, and found counseling in a variety of settings along the way to be very helpful. I would like others to be able to receive the same kind of help if they would like it, and I try to communicate with others about what I’ve learned – both what was helpful and what was not – whenever I have the opportunity.

In this blog I’ve written a good deal about my experiences, and if you are new here, I’d like to recommend that you read through these posts in chronological order to find more background on this part of my life.

If you’re not new here, then you most likely already know that I’m fairly familiar with organizations offering counseling in this area across the country, as well as in several places around the world. And that is a great part of the reason why I was so alarmed in reading this particular statistic: “77,000 people are being held in conversion therapy nationwide.”

“77,000 people” – where is this number coming from?

“…being held in…” – what does this mean – are people being retained in some way?

I am not familiar with any such number of people being held anywhere in regards to seeking help with their sexuality or gender identity. So, soon after reading this, I started digging to learn more. The film’s website had no reference for this statistic or quote. I clicked on the link they provided to find out more information, and could not find a reference there, either. After a Google search, I finally came across a reference through a review of the film in Slate Magazine:

“It can feel like a straight filmmaker and his mostly straight leads parachuted in to decree this issue important, while they also collect a few golden statues along the way. This, too, may not really matter if Boy Erased reaches the right audience, but with its distributor declaring, not quite correctly, that ‘77,000 people are currently being held in conversion therapy across America’ in the film’s trailers, the commodified activism here can make you a little queasy.”[1]

In clicking through to the link provided in the text, I found myself on the page of The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, where an article from Teen Vogue Magazine from earlier this was featured. In part it read:

“According to a new report from the Williams Institute, about 698,000 LGBTQ adults in the United States have received conversion therapy…An estimated 20,000 LGBTQ young people in states that don’t ban it will undergo conversion therapy from a licensed health care professional before they turn 18, and about 57,000 young people across all states will be subjected to conversion therapy from religious or spiritual advisers before age 18.”[2]

Apparently the “77,000” figure comes from the estimation that 20,000 young people will receive some kind of counseling from a licensed health care professional and 57,000 will receive some kind of counseling from a religious or spiritual advisor before they turn 18.

These numbers are estimations, not known figures and the implication that they are “being held” or retained or restrained is also unfounded in the report. The wording chosen is “subjected to” which implies that anyone under the age of 18 is being put through counseling without their consent. (I did read the report, and found numbers there were based on several other internal “unpublished reports” which used unknown methods to make these estimations, which I found frustrating to say the least.[3])

This leads me to a few areas of concern which I will expand upon in the next few posts:

1. Being responsible with statistics & numbers
2. The importance of motivation
3. Recognizing autonomy

[1] https://slate.com/culture/2018/11/boy-erased-review-movie-adaptation-gay-conversion-therapy.html

[2] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/williams-in-the-news/new-report-shows-77000-young-lgbtq-people-will-subjected-conversion-therapy/

[3] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Conversion-Therapy-LGBT-Youth-Jan-2018.pdf

 

“With great power comes great responsibility.” ~ Stan Lee

Some time last year, or maybe longer, I remember reading about a film that was being made. It was to have a stellar cast – Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe – and was being put together with the kind of professional production one would expect to come alongside such talent. I first heard about it through someone I’m connected to here on Facebook who was going to be portrayed in the movie. He was excited, of course, but also wondered about how he might be characterized. I remember adding my two cents – that often the story is turned to serve the arc of the film, and people and events can be misconstrued in order to create drama or humor or whatever is needed to make the scenes flow together well.

Fast forward to last week. I was having a conversation with a friend of mine, and this particular film came up. It was the note of concern in my friend’s voice that caused me to look into it further, and I was startled by what I learned…no wonder she was apprehensive.

“77,000 people are currently being held in conversion therapy nationwide”

This is featured at the end of the trailer for the movie “Boy Erased” on the film’s web site.

This statistic is not true.

Unfortunately, I found a number of other things that were not truthful in connection to this movie, which is based on a memoir written by Gerrard Conley with the same title. To be clear, I understand the common practice of taking license with a person’s story in this genre – changing the actual truth to portray an emotion needed to enhance the storyline within a two-hour window happens all the time. This is not the fault of the actors, nor Mr. Conley who wrote his original story, nor the real people portrayed in it – but a film, especially one such as this, leaves an impression, and can leave the wrong impression with a large number of people. With great power comes great responsibility.

This is the first of a series of posts on this film in which I will share what I’ve learned that concerned me, and I hope this will prove to be helpful for anyone who has an interest in learning more.

Dietrich von Hildebrand, Part II

Christians are distinguished by our belief in the supernatural. Christians in America, however, far too often forget that we are also supernational.  In part II of our series on the life and insights of Dietrich von Hildebrand, we will take a closer look into how the awareness of our supranationalism can protect us from falling for the false idol of nationalism.

Having served as an assistant to a surgeon in Germany during WWI, Dietrich von Hildebrand experienced the political turmoil within his country in the wake of their defeat. While we can only look back on this time in history with a clear view of Hitler as a demagogue who brought turmoil across Europe and the world, those who lived through his rise to office did not have that advantage. Early on, Hitler did not look like the Hitler we now know. But Dietrich quickly saw through his schemes to what would become a destructive course of action by this man, and became a vocal opponent of Hitlerism. As many people, even Christians, missed these early signs and eventually allowed Hitler to rise to power, it is good for us to learn from what Dietrich was able to discern.

During his collegiate studies, he met Philosophy Professor Max Scheler, whose thoughts and life influenced Dietrich in becoming a Christian. Their talks also opened Dietrich’s mind to the underlying flaws in utopian visions of government:

“Through his discussions with Scheler, he now perceived clearly the danger of an earthly messianism and of the shallow (but tempting) belief that state laws can bring about a transformation of this earth and solve all its problems. It became clear to him that this transformation can be accomplished only through the purification of every single individual, a purification that, as he saw more and more clearly as time went by, can be achieved only by grace…”*** pg 75

Although a young believer, Dietrich had a keen mind, and along with his studies in philosophy he was able to separate the grand promises from the depraved idealism which Hitler was promoting in Germany in the early 1920’s.

“From the outset of the Nazi movement, he had perceived not only its insanity (for the racist principles on which Nazism was based were obviously without foundation), but also its insidious malignity. The Nazi movement was thoroughly perverse, and it incorporated an ani-Christian ethos, which he opposed with his every skill. It was not a question of ‘right’ or ‘left.’ It was a question of truth versus error; goodness verses crime and corruption.”*** pg 194

Hitler made many appeals to the struggling country’s desire to restore the glory of Germany. He used impassioned speeches to build up a vision of a racially superior Aryan population which deserved to take over power from the rest of Europe.

“We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”  (As quoted in A History of National Socialism, Konrad Heiden, A. A. Knopf [1935] p. 100)

“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.”  Adolf Hitler (https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler.html)

Yet von Hildebrand saw that the solicitation of racism and of nationalism among Christians made no sense:

“Since his conversion, Dietrich had found it difficult to understand how people who have been privileged to receive the plenitude of revealed truth could be so tepid, so impressed by ‘public opinion,’ so infected by nationalism. To be a Catholic was, to his mind, to live in a continual state of gratitude for the unmerited gifts of faith, the sacraments, and the guidance of Holy Church. To be a Catholic meant to see ‘temporal events in the light of eternity.’ To be a Catholic meant to keep in mind a hierarchy of values – never to allow earthly concerns to overshadow the faith.

How could one be a nationalist when the Church was so gloriously supranationalist? Dietrich himself felt much closer to a pious and faithful Italian or Frenchman than to a German whose religious views were either crippled or non-existent.

Dietrich often gave expression to this grief, the intensity of which was to increase during the 1920’s. Discovering how many otherwise good people had been infected by totalitarian views (which they did not recognize as such), he decided to write a new work in order to shed light on the Catholic view of the relationship between the individual and the community. It was to develop into an important work, one on which Siegfried Hamburger collaborated closely – Metaphysics of Community. This book offered Germany an antidote to the poison spreading throughout the country, namely, the glorification of the state and the metaphysical denigration of the individual.”*** pg 226-7

Shortly after the publication of this book, Dietrich had the opportunity to speak at a conference. The title of his talk was, “Individual and Community.”

“It proved convincingly that any attempt to create community at the expense of the individual person was not only radically erroneous but would lead necessarily to a complete misunderstanding of the very nature of community.” It pointed to the horror of both anti-personalism and totalitarianism and to the incompatibility of these ideologies with Roman Catholicism. It unmasked errors rampant in certain Hegelian formulation that placed the state above the individual, and forcefully argued that the opposite is true. Not only does the individual – rather than the community – deserve to be called a ‘substance,’ in the fullest sense of the term, but only he has an immortal soul destined to an eternal union with God, whereas all human communities will one day disappear with the end of the world. On the other hand, Dietrich emphasized the dignity and value of a true community, thereby also condemning liberal individualism.”*** pg 228-9

totalitarian:

of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.*****

Just this past week, Dr. Mark Yarhouse, Professor of Psychology at Regent University posted on his Facebook page the following quote from the Epistle to Diognetus (written sometime between 130 A.D. and late 2nd c.), which contains a description of some of the earliest Christians:

“Christians are not distinguished from the rest of humanity by country, language, or custom. For nowhere do they live in cities of their own, nor do they speak some unusual dialect, nor do they practice an eccentric lifestyle….While they live in both Greek and barbarian cities, as each one’s lot was cast, and follow the local customs in dress and food and other aspects of life, at the same time they demonstrate the remarkable and admittedly unusual character of their own citizenship.

They live in their own countries, but only as aliens; they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland is foreign. They marry like everyone else, and have children, but they do not expose their offspring. They share their food but not their wives. They are ‘in the flesh,’ but do not live ‘according to the flesh.’ They live on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws; indeed in their private lives they transcend the laws.” (Chapter 5)

Nationalism puts false confines around who we are as followers of Christ. The Lord operates across all boundaries to reach into the lives of individuals – He respects no boarders. He is a supranational God. When we become Christians, we become inhabitants of a new Kingdom, and are expatriates from the very land on which we stand. We bring the “admittedly unusual character” of our own citizenship with us wherever we go.

John Mark Yeats, in his article “A Question of (Alt) Right and Wrong,” puts it this way in regards to racial divisions:

“But this concept is often missed by many in America. The Gospel destroys our broken and sinful concepts of race! Jesus’ victory on the cross ended the hostility between Jew/Greek, male/female, black/white/Hispanic/Asian. It doesn’t erase our ethnic heritage or unique attributes – this is not an ‘I don’t see race’ proclamation. Instead, it is a new vision that despite these differences, we are placed into a new family where we become one because of Christ.

Can you imagine the powerful image of a room full of people from every nation, every socio-economic bracket and every generation crying out to God? This is when we begin to defy expectations since there is no other reason for all of us to gather save for the shared hope we have in Christ! The early church recognized this reality and even referred to themselves as the ‘third race.’ They still came from places of difference, but willingly abandoned those cultural markers to embrace an identity in Christ Alone!”****

Alice von Hildebrand points out in her biography of Dietrich that, “Von Hildebrand always made a sharp distinction between ‘patriotism’ (a legitimate love for one’s country) and ‘nationalism’ (an illegitimate feeling – an expression of a person’s inflated ego.)”*** note on pg 241 He saw that the answer was not to disparage Germany, but to protect it from the abhorrent madness Hitler was rapidly bringing with his rise to power:

“[Dietrich and his new friend Klaus Dohrn]…saw that it [Nazi ideology] was waging war on what was best and noblest in Germany. Hitler was the country’s deadliest enemy. To love Germany and hate Hitlerism were two facets of the same thing. Both men agreed that a true German patriot had to do everything in his power to oppose this evil and liberate his country.”*** pg 251-2

Indeed, there is a place for patriotism, but it is a conception which thrives only when brought under the reign and authority of our eternal King and when we measure our country by the standard of His Kingdom. Without care, the fondness one has for their homeland can become misplaced worship. Tucked away in the conclusion to C.S. Lewis’ sermon, “The Weight of Glory,” is a reminder of the temporary nature of all countries:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, and civilization — these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals that we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit — immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously—no flippancy, no superiority, and no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner — no mere tolerance or indulgence, which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbor he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat —the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.”

C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory” – First given at Oxford University Church of St. Mary the Virgin, June 8, 1941 (Emphasis mine.)

No earthly nation will achieve eternal redemption, and no civilization will surpass the Kingdom. Being a citizen of a good society will not save us, but the salvation found when we put our faith in Jesus will bring each of us into a transcendent Godly society that will never end.

***Alice von Hildebrand, The Soul of a Lion (page references in the text above)

****http://ftc.co/resource-library/blog-entries/a-question-of-alt-right-and-wrong?utm_content=buffereeeb0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

*****Apple dictionary

Dietrich Von Hildebrand – Part I

This is the first of a three-part series on the life of Dietrich von Hildebrand.  I wanted to post this in conjunction with the new administration, in hopes that there may be some insights for Christians to gain from his life during these days.

My ancestry is German, and over the years I’ve avoided looking further into my family’s history due to the ugliness of Nazism in that country. However, after reading about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in Eric Metaxas’ wonderful Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, I’ve bucked up my courage to read more about Germany and the cultural riches it has shared with the world.

To that end, at the beginning of this year on a trip my husband and I took to camp and kayak, I brought along the biography of another Dietrich – Dietrich von Hildebrand*. In The Soul of a Lion, written by his widow, Alice von Hildebrand, I was captivated by the insightful look at this man and the time in which he lived.

“Born [on Oct. 12, 1889] and raised in Florence, in the Kingdom of Italy, Hildebrand grew up in a German household, the son of sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand and Irene Schäuffelen, who lived in a former Minim friary. He received his early education from private tutors. Although raised in a home without religion, Hildebrand developed a deep belief in Jesus at a very young age.^”*

The composer Richard Strauss** visited his parents day before he was born. Throughout his youth, Dietrich was surrounded by beauty and great artists from around Europe:

“Nothing tasteless, let alone vulgar or ugly, was permitted to enter San Francesco [the family home.] Fashion magazines were forbidden. Only classical music resounded through its halls. Adolf Hildbrand was a passionate player of chamber music; his wife and daughters sang and played the piano or the violin. …as Adolf’s reputation [as a sculptor], the great artists and thinkers of the day began flocking to San Francesco.”*** pg 30-31

Poets, politicians, theologians, novelists, and artists such as Herman Levi, Conrad Fiedler, Felix Mottl, Britain’s Prime Minister William Gladstone, Henry James, Franz Liszt, Isolde Kurz, Rudolf Otto, Hugo von Hofmannstahl, Rainer Maria Rilke, Hippolyte Jean Giradoux, Richard Wagner and his wife, Cosima, all were guests in their home. *** pg 31

With this unique upbringing, Dietrich was able to give an articulate perspective on beauty, a subject which interested him throughout his life:

“It was no wonder that the first public lecture Dietrich gave, at the age of seventeen, was on aesthetics, and that he was still writing about the subject in his eighties, when he composed two large volumes on this topic. In this work, von Hildebrand distinguishes sharply between luxury and beauty – a confusion so widespread in our society. In San Francesco…beauty and authentic culture reigned supreme.”*** pg 34

I’ve purchased a copy of Dietrich’s work Aesthetics, and I’m looking forward to reading it. Here is a quote from the forward of Volume I of that book:

“Dietrich von Hildebrand understood the centrality of beauty not merely to art but to philosophy, theology, and ethics. In his ambitious and comprehensive Aesthetics, now translated into English for the first time, Hildebrand rehabilitates the concept of beauty as an objective rather and purely subjective phenomenon. His systematic account renews the Classical and Christian vision of beauty as a reliable mode of perception that leads humanity toward the true, the good, and ultimately the divine. There is no more important issue in our culture–sacred or secular–than the restoration of beauty. And there is no better place to start this urgent enterprise than Dietrich von Hildebrand’s Aesthetics.” ~Dana Gioia, From the Foreword

In my travels, I’ve been blessed to come across many beautiful sights, and have stayed in some stunning places.  I’m intrigued by the distinction between luxury and beauty – as I’ve often found the simplest of things to be far more comforting than gaudy excess.  A tent nestled below a rocky cliff and open to an alpine lake can be more magnificent than a palace.

Von Hildebrand studied philosophy at University of Munich and earned his doctorate at the University of Göttingen. In 1914, he became a Christian in the Catholic Church, and eventually worked as an assistant professor of Philosophy at the University of Munich.

“Dietrich knew full well that this passion for the supernatural could jeopardize his philosophical career. Even in Catholic Bavaria, it was neither scholarly nor ‘professional’ to hint at the reality of the supernatural on ‘sacred’ university grounds….He firmly decided not to conform to secularist norms….He certainly intended to teach philosophy and not theology, but it was to be a philosophy open to a higher reality, not a philosophy systematically cut off from it. He knew that faith not only did not contradict reason but transcended it. It also shed light on ‘sensitive’ domains of human reason obscured by sin.”*** pg 140

In Part II, we will learn more about how von Hildebrand’s faith helped him to expose the evil falsehoods of Nazism.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_von_Hildebrand

**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Strauss

***Alice von Hildebrand, The Soul of a Lion (page references in the text above)

Keeping Sin in Perspective

This post by Matt Moore was timely in the wake of Kim Burrell’s statements earlier this week. Matt shares his thoughts on feeling that homosexuality was somehow different than any other sin, and how that mindset can undermine the potential for growth in one’s relationship to Jesus:

http://www.moorematt.org/not-an-anomaly/

This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

The title of this post is a bit misleading – it actually should read more along the lines of “This is why we cannot have meaningful relationships and conversations.”

Earlier this week, singer Kim Burrell in a video, predicted that homosexuality and those “who play with it in God’s house will die in 2017.” She also spoke about “the perverted homosexual spirit” in her sermon. (She has since stated that her comments were taken out of the context of her message, and that she holds no hatred for gays or lesbians.) The comments made in her original video came to the attention of Ellen DeGeneres, who cancelled Kim Burrell’s upcoming scheduled appearance on her show.

And I don’t blame her (DeGeneres) for taking that step.

Once again, someone who is a follower of Christ was found to take homosexuality out of the greater context of Scripture and twist it into a something unrecognizable. Predicting the death of anyone in this or any other year is beyond the pay grade of any disciple of Jesus.

I believe that there are several reasons behind this type of thinking:

1. Bad teaching.
2. Resentment
3. A Lack of Discussion Regarding Sexuality in the Church

Let’s take a closer look at these…

1. Bad Teaching

At this point in the history of the church, there really is no excuse for this. There are more resources available than there have ever been. (You can find a list of some of them under the “Resources” tab of this blog.) For Kim Burrell to have said these things, it seems that she has spent little time in understanding how homosexuality is addressed in Scripture, and how God works in the lives of those who have experienced same-sex attractions, or any other sin for that matter.

Singer and songwriter Keith Green once said, “This generation of Christians is responsible for this generation of souls on the earth!” We have a responsibility to learn about the issues our culture is concerned with today in order to reach the souls of those around us with the Gospel.

2. Resentment

Sometimes it seems as though Christians speak out recklessly in regards to homosexuality in particular because of a resentment of the wider cultural acceptance of those who identify as gay or lesbian. It is as if lashing out with words you would never hear applied to any other sin is done in a terribly misguided effort to take back ground in some way.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog, I’m thankful that people are able to be more open about their same-sex attractions in our culture – I don’t want to go back to where we were. It is good for people to be able to walk down the street without being afraid of getting beat up. It’s good for people to be able to go about their days at work or running errands on eating meals with friends without harassment. It was not a good thing to treat homosexuality as a cultural taboo.

Christians always walk in two worlds – we live here on earth as citizens of another Kingdom. It makes no sense to waste time railing against our status as expatriates. This world is not our home, and we have the privilege of showing those around us what it is like to live a life of freedom and love in Christ. When others see His love in us, they will want to join in the call to know and glorify God.

3. A Lack of Discussion Regarding Sexuality in the Church

“Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” Colossians 4:5-6

Kim Burrell lost her opportunity to meet Ellen DeGeneres, to appear on her show, and to have any kind of conversation or build any kind of relationship with her because she chose to pick out homosexuality as a sin deserving some kind of special punishment from God. Her theology was wrong, and it will take some time and effort to ever have that kind of opportunity come her way again (if ever.)

Without discussions about sexuality – whether about homosexuality or heterosexuality – within the church, room is created for bad teaching and resentment to build, instead of wisdom and contentment in Christ. Too often people are afraid to bring up the subject in a Sunday School class or Bible study, and their conversations end up being seasoned with flamethrowers instead of salt.

Salt is known to be one of the basic human tastes. (The others are sweet, bitter, sour and savory.) According to Wikipedia:

“As taste senses both harmful and beneficial things, all basic tastes are classified as either aversive or appetitive, depending upon the effect the things they sense have on our bodies. Sweetness helps to identify energy-rich foods, while bitterness serves as a warning sign of poisons.

According to Lindemann, both salt and sour taste mechanisms detect, in different ways, the presence of sodium chloride (salt) in the mouth, however, acids are also detected and perceived as sour.

The detection of salt is important to many organisms, but specifically mammals, as it serves a critical role in ion and water homeostasis in the body. Because of this, salt elicits a pleasant taste in most humans.

Sour and salt tastes can be pleasant in small quantities, but in larger quantities become more and more unpleasant to taste.”*

I’ve made the mistake of adding too much salt in recipes, and the results were inedible. When we fail to use wisdom and discernment in our conversations, we make relationships with people who don’t know Jesus unpalatable. (Now, of course, we know that some people may find the message of the Gospel hard to digest – but that is not what is happening in this example with Kim Burrell.) We need to spend time learning within our fellowship groups how to address questions surrounding sexuality in a Biblically sound and compassionate way. I believe that Kim’s words would have been different if she had spoken to other mature Christians first.

Here are some suggestions:

Invest some time in learning more about what the Lord has to say about our sexuality in general, as well as about homosexuality. (Again some excellent resources are listed on the Resources tab of this blog.)

Spend some time listening to those who have experienced same-sex attractions. Ask questions just to gain insight into the perspective of other people.

Find other Christians who are interested in learning more about how to reach out to people around them who are involved in the LGBT community, and talk about your concerns and questions. Invite someone to come speak to your small group on the topic, and ask your church staff for more teaching to be made available so you can ask your questions within the Body of Christ.

There are ways to speak about sexuality without alienating people – and those conversations are best when they are earned. We need to be involved in serving everyone around us, and being ready to give thoughtful (not bland), graceful answers when opportunities do arise. Here is one example that I thought was very good – you may recall that there was an article raising a controversy about Chip and Joanna Gaines late last year, where it was noted that they attend a church in which the pastor has addressed homosexuality as a sin. Just this week, Chip has posted the following response on his blog…it is well worth taking your time to read:

https://magnoliamarket.com/chips-new-years-revelation/

Instead of decrying the state of being attacked and misunderstood, Chip Gaines has asked us all to raise the level of the conversation. He asks us to be considerate of one another and give one another breathing room. It is possible to lovingly disagree and work alongside each other in a community. Let us look for opportunities to do that in this new year.

 

 

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste#Basic_tastes

Prepare to be Misunderstood…Again

It’s still difficult for me to grasp – Donald Trump is going to be our next President.  Of the United States.  Of the choices running for office, I favored Bernie Sanders.  I was going to vote for him in protest against the way that the two-party system has failed to represent the middle class, forming an oligarchy rather than a democracy…until Donald Trump actually won the Republican nomination.  Then I was one of the apparently few Christians who voted for Hillary Clinton on Nov. 8th.  In vain, as I live in a state that Trump dominated during the election, but at least I can sleep a little better knowing that I personally did not contribute to this vile man gaining power.

So here we are…and I’m sad and quite concerned about a number of things with Trump coming into office.  First is his willful denial of the existence and impact of climate change on our planet.  Our nation is already moving so slowly in response to this threat, and we are running out of time to make the changes that are needed to provide a sustainable place for all of us to live.  [For more information on things you can do to help, I recommend the following:  350.org, CCL, Katharine Hayhoe.]

Second, I’m concerned about how the church will respond.  Putting false hope in the office of the President, and on national laws / political platforms rather than our calling to personal holiness can have a corrosive effect on our faith.  I’m afraid that is, at least in part, what has led so many believers to vote for Trump in the first place.  We are warned many times in Scripture not to look for power outside of the Almighty, but time and again we fall for the same thing.

“Some trust in chariots and some in horses,
but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.”
Psalm 20:7

I’m not saying that we should not look for Godly men or women to serve in our government – by all means we should!  But Trump has made it clear that he is not a Godly man, and that he is not out to serve anyone but himself.  Narcissists in power do not make good leaders.

Third, and more in tune with the overall topic of this blog, I’m concerned about being misunderstood – actually – continuing to be misunderstood*.  In truth, people like myself who have spent years wrestling with our faith and out sexuality, and who have chosen to follow the Lord in setting aside our same-sex desires for His sake – we’ve never really been understood by the culture at large, nor truly integrated into the church in a healthy way.

This morning a headline caught my eye:  “Rachel Maddow chokes up describing Mike Pence’s anti-LGBT policies.”  I’ve never watched Rachel Maddow’s show, principally due to not having a cable subscription.  Whenever I have seen clips of her speaking, however, she has come across to me as someone who is fair minded.  So I wanted to learn more about her concerns regarding our Vice-President elect.

Maddow went on to describe some of the anti-LGBTQ policies Pence has promoted.

“Mike Pence said you should not only take away money from HIV and AIDS programs, he said AIDS funding should be taken away from serving people with HIV and AIDS,” she said, “because instead it should be diverted into government-funded programs designed to cure people from being gay, to try to fix gay people.”

On Pence’s 2000 campaign website, he advocated for spending public funds promoting the broadly debunked practice of attempting to change a person’s sexually orientation from gay or bisexual to straight.

“Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior,” he wrote at the time.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/watch-rachel-maddow-chokes-describing-mike-pences-anti-lgbt-policies/

Well, great – that makes a lot of sense.  (For me to be fair, I’ve not fact-checked this.  It is possible that Pence is being misunderstood, but Maddow isn’t the kind of person to promote hype, so I’m going to suspect it’s true.)  Yet, the fact that some people who have sought change in their orientation who are also HIV+ seems to have slipped through the minds of both Maddow and Pence.  I’m sure people who are HIV+ would like to remain alive, regardless of their sexual orientation, and I’ve never seen anyone involved in any type of Christian outreach to the LGBT population propose that any government funds be directed their way.  Let me repeat that last part – I have never seen anyone in Christian outreach to the LGBT population ask for government resources, including funds, to support their efforts.  The separation of church and state, in this sense, is a good thing.

And here is where the concern with Pence lies – I don’t want to be lumped in with him and those who don’t quite seem to understand the good experience I and others have had in seeking to submit our sexuality to the Lordship of Christ.  It’s not a good idea to divert funds away from HIV & AIDS programs, and it’s not a good idea to have the government fund the type of counseling I received.  It would be nice to see that counseling for those who want to explore the potential for fluidity in their sexual orientation not be outlawed, as it preserves the right of self-determination.  But preserving and protecting this right and supplying funding are two different things.

Sigh…

The good news is that there continue to be more and more articulate individuals coming forward who are being heard who can help to foster better understanding of the complicated issues surrounding homosexuality.  And that is how I see myself, and my experience – I hope and pray that the story of my experiences will help to understand a bit more of the mystery of human sexuality.  I hope it will spur on better questions and cause people to think and look more deeply into their own lives.  I hope that by speaking out eventually well-meaning people like Pence won’t make such terrible suggestions, and fair-minded people like Maddow won’t be so upset.

So we’ll press on, continuing to share what we’ve learned, in the hopes that eventually, we won’t be quite so misunderstood.  May we listen well, serve much, and earn the opportunity to be heard in the days to come.

 

 

*These are most certainly not my only concerns about the upcoming Trump presidency – his narcissistic character, poor choice of advisors, appeals to the base racist elements running through our country, etc. are all terrible.  There are too many concerns to cover in a blog post, actually.

 

For Parents

What do you say when one of your kids “comes out” to you as gay or lesbian?

Here are some thoughtful things to consider:

12 Vital Things for Parents to Say to Their Gay Child