Sorry Christians hug Underwear Man
This is over a year old, but a reader sends it to me, and it’s worth looking at, as a portrait of contemporary trends in Christianity. Seems that a group of young Christians went to a gay pride parade to demonstrate, but did so in a different spirit:
While the most vocal “Christian” presence at the parade was in the form of protesters with “God Hates Fags” signs, Nathan and a team from the Marin Foundation took a different approach… they chose to apologize.
The volunteers wore black t-shirts with the phrase “I’m Sorry” on the front and held signs with messages of apology, on behalf of all Christians, for the way the church has treated the gay community.
While the ultimate message Jesus came to preach was one of love, grace and compassion, we’ve sadly misrepresented Him and alienated sons and daughters from their Father’s embrace… and I’m so excited to see how Nathan and his team took a different, humble approach and in the end, did something far more powerful than preaching or shouting… they showed love.
My favorite though was a gentleman who was dancing on a float. He was dressed solely in white underwear and had a pack of abs like no one else. As he was dancing on the float, he noticed us and jokingly yelled, “What are you sorry for? It’s pride!” I pointed to our signs and watched him read them.
Then it clicked.
Then he got it.
He stopped dancing. He looked at all of us standing there. A look of utter seriousness came across his face. And as the float passed us he jumped off of it and ran towards us. He hugged me and whispered, “thank you.”
I think a lot of people would stop at the whole “man in his underwear dancing” part. That seems to be the most controversial. It’s what makes the evening news. It’s the stereotype most people have in their minds about Pride.
Sadly, most Christians want to run from such a sight rather than engage it. Most Christian won’t even learn if that person dancing in his underwear has a name. Well, he does. His name is Tristan.
… I hugged a man in his underwear. I hugged him tightly. And I am proud.
Evidently you are. Gosh, it’s just like the early church, innit?
Actually, I think it’s more likely Jesus would have told this guy: “I love you, man. Now go home, put some clothes on, and then go forth and sin no more.” But I wouldn’t presume to say. One of my pet peeves are Christians, both left-wing and right-wing, who can’t just do something and let the act speak for itself, they have to add, “Jesus would do the same thing,” or “the Lord told me to do this.”
I’ve never understood the purpose of “gay pride” parades. It doesn’t seem to me like pride is something that should be celebrated.
Here’s the thing which I think Christians are going to have to learn to accept: even when we know exactly how things are supposed to work, we really don’t have any idea how to actually make things work that way. Our job isn’t to point everyone in the right direction, but to point everyone to God (ie love. Yes, the really mushy-gushy kind that doesn’t keep track of wrongs, is slow to take offense, is kind, doesn’t need to be modified by us kind of Love).
I doubt very much Jesus would have told that man to go put some clothes on any more than he told the prostitute who annointed his feet to put her hair back up (a woman whipping her hair out was a far more provocative act at that time than a man walking around in underwear is today).
As you are learning from your time in St. Francisville, it’s much easier to love people once you’ve decided to just let them be them and leave the rest up to God. That’s the je ne sais quoi you are looking for. We can hold to our own morals without telling every one around us that they should to. If we’re doing it right, people might even pay attention.
Actually, I think it’s more likely Jesus would have told this guy: “I love you, man. Now go home, put some clothes on, and then go forth and sin no more.”
Jesus likely would have been able to get away with that. Evangelicals can’t. The atmosphere is just too toxic and there’s too much suspicion. What Marin’s organization has realized is that you have to get rid of that climate first and only then can you move on. Baby steps.
A small example: I often get really odd looks from people when I explain that I think the people who are picketing the gay pride parades are fundamentally coming from a generous and loving place. After all, these people sincerely believe that we’re in mortal peril and they’re doing what they can to rescue us from that.
I’m sure most readers of this blog would instinctively understand that. But it’s almost impossible for a gay guy to wrap his head around the concept. They’ve often been really seriously damaged by what they went through from family, friends and churches in their youth and can’t bring themselves to see religious conservatism as anything but destructive. And the ones who haven’t directly experienced it have heard tons of horror stories.
It’s not easy explaining to the picketers just why that tactic won’t work either. They simply don’t have the background to wrap their head around what it’s like to grow up as a gay man. They can’t understand why other don’t get the urgency of their mission. So the whole exercise is pretty much doomed from the start with people settling into their little tribal groups.
Anyways, I generally view groups like Marin’s (who’s taken a ton of heat from both sides) as a significantly positive development with the potential for, if not finding common ground, at least improving relations somewhat.
… I hugged a man in his underwear. I hugged him tightly. And I am proud.
Bill and Ted would know exactly what to say to this guy.
For what it’s worth, I think your speculation about what Christ would have said is not far from the truth.
Thank for putting into words what I have been thinking all day about this same image.
A couple of things I wonder about this.
First, when one of these guys holds up a sign that says “I’m sorry for how the Church has hurt you,” what gives him the authority to speak for “the Church” and apologize for what “the Church” is alleged to have done? I mean, I am happy to assert that the Revd Fred Phelps (of “God hates fags” fame) does not speak for the Church. But if Phelps doesn’t speak for the Church, it’s just as true that these kinder and more pleasant guys don’t either.
Second, are there any specific sins of the Church that these guys are repenting for? If so, what are they? I could be wrong, but I think that what homosexuals find offensive about Christianity is that we believe and teach that their sexual practices are sins. That is a belief and a teaching that is not going to change, at least among those Christians who want to be fully orthodox. Ideally, Christians would hold fast to that teaching without harboring any malice against homosexuals and without engaging in any hostility towards them. But even if we achieved that ideal perfectly, I think many homosexuals would still find the teaching itself offensive and feel oppressed by the Church.
On both counts, the sign I like the best is the one that says “I used to be a Bible-banging homophobe. Sorry!” I like it because the man is speaking for himself and repenting for his own sin, not that of “the Church.” And I like it because he’s talking about a specific sin — hatred of homosexuals per se — that he discerned in his own heart, not about a vague and general attitude on the part of the Church at large.
I may be overly suspicious, but I can’t help but wonder if the “sin” that these guys are sorry for on behalf of the Church is the sin of teaching what the Church has always taught about sex.
I thought this was going to be a story about Evangelicals who feel sorry they feel they have no choice but to support Mitt Romney so that “God’s Own Party” can reclaim the White House.
Even if Mitt does wear those special “Mormon underwear.”
Oh, well, even Jesus was accused of consorting with “Republicans and sinners.”
Then again Jesus might repeat what he already said: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
Jesus was not burdened by a long history of having disciples using his Gospel coercively. Christians today are; pretending they are not is unwise and those who pretend are often working more for their own ego than for Christ.
As a general rule people should not apologize for actions not their own, with exceptions for parents with unruly children, and institutional leaders apologizing for long-term institutional sins.
Then again Jesus might repeat what he already said: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
Door. Wide. Open. Must.Not.Make. Obvious. Joke.
What these kids did was a good thing. I probably wouldn’t have done it, for different reasons than Rod Dreher wouldn’t have done it, but it was a good thing they did. Saying that doesn’t take away from the fact that Christians who believe homosexual acts are sinful are going to say so, nor that gay people are going to resent that.
Geoff, thanks for the most acutely balanced presentation I’ve ever seen on this subject.
I read this book a couple of years ago: http://www.lordsaveusthemovie.com/book.html (or watched the DVD — can’t remember which now.)
In it, the author, Dan Merchant, did much the same thing by setting up a tent at a gay pride event. He invited people into the tent and apologized to them for the wrongs that had been done to them in the name of Jesus. He did not apologize for statements about the morality of homosexuality, but rather for the crimes, civil rights abuses, general bullying, and hatred done in God’s name. That is only one chapter in the book/movie, but it is *incredibly* moving and the one that has stuck with me. He had some people breaking down and sobbing in his tent and others who couldn’t believe he was really a Christian. (Can you imagine how tarnished the image of Christ must be if being kind and humble and *not* in a hurry to point out sins makes people think you must not really be a Christian? Yikes.)
And while I don’t know what Jesus would say to the young man in his undies, it doesn’t really matter that I don’t know. Whatever message Christ has for Tristan can’t be heard by him if Christians are “shouting” so loud that he can’t hear it. Three guesses how much more willing this man was to heed the leadings of Spirit *after* that hug than before?
I heard a radio story about Andrew Marin’s ministry and was impressed, but there’s something about a young man naming a foundation after himself that nags at me.
I couldn’t really discern whether they were saying “sorry, and here’s a better way to live” or “sorry, and gay is just fine”? I don’t mind the concept (if the first), but I know Jesus wouldn’t be telling the homosexual that everything’s chill and there’s no need for change. He’d care enough to love the sinner while inspiring the sinner to move toward a better life-giving way. If that’s the ultimate goal for this group, then I say go for it.
Chris Jones – In my experience, what homosexuals object to in Christianity is largely two issues.
1) They perceive that Christianity excludes them from being loved by Christians. Partially, this is because they have experienced unloving reactions from Christians in their lives. However, increasingly, this seems to be due to the fact that they make affirmation of their homosexual practice a *condition* for loving them. That is to say, unless you first are willing to affirm their homosexual behavior as right and beautiful, then you will never be able to love them, because that is what love requires. Sadly, homosexual activists will never drop this precondition, because it is so critical to establishing the narrative in a manner that favors their point of view. First, define your opponents’ deeply-held convictions as inherently, irreconcilably, irredeemably evil and yourself as the victim of that evil; Second, demonize your opponent for failing to abandon their deeply-held convictions.
2) Americans historically have tended to see religion as an identity issue, rather than one of heart transformation leading to conformity of behavior. Orthodox Christianity holds that self-affirming, unrepentant, ongoing sexual sin is incompatible with saving faith (that goes for heterosexual sexual sin, but homosexuals tend to ignore that fact, because it undermines the special victim narrative). Homosexuals see their sexual behavior as part of their identity, so they feel that Christians are saying “Because of who you are, you can not be saved.” In reality, what orthodox Christianity (and this formulation is probably colored by my evangelical leanings, so I disclaim that) is saying is “You are not saved, because you do not possess saving faith, which is made clear by the lack of conformity of your life to saving faith.” So, fundamentally, homosexuals object to something that Christianity does not teach. Motives for this misdirection can be left to interpretation, I suppose, but my guess is that it’s a willful refusal to deal with the real issue at hand and a willful suppression of the truth about Christianity and the Christian sexual ethic.
MBrown
However, increasingly, this seems to be due to the fact that they make affirmation of their homosexual practice a *condition* for loving them.
As I said above, you have to look at experiences during formative years. The question of bullying in school seems apropos. Are boys who are perceived to be gay teased over their actual sexual activities? In most cases, these are nonexistent. No, it’s actually the state of being attracted to members of the same gender that’s attacked.
What you say may be true of some members of the adult community, but that’s largely the fruit of seeds planted long before the first sexual experience. I can remember the use of the words “gay” and “homo” used in a derogatory way in elementary school, long before most kids were even aware of what they actually meant; we just knew it was something bad. That’s undeniably going to have an impact.
Orthodox Christianity holds that self-affirming, unrepentant, ongoing sexual sin is incompatible with saving faith
I think the problem most people seem to have with this argument is as follows:
Christianity doesn’t completely exclude heterosexuals from engaging in sex. What it does is try to wall off how, when and in what context sex can occur. Saint Paul does make it very clear that it’s best to avoid sex altogether, but also recognizes that this isn’t possible for many if not most people and so makes allowances for sex within certain bounds (1 Cor. 7)
However, it then turns around and says to gay people, yes we love you but you are held to a different standard, a standard that Paul himself recognized was impossible for many if not most people.
Two things spring from that: first, if it’s not possible for most gay people to permanently abstain from sexual activity, in the same way this is true for straight people, then yes, by setting the standards differently like that, you are indeed saying, “Because of who you are, you cannot be saved.”
Secondly, by setting all homosexual sexual activity beyond the pale, both in terms of religion and social pressure, you practically ensure that any gay man who does cross that line (which will be most of them for reasons listed above) will follow Bunyan’s logic and decide they might as well be damned for many sins as for few.
(that goes for heterosexual sexual sin, but homosexuals tend to ignore that fact, because it undermines the special victim narrative)
With respect, we don’t ignore that fact at all. On the contrary, it’s the willingness of Christians to turn a blind eye towards heterosexual sexual sin (viz. Newt Gingrich’s South Carolina win) that helps undermine their credibility when preaching to us.
Even if one can rightly fault some elements of the Marin folks’ thinking, I’m not sure I care. They’re still doing something boldly loving, and that counts for plenty. There’s just too much toxicity and pain and mutually hateful history, as some here have pointed out, to keep up with the anti-gay cultural warfare and expect anything good to come of it. In short, I’m with Rebecca Trotter on this. Excellent comment, Rebecca.
The standard is the same, regardless of who it is applied to. Given, it is more difficult, and the consequences more weighty for homosexuals, but the standard certainly is the same across the board.
I confess that I agree with you on your last point, that Christians have been awfully inconsistent in the application of our beliefs regarding sexual ethics. However, that does nothing to change the ethics themselves.
Finally, the idea that it is impossible to abstain from sexual sin is preposterous. Quite to the contrary, Jesus was tempted in every way, just as we are, and yet was without sin. Yes, he was God, but he was also man, and the weight of temptation was no less for him than for any other.
MBrown
Looking at this only through the lens of temptation is to miss an important point. We have to also look at the faculty of love, which involves the faculty not only of loving human beings but God. There are implications to this that Susan Peterson (there were two different commenters so-named back in the mid-2000s at St Blog’s) drew out in a comment in April 2005 over at Amy Welborn’s blog, then one of the hottest spot of intelligent commentary at St Blog’s. Susan’s comment was so striking to me that I copied it for future reference, and I trot it out from time to time when I see that people are missing an important part of the picture. It would be facile to write this perspective off as mere sentimentalism (in the way Flannery O’Connor would use that word), but there’s more important hard substance to it that people prefer to ignore because it’s messier than they’d like to think about this, and it’s that reaction that is the more sentimental. Would that it were as simple as avoiding temptation.
“Now one’s sexuality is an important part of the self, of one’s self definition and understanding, of ones style of relating to the world even in non sexual matters. So how would you like to integrate into your self understanding that your sexuality is intrinsically disordered and that there is no way it can be expressed which is moral or holy? It is true that all of our sexuality is disordered since the Fall, and that it is a struggle for all of us not to misuse it, but still, heterosexuals know that there is a way they can express their sexuality which is holy and good. Even if this possibility is only theoretical, because they choose celibacy, or because for some reason they can’t marry, still, they know their desire is ultimately ordered towards marriage, towards something blessed by God.
How hard it must be for a homosexual to accept that he has been afflicted with a disordered sexuality, and still believe that he is a good person, that he is basically an ok guy, of worth? God does us want to believe that we are basically of worth, OK, not bad, or worthless. Our sins are bad, but we are of worth, and have to believe it even to aspire to do better. I believe this integration can happen, but it is much, much harder than coming to believe, for instance that “I am basically an ok guy with a terribly quick temper that I have to learn to control.” It is much harder because sexuality is so central to one’s self understanding. Is it surprising that when people are struggling to believe in their self worth, rather than work through this very difficult integration, they sometimes decide that if they are of worth, their sexual orientation must be a normal and good way to be?
Sexuality is something which leads people, sometimes almost forces them, outside their own boundaries, to reach out to others, open themselves up to others. It is of course not the only intimacy and sometimes is a mockery of intimacy, but it does have within it the impetus toward relationship and intimacy. To have to believe one’s sexuality is intrinsically disordered also makes it much harder for a person to figure out how to reach out beyond the self and achieve relationship and intimacy. [Editorial note by Liam: This applies all the more to intimacy with God, as it is the foundation for intimacy with anyone else.] Since intimacy with others is a part of a healthy human life, and sexuality is often an impetus towards such intimacy and since it provides a framework and pattern for relating to others even in relationships in which there is no genital sexual involvement, is it surprising that a person striving towards being a healthy human being who achieves intimacy with others, might take the path of deciding to assert that his sexuality is normal and healthy? To that person it seems that 1 his very being and identity, and 2 his very ability to relate to other human beings, is dependent on this assertion.
And note that all of this can be said without bringing up lust. The frustration of lustful desires is — well, frustrating, as well all know — but it is something a person with a feeling of self worth and healthy relationships to others can do. The reasons homosexuals come to feel that they must believe their sexuality is healthy are much deeper than “they want to indulge their lusts.” “
I’m pretty sure these folks don’t believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically a sin. (FTR, neither do I). From that standpoint, it makes sense to try to affirm gay people, and to say ‘we are sorry that people in our church make you feel like you’re doing something wrong when you have sex, or that your affections are disordered.’ Obviously, MBrown’s or Chris Jones’ ideas make sense if homosexuality is a sin, but that’s a premise that not all Christians accept
On the other hand, I do think apologizing corporatively on behalf of the church is kind of silly.
“I’ve never understood the purpose of “gay pride” parades.”
what I can’t understand is why the sem-nudity and other stuff is put on display.
Peterk
Same things happen at Mardi Gras (or if my 4th of July 2001 visit was any indication, year round in NOLA). People have a taste for the bawdy, and even the raunchy. Back in the Middle Ages they used to have something called the Feast of Fools, where just about everyone was fair game for x-rated parody: rulers, popes, even many saints.
Myself, I don’t have a taste for unseemly cavortings in public. But it’s hardly restricted to gay community, or the 21st century.
PeterK
what I can’t understand is why the sem-nudity and other stuff is put on display.
The over-the-top public sexuality was initially a reaction against the sexual moral code that’s been used as a cudgel against gay people. It was a means of striking back at the system. It was deliberately designed to shock
I understand that these things are nowhere near as shocking as they were 30 years ago, but after a while, they take on a life of their own.
So would it have been OK if the underwear would have been dark blue instead of white, i.e. a men’s swimsuit?
I really don’t get most body-related prudery.