"We're ALL sinners." Yes, but you left the best part out.

Recently I have heard the oft-repeated rhetoric from Christian sisters and brothers--"we are all sinners." It is used in a sinister way, though the person saying it doesn't always realize it (sometimes they do). Here's how the rhetoric sounds: "I will welcome gay people into my church even though they are sinners, because, well, we are ALL sinners."  (Sorry about gay-ing everything up these days...it seems to be the talk of the town in Christian circles...or maybe everyone just wants to talk to me about it. Can't imagine why.)  It is usually accompanied by a convenient list: "Gluttony is a sin just like homosexuality...and murder...and adultery...and fornication." And is often followed by an explanation "I'm a sinner, but I ask forgiveness." Here's the translation--yes, we're all sinners, but I recognize that I'm a sinner for eating too many potato chips and you're an unrepentant sinner trying to force your agenda on me of making me accept your sin and you're entire life and relationships and who you are as a person and declare it ok...we'll welcome you, so long as you know it's because we welcome all despised sinners and we all hope they'll become the better class of Christians like us who ask forgiveness for our sins. Amen. And hallelujah for "grace."

The next time you are tempted to use that rhetoric, just replace the word "sinner" with "Saint."  Because we are all Saints too...and therein lies the problem of all the "equally awful" talk.  Even though you are in error, I believe, to think that the Bible has given a universal and timeless condemnation of gay people (and possibly other groups), you are right to say we are all sinners.  What you think makes me or my sister or brother a sinner is really irrelevant (to me...not to you, I know).  Because, really, the other truth that is coupled with that statement so readily asserted in times of disagreement about the very nature of "sin," is that we are all Saints.

This month, the epistle readings in the lectionary have been from Galatians.  Paul has a lot to say about the law and faith.  When you say "we're all sinners" and what you mean to do is to label and condemn someone in order to "help" them, you are setting yourself up as a lawkeeper.  Good luck with that.  "I suspect you would never intend this, but this is what happens. When you attempt to live by your own religious plans and projects, you are cut off from Christ, you fall out of grace. Meanwhile we expectantly wait for a satisfying relationship with the Spirit. For in Christ, neither our most conscientious religion nor disregard of religion amounts to anything. What matters is something far more interior: faith expressed in love." (Galatians 5:4-6, The Message).  I won't belabor the point, but Paul basically says that Jesus doesn't really care if we are "good Christians" or not...discuss amongst yourselves.

No one needs you or me to tell them that we are all sinners.  We all see the brokenness in this world and in our lives...the law preaches itself.  I see that brokenness when I hear the words we hurl at each other, doing each other "favors" by making sure that woman knows she'll never be able to lead in church because she's the wrong gender, and that homosexual will never be used in ministry until s/he stops having sex and lies about who s/he is (for most people it's mostly about the sex part...the church historically is obsessed with sex which accounts for many dark stories in church history and contemporary church history).  We take God's name in vain when we say these things, and we ignore the real need of humanity.  We all know there's brokenness...we all know we hurt each other (though some of us fail to recognize it in many instances)...we know we're all sinners.  What keeps us from being made whole as individuals and what keeps us from being one as a body of Christ, is that we refuse to believe that we are all Saints.  We refuse to believe grace is that audacious, that transforming, that freeing.  We refuse to believe that the Spirit alone is enough and we fear stepping aside as gate keepers of the Divine.  We accuse other sects of refusing to be people of grace and point to our "gracious" reception of these "sinners" in whatever capacity we think we are welcoming "all ye sinners"--but we are just like those "more unloving" groups. Why?  Because, when we are so quick to group ourselves in with all the sinners and then just as quick to draw another circle just narrow enough to include us and exclude the others, we preach the real truth of what we are saying "Yes, we are all sinners, but we are NOT all Saints.  I am a Saint...and you are not."  We then usually blame God or the Bible for that..."sorry, I think it's crazy too...don't hate me--hate God.  He's the one that said it" (and God is almost invariably male in these discussions...just saying).

"Now, in these last sentences, I want to emphasize in the bold scrawls of my personal handwriting the immense importance of what I have written to you. These people who are attempting to force the ways of circumcision on you have only one motive: They want an easy way to look good before others, lacking the courage to live by a faith that shares Christ’s suffering and death. All their talk about the law is gas. They themselves don’t keep the law! And they are highly selective in the laws they do observe. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast of their success in recruiting you to their side. That is contemptible! For my part, I am going to boast about nothing but the Cross of our Master, Jesus Christ. Because of that Cross, I have been crucified in relation to the world, set free from the stifling atmosphere of pleasing others and fitting into the little patterns that they dictate. Can’t you see the central issue in all this? It is not what you and I do—submit to circumcision, reject circumcision. It is what God is doing, and he is creating something totally new, a free life! All who walk by this standard are the true Israel of God—his chosen people. Peace and mercy on them!" (Gal. 6:11-16, The Message)

When we come to the Lord's table, we really are what we eat.  The invitation goes out into all the world in the words of Hart's great Calvinist hymn of grace..."Come ye, sinners, poor and needy."  Those who have found Christ at God's banquet table, in lowly gifts of bread and wine, echo back the refrain in the words of the hymn of the Mormon pioneers "Come, come, ye saints."  Yes, we are all sinners...but, you left the best part out. We are all saints. Or, as Paul puts it to the uncircumcised Galatian sinners, "But now you have arrived at your destination: By faith in Christ you are in direct relationship with God. Your baptism in Christ was not just washing you up for a fresh start. It also involved dressing you in an adult faith wardrobe—Christ’s life, the fulfillment of God’s original promise." (Gal. 3:25-27, The Message, emphasis mine)

When Holy Conversation Isn't Holy

Monday night, the Northeast Area of the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ in the Southwest held a forum concerning the new resolution to be presented at the General Assembly of the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ.  It was the first time any discussion concerning welcoming gay and lesbian Christians into our churches had been held at the Area level, as far as I know.  We were asked by our Area Minister to host the event at our church--the only Open and Affirming church in the NEA and one of the only officially O&A Christian churches in East Texas.  We invited our church members to attend, in hopes that our story would help others who are struggling with what we've already dealt with, over a year ago.  Many of our church members, some in the LGBT community (including myself) and some of our youth, attended.

We gathered together and were told that we would have holy conversation.

That is not what happened in most cases.  Instead, what I witnessed was the kind of spiritual violence I thought I had left behind when I left the dogmatic conservative, fundamentalist, Baptists.  We were told that we are Disciples and that we could disagree without being disagreeable.  This isn't true for some Disciples and that was evident.  There was a lot of talking.  There was little conversation.  And very little holiness.  I was hurt, disappointed, and angry.

As a result, I have reflected on our meeting and have come up with a list of sorts. Our event failed because of a lack of leadership, planning, and accountability.  The spiritual violence CAN be avoided--even with a hot-button topic.  (And I would point out that the topic is really only this hot and controversial in the church...the rest of the nation looks at us with the same dismissive attitude as it does all the other archaic institutions that have ceased being relevant...take note, those who bemoan the decline in church attendance.) If we choose not to avoid that violence, we can have unholy conversations...

How to have UNholy conversations

(What we did wrong on Monday night)

1.  Do not ask the only O&A church who has experience with these discussions for input or involve them in planning.  The event itself was planned about 2 weeks ahead of the meeting.  Our church was asked immediately to host the event and we agreed, even though we thought this was an awfully late time to be planning the first discussion when the GA was only 4 weeks away.  What the motivation for the timing was, if there was any, we were not told.  We discussed a good time for the event when our church building would be available and set the date for July 1st in the evening.  That was the end of our participation in the days leading up to the event.  Afterwards, when I was expressing my disgust with aspects of the event with its leaders, one said "do you think that you guys could help us figure out how to do this better?"  "Yes," I replied, "We were not asked."  Asking for input from the only people who have actually been through this process would have been a wise move.  But we were not asked.  And we became victims.

2.  Do not have an agenda for the meeting and have no defined goals other than "having a conversation."  If there was an informal schedule, we were not told what it was.  We were handed a packet of information that included "Holy Manners for Conversation" (rules for discussion), a page explaining how a resolution comes to the GA, a copy of the resolution, and Frequently Asked Questions.  The FAQ included questions that were particularly offensive to me.  One that it asked was "Will we have to call openly gay and lesbian clergy to our church?"  Yes, if this non-binding sense-of-the-assembly resolution passes, every autonomous congregation of the DOC will be required to have a gay or lesbian minister...or at least have their straight male minister cross-dress once a month.  Really?  This is the best we can do?  THESE are the pressing questions we want to put before our people in the first conversation?  That communicated a lot to me about how the meeting would go.  This was about politics.  This was about easing the tension for the already vociferously loud voices that didn't want gay people affirmed in their church...and didn't want that kind of affirmation, already absent from their congregation, to be associated with them in ANY way.  And our leadership encouraged it...just by the pamphlet they passed out. It was shameful.  We weren't told what the goal was.  We were told "we hope this will be the first of many conversations."  To what end?  I believe the real goal was to appease disaffected people..."don't worry--you can continue to marginalize people if your church wants to...this conversation is just about a resolution and why it doesn't matter to you...but here's your chance to weigh in for or against it."  I hope I am wrong.

3.  Do not provide beforehand the agenda or the questions to be discussed.  There were refreshments, there were nametags, there were people talking.  But what I saw lacking was real hospitality.  Hospitality is intentional, and isn't the same things as "friendliness" (although that was lacking in some corners too).  Oh, we had rules.  Some of them didn't make sense to me (confidentiality?  I'm breaking that one in this blog in obedience to my baptismal vows to call out injustice and work against it.  What exactly were we going to say that couldn't be repeated?  And why?).  We spent 45 minutes talking about resolution procedures and the rules of how to have holy conversation.  But we never talked about what that holy conversation was supposed to do.  We never talked about how this really could make a difference in our area or in our churches (we talked about what it, don't worry folks, would NOT do if it passed).  We were afraid to talk about it.  Because there are people who don't want anything different.  They are afraid and so, I suppose, we're too afraid as well.  None of the discussion questions were emailed out.  The "manners for holy conversation" were emailed...only that morning...but there was no indication of what questions we would be asked to speak to.  As a result, our church came with personal testimony...with stories of how being in a church that was open and affirming to all God's children had changed our lives...all our lives; straight, GLBT, and everything in-between.  And others came with their own agendas. No one had been told what we would be asked, so others came with only their opinions about the resolution, inasfar as they understood it, and all their fears about affirming gay people, which would remain unquestioned (except for the fears about how this resolution might affect their church's current marginalizing policy).  And when you come with a strong opinion about just an issue, and no one tells you that what we will be discussing is PEOPLE and what it means to be church, then you can't very well be expected to switch gears in the 5 seconds you get to read what our "discussion questions" are for the first time.  Which leads me to the next point...

4. Write vague questions that do not communicate the goal of the discussion, and do not ask for clearly defined dialogue about the various facets of the matter considered.  The questions we had to guide our small group discussions were questions like "What do you like most about being in the Christian Church, DOC?"  "How do you hope we will approach controversial issues?"  And then, "How do you see the passage of this resolution affecting your church and the denomination?"  The problem with these questions is that they are vague...not just open-ended, but without a clear direction for the conversation.  It doesn't ask anything about the meat of the resolution.  How can we discuss a resolution without discussing the people involved and affected?  No, what I see communicated here is a concern for the politics of the church, not the people of the church.  I see a dodging of the real issues, for fear that it might be too controversial.  The problem with that approach is that the issue is already controversial.  My area minister even told me that she already knew there were angry people in the NEA that were concerned about this resolution...why were the questions not written to promote dialogue between these angry people and the marginalized people who are ACTUALLY affected by the resolution?  It is like going to a discussion about marriage equality and the questions on the table are "how will this affect marriages?  What do you like most about YOUR marriage?"  It actually opens the discussion up for the loudest, most powerful, most privileged voices...and disregards the already disadvantaged position of the marginalized members of our church and area.  And, don't be mistaken, there are always marginalized people in every gathering.  

5.  Put broken people in leadership as facilitators.  None of our ministers or leadership were involved as facilitators, so I do not know, personally, any of the men or women who facilitated (I am not suggesting all are broken people...I am only sharing my experience).  We were divided into 5 groups of about 10-12 people and all handed the questions to be considered.  The man who facilitated my group sits on the committee on ministry for our area.  My minister is well acquainted with him and his angry voice.  She hears his angry, certain voice every year at her boards.  I heard his voice as he weighed in on the matter, beginning with a condescending reference to scripture--"I feel the way I do, because I believe this book [he brandishes his Bible with its camo cover reading "God's army" and I wonder how literally he takes that word "army"] and this issue really comes down to whether or not you believe the Bible."  Yes, because no one who disagrees with you has even studied the scriptures.  Yes, you are guardian of all Biblical truth.  And you've said so before you ever led this group.  I know, because my area minister told me that she was acquainted with your very dogmatic opinions...which makes me wonder why we would ever appoint someone to facilitate a discussion we already know he has shut down before the event begins.  At one point, he said "And I'm sorry for what this Bible says."  I broke the rules and interrupted..."I'm not.  I LOVE the scriptures and I believe every word of them."  I'm not sorry for what the Bible says, because I've read it, I've studied it, I've done more than see what it reads and I see what it says...and I just don't believe it says ANYTHING that he was saying.

Will, a member of my church, a freshman in college, came near when I was discussing how the event had gone with the leadership...I stepped aside to talk to him and he asked "are you talking about our group?"  Not exactly, why?  "Because we obviously didn't follow the rules."  Yeah...come tell that to our area minister and the moderator.  So he did...and what he said was telling.  He said "yeah, I don't think we followed that rule about name-calling very well...and it was mainly the one who was leading our group." 

6.  Allow facilitators to weigh in on the matter  The whole reason to have someone facilitating discussion is so that there is a neutral voice that can make sure that all members of the group are heard.  That doesn't mean this person doesn't have an opinion...it means that they set their opinion aside for the purposes of helping others express theirs in a group.  This is whole damn meaning of "facilitate!"  And it cannot be accomplished when the leader of the group weighs in...before OR after everyone else--because when the facilitator is last, s/he gets the last last word and it communicates to everyone else about future conversations..."Beware; the person leading your group is biased so don't expect to be heard."

7.  Do not have a moderator who will step in when s/he hears hurtful language being used (i.e. when s/he witnesses spiritual violence).  Our moderator, someone I consider a friend, was humble and compassionate during our discussion of the spiritual violence afterwards.  He lamented and regretted what had transpired in some groups.  But something he said struck me deeply.  I said that there was a lot of name-calling in our group...and probably the people doing it did not recognize it as such.  When you say to a gay person that you consider who they are to be a sin, a sin like any others--slander, murder, fornication, adultery...those were the words chosen in our group...you are calling people names.  You MIGHT believe all these things, ok.  But in order to have real, holy conversation, you must express it differently.   And our moderator heard it...he said "yes, [with a dissapointed look], I heard some of those things being said."  Yes, I know you did.  I saw you sitting there as she said it.  And, here's the thing...rules don't make broken people whole and whole people are usually able to follow rules--no matter how ridiculous.  So our people, even while they were the victims of spiritual violence, did not interrupt.  They did not react to the words being used in an assault, however unintended it may have been, against them.  We did not label those who disagreed with us as bigots, or as hateful, as unchristian, or as people who didn't believe the Bible.  But I watched as a leader for this discussion sat there and listened to labels being placed on my sisters and brothers...and said nothing.  I am angry that I did not.  But when you are in a position that is already marginalized, and when you are already without power by the very nature of the meeting itself, it is difficult to realize that YOU must be the voice to speak up.  You look around to the facilitator, the moderator, the area minister, to anyone with any semblance of power to make the violence stop.  

Never again will allow violence to happen in my church or any church and follow the rules.  I will interrupt.  I will challenge the speaker.  I will voice disagreement.  I will say they are wrong.  I will stop the entire conversation if I have to...because there is NOTHING holy about it.  Yes, we had rules about what to do and what not to do.  But "people will be who they are," as my vicar, Wendy, so often says, and you cannot expect some written rule to make sense to a broken person.  Wendy also always says "broken people break people."  And they will say they kept the letter of the rule.  After all, we're all "sinners" right?  Yes, but the implication of the labels we use is that we certainly aren't all saints.  Labels matters...especially when we apply them to others without their permission.  Christian Piatt taught us this in a diversity seminar for our area not long ago...it didn't seem to inform us Monday night. 

 I did engage in one, late, quiet, but very visible, action after our facilitator had weighed in with his poisonous words, blaming God and scripture for everything he believed about the people sitting in my group who were GLBT.  I went to every member of my church who was in my group (there were 5 besides me), straight and gay alike, and I took their face in my hands and I said "Who you are is NOT a sin."  And I went to the next person and the next...and then I sat down.  It was all I knew to do.

In holy conversation, you aren't allowed allowed to demean the relationship that another group member became vulnerable enough to share with you...you aren't allowed to say "You know, I have a very close girl friend and we do just about everything together...but we don't LIE together because the Bible says that's wrong.  I think gay people would get a whole lot further if they would stop wanting what they have to be called 'marriage' because it isn't."  You don't get to say that the person disagreeing with you just doesn't believe the Bible.  And you don't get to call the other people in your group sinners...yes, we are all sinners,  but when you say it in this context, you mean that some of us are "better" sinners than others.  In fact, this was voiced..."When I sin, I ask forgiveness."  Meaning, if you don't believe that who you are is a sin, then you aren't the same quality of Christian as me.

8.  Ignore people who are hurt.  After the forum was over, as people milled about and as clergy greeted each other in the foyer, I noticed a group of my church members huddled around seated people.  If I hadn't already witnessed the violence, I would've thought someone was having a medical emergency.  But I knew.  And as I got closer I saw tears on the faces of our people...some who were hurt personally, and some who were hurting with their brother or sister.  I saw my minister, seated, crying beside a member of our church who had been in my group...I saw others standing, some looking helpless, just wanting to bring the shalom back to our church and back to our people.

This Sunday, our minister tells me she plans to publicly apologize for allowing the shalom of our church to be broken and she plans to pledge that it will never happen again.  It wasn't her fault.  She wasn't given an opportunity to keep shalom.  Instead, we were at the mercy of those who planned without us in the loop, and obviously without us in mind.  The group was huddled at the seats nearest the entrance of what supposed to be sanctuary.  Only other members of my church where there weeping with those who wept.  Did no other leaders for this event see those hurting people?  Was there no one who would stop and help the wounded?  Priests and Levites milled about and took care of official looking duties...the Samaritans were the only ones who stopped to help the one who had been robbed, not of possessions or physical health, but of dignity.

There are a lot of things that could have been done differently.  

This event could have ended positively--EVEN if those attending left in sharp disagreement about the subject matter.  I know...we had these discussions and conversations at our church.  I know...we were not all in agreement.  And some, after we became O&A, decided that our church would no longer be their church...but they left with peace, and with the knowledge that they were loved and that they had been heard.  Being church is hard work...and it is intentional work.

Before our meeting, a few of us gathered in the prayer room to pray.  We practiced lectio divina and...not wanting to make our prayer "point" in the direction we wanted it to, we used the text that would be preached on Sunday morning by a visiting minister.  2 Kings 5:1-14.  The story of Namaan, the leper.  In that story, there were a lot of important people.  Namaan, who was very important to the King of Aram; the King of Israel; Elisha the prophet.  But during our prayer it was the servants we noticed--the unnamed characters.  The young Jewish girl who was captured in war with Israel who suggested to her mistress that Namaan should see the prophet of Samaria.  The servant of Elisha who was sent to bear the instructions to Namaan of how he might wash and be cleaned.  The servants of Namaan who, after their master left, angry that Elisha himself had not come out to see him and angry that the instructions were so ridiculous, convinced their master to heed the words of Elisha through his servant and go wash and be cleaned.

There is healing for a broken and divided church...and it doesn't always come through consensus...but it will always come through the voice of servants, sensitive to the leading of the Spirit and willing to do the hard work of bringing healing...even in a politically charged situation.  I believe we as Christians can do that work and that our prayer "Thy Kingdom come" can be answered in and among us.