Posted by Eliza on: 07.25.2006 /
I’ve gone to my local Unitarian-Universalist (UU) Church three times now. I haven’t yet met their minister of 16 years – he’ll be back next week after finishing up the summer session of a graduate degree program – but I’ve read about him on the church’s website, and have picked up some copies of his sermons to read. His sermons and biography describe him as a UU Christian, “very liberal”, and gay. Apparently he felt quite unwelcome in at least one branch of Christianity because of that latter trait, years ago. He comments on acceptance in his biography, and on love in one of his sermons.
His biography on the church’s website describes him as having grown up in a Pentecostal church and having trained for the ministry in the Church of God, then having left the church when he realized he was gay. After some years with no involvement in any church, he wandered into a UU church; his biographical page says this about the experience:
…for the first time in his life [he] felt a genuine welcome, signaling that he had finally “come home.” “I had never heard this unqualified welcome:
Whoever you are,
Wherever you are on your life’s journey,
You are welcome here!“Before this amazing moment in my life, there had always been some kind of condition of acceptance, based on the belief that I was “a sinner’ and needed to change who I am, even the essence of who I am, in order to be “saved.’”
One of his sermons mentions, in passing, a contrast between his feeling of Jesus’s message for him and the message he was told by others that Jesus had for him. The first was: “I love you because of who you are.” The second was: “I love you in spite of who you are.”
So, my questions to start discussion are:
Comment by: Helen M.
1Great topic, Eliza!
I was taught as an evangelical Christian that God’s love is unconditional. The point of that teaching was that God’s love was available to me if only I would believe – there was nothing else I had to do.
However, having to believe is a condition, isn’t it? And it doesn’t seem to be one everyone can meet, because I don’t think people can just ‘make themselves’ believe whatever they want.
In general I find that evangelical Christianity tends to oversimplify what is not that simple, which can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding. Jesus definitely challenged people on how they lived their lives. But it also seems clear to me that he conveyed acceptance of the unique individuals that they were. Evangelical Christianity often seems to miss the mark when it comes to putting those two together and saying “We want to encourage you in the direction of positive change; but we value the unique person that you are. We want to give you freedom to be who you are and use your unique gifts in our community”
Having such things as ROAAs discourages freedom of expression of the uniqueness and diversity of humanity. Even though the Bible has passages clearly affirming that each person is different and the best way to take advantage of that is to have a community in which each person contributes according to his/her own unique gifts, skills and experience. need each other. I think JG mentioned one of these just a couple of days ago.
“Loved in spite of who you are” is supposed to be a message of grace and forgiveness, meaning – “I will not reject you because of who you are”. Yet it often comes across as one of lack of acceptance, meaning “I can’t love who you are – the best I can do is love you in spite of who you are”
Much of this ties back to the evangelical view of humans being sinners from birth. That necessitates a good God loving us in spite of who we are, to some extent.
It’s ok not to love everything about a person. The problem is when they hear you saying “I don’t love that specific thing about you” as meaning “I can’t love the essence of who you are” rather than “can I help you move in a positive direction in your life?”
When what someone doesn’t love is someone else’s sexual orientation it becomes very sensitive and tricky – because evangelical Christians are often taught sexual orientation is something a person can change whereas it seems to me that gay and lesbian people see it as part of the essence of who they are.
So whereas a Christian may think they are saying “I want to help you move in a positive direction”, a gay or lesbian person may well hear “I don’t accept the essence of who you are”.
Comment by: Eliza
2Are there other characteristics for which someone’s essence may make it hard to love & accept them – & does that (or, should that) result in a similar kind of approach? That is, loving them in spite of that characteristic, with a goal of helping them change? I’m thinking of people with “difficult” personalities – people who are chronically self-absorbed (narcissistic), or manipulative (whether it’s passive-aggressive or overt), or quick to anger/grudge & never “turn the other cheek”, or gossips.
Comment by: Helen M.
3Good questions, Eliza. I suppose maybe love always entails focusing on what we like in someone and not obsessing over what we don’t like.
Comment by: Julie Marie
4I don’t know about narcissistic personality types – that might be a malignant essence, but I think that manipulative behaviors and quick tempers are behaviors rather than essences. Confronting those behaviors as unacceptable would still be a loving thing to do…
Speaking for myself, I had developed a passive aggressive style of conflict management. It was NOT a conscious decision and it does NOT reflect my essence. Once I realized what I was doing, I immediately went to work on learning better more adult ways of handling conflict. I would have been poorly served for those affected by it to accept it. More revealing of my essence was my willingness to modify my behavior.
When I think of essence, I think of something foundational – the very core of us, I’d call it my soul, and I’d also allow it might be etched in my DNA. My son, for instance…part of his essence is a love for the orderly. Since he was able to crawl, he’s been straightening things out. If I leave a bit of stocking sticking out of my drawer, he’d open the drawer and push it down. If I put his toys in the wrong place, he’d crawl over and set them right. I was amazed. He was not old enough to have been taught that. His environment will probably always be neat and tidy. (so like his father….and so unlike his mother…)
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
5for me, the thing is to get past all the outer layer stuff and just try to love the person for them. not get hung up on if they’re gay or trans or, ohmygosh, evangelical. God knows who they are.
I don’t want to buy into sentimentality. I reject the notion of blind-fluffy-feel-good-you’re-ok-I’m-ok bullshit. I’m not a stoned flower child.
Of course love is not blind. Romanticism is blind, but not love. Love is persistent, relentless, chases me down, finds me hiding in the closet and comes in there with me. Love is not offended by my identity. Love knows who I really am, stripped of all the garments of self-expression. Love knows me in my nakedness and does not turn away.
That’s the Lover I know Jesus to be. That’s the lover I want to be.
Comment by: Helen M.
6Wow…thanks Pam. Very well expressed!
You wonderfully depicted the grace which I believe ‘in spite of’ is supposed to convey. The point of “in spite of” (imo) is not intended to be “you suck!” but rather, “whether you suck or not you’re stuck with me :) – so you may as well stop pretending and hiding and just be yourself”
Comment by: Helen M.
7Julie Marie – I liked your example of ‘essence’ – your son’s sense of order.
Comment by: Eliza
8Pam – I so want to read your book(s) when you get published!
Helen said:
I guess part of my question is, who decides what’s a positive direction? Is it a problem if, for example, someone who’s gay doesn’t see a need to change – feels comfortable with who he/she is – but keeps getting the message that they are being loved & accepted “in spite of” who they are, & being encouraged to change when they don’t think they need to?
Comment by: Helen M.
9Eliza wrote:
It’s not just a disagreement over the ‘need’ to change; there’s disagreement over whether that’s even possible.
It’s extremely disrespectful and invalidating to be told “you need to make the choices I’m telling you to make” when it’s not clear that those changes are even possible. The question of whether they would help doesn’t even arise until it’s established that they can be made.
Comment by: jim
10Pam speaks for me ( and I hope to help her get published someday).
Comment by: Rachel
11I read a great quote the other day: “You know you’ve made God in your own image when he/she hates all the same people you do.”
Comment by: Eliza
12Rachel – that’s “spot on”! Do you remember where you read it?
Comment by: Rachel
13I read it in a Christian satire book called “Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church” by Becky Garrison. She was quoting Anne Lamott’s book “Plan B” – here is the exact quote:
You can tell you’ve created God in your own image if he or she hates all the same people you do.
Comment by: ncxian
14Anne Lamott is a hoot! If you think all Christians are alike, you owe it to yourself to read one of her books–Traveling Mercies is my favorite! Although she has a book called Bird by Bird that is about the process of writing that I really want to read someday.
Comment by: Helen M.
15A friend recommended Travelling Mercies to me a few years ago and I enjoyed it very much.
Comment by: Rachel
16If you liked Anne Lamott, you might also like Donald Miller’s stuff. Also – I recently read a great book called “The Irrestible Revolution: The Life of an Ordinary Radical” by Shane Claiborne. He is an extremely off the map guy and he takes Jesus’ teachings seriously – very dangerous and radical. :-)