Author: jiwan dhaliwal

My good friend, Mary Cronin, wrote a letter to the editor about the church fair. In it she wrote, “We need hymns that nurture us and church families that embrace us as we are. We need liturgy that tells a story we can find a space in, not meta-narratives that always exclude someone.” These words have influenced me; specifically when I think of my own relationship with the LGBT community.

I do not think conservative Christians are aware of how deeply they have ostracized the LGBT community from the “Christian meta-narrative”.  We elevate traditional marriage as the highest ideal and define it in ways that the LGBT community simply cannot identify. Furthermore, we idealize marriage; church culture has offered no viable alternative lifestyles for individuals who were excluded for its definition and has no language to talk about any sexualities out of this context. Thus, we marginalize the LGBT community. We actively write them out of the Christian narrative and we apathetically respond(ed) to their protests. This predominant attitude in Conservative circles is wrong and needs to be acknowledged.

To my LGBT friends—I am sorry.

Please, forgive us.

I ask that you hear my apology and yet I am aware that it is insufficient for complete reconciliation. I know this—because although I am deeply repentant of conservative attitudes towards the LGBT community, I still interpret the biblical view of sexuality in ways that liberal interpreters do not accept; in ways that the LGBT community may find difficult. These differences shape my ideal narrative differently from others. We disagree—and that can make reconciliation difficult—but not impossible.  

***

People have a tendency to assume complete understanding of another to be synonymous with genuine love. This is why they have difficulty relating to people who are different from themselves, because they do not understand them. But, the reality is that you and I will never completely understand or agree with anybody. Disagreement and, at times, intense conflict is simply an inextricable part of the human experience. In many ways I will not understand or agree with everything my LGBT friends share with me—not just because of their philosophical and theological conclusions—but because they are different people; they are not me.

Nobody intrinsically and completely understands anybody, it takes time and we have to stop using it as the only measure of love. Mutual understanding is a measure of intimacy, but the definition of love is broader. It is not only the foundation of intimacy, but the root of all meaningful interaction.  Therefore, when I relate to another person, specifically one with whom I disagree, I should engage with an active love: a love that wishes to bless my dialogue partner, even in the presence of intense disagreement. This element of relationship is not always easy, but it is the only way people can remain true to their personal convictions and yet exist in relationship amidst plurality. I plead for members of both sides of the argument to embrace such an attitude. We cannot keep seeing one another as obstacles to our own narrations. It is very likely that we may never agree—but regardless, we must use the attitude of love. Besides, it is the only language in which the Gospels were ever written.

***

There is so much I wish I could say regarding this issue, but I want to end with a cautious warning to my readers. This concept of engagement is greater than issues of gender and sexuality. The world is becoming more diverse and pluralistic—in this diversity the Church needs individuals who are actively and thoughtfully relating with it.  Whether it be inside or outside of the church, we cannot afford any more insensitive dialogue with those whom we disagree. You are mistaken if you think you there is no relational dimension to philosophical and theological ideas. An insisted preference of ideas over people will create a schism so deep that even a Christian embrace will leave the world untouched. Be motivated by love— this is not the time for clanging cymbals.

Every week Gillette puts up a new devotional in the shower for their residents to read. I look forward to these devotionals and am encouraged to hear a new tone in the writings. Last year I was beginning to see common trends in the devotionals that I found somewhat disheartening.  The basic framework to the majority of these devotionals consisted of negative self-talk and God as remedy to this negativity. The devotions, more often than not, understood God as a source of alleviation from day-to-day struggles and pains and saw Him as a reminder to live, think and act more positively. These thoughts or concepts are not wrong, in fact they can be very good, but the commonality of understanding God this way points to a deeper issue.

This cycle, although not as evident on campus (so far) is a common way people tend to express their relationship to God. I find this troubling, because it means that people most commonly relate to God not in the spirit of love, but insecurity. This is bound to happen to some degree. We are finite beings and God is infinite, it is only natural and good to go to Him for refuge. That being said, spiritualizing these insecurities and remaining hyper-sensitive to the pains of existence can deeply shape how one interacts with God.  One may deeply love God, but reflection on His truths will be tainted by a desire to feel relieved of frustrating grievances.  

I am deeply skeptical that this kind of reflection brings lasting peace. God undoubtedly involves human beings in His affairs. The Bible is filled with narratives in which God works through men and women to accomplish His purposes. Emotion is also a part of worship and relationship. The Bible contains writings where individuals, such as David, Jeremiah and Habbukuk, communicate to God using their emotional faculties. The problem does not rest purely in emotion, but the tendency to resort to emotionalism. The problem arises when one’s definition of God is inextricably linked to their emotional experiences. When this definition is used as a starting point the God of the universe is reduced to a being whose prime purpose is to supplement His creation’s emotional health. God becomes a coping mechanism and the art of theology and the pursuit to understand God as an independent and perfect identity is polluted.

It is incredibly easy to spiritualize emotionalism and yet the Christian faith encourages us to look outside ourselves. The Christian faith understands God as a personal and loving parent-figure. The bible has no problem acknowledging that God is our helper in the times of need– and yet God is much more. The modern tendency to construe God as a being inside a subjective reality, as a feel-good experience, is not a role that the Christian God wants to fill. Rather, Christ wants objective authority and He invites His followers to worship His divinity with this sense of reverence.  

As followers of Christ we do not relate to God on the basis of our insecurity or personal dilemma, but on the knowledge that He is God. This act of knowing God is what opens us to the faculties of personal and perfect love and it is the knowledge of perfect love that erodes the fear and anxieties that so deeply entrench our personal conflicts and lives.  I am incredibly encouraged by Luke Rosamilia’s opinion piece last week and the Gillette shower devotions thus far, because I see it as evidence of Houghton students who recognize the temptation to interpret God purely through their emotions and are choosing to have a holistic concept of who God is to us and who God is in His being– and I’m confident that this type of reflection will bring peace.

In the last few years there has been a strong resistance against women portrayed in the media. People rightfully complain that women are sexualized and oppressed with an unrealistic standard of beauty and activists have aimed to instill realistic views of beauty and a higher self-esteem in young women. I fully affirm their intentions and it is important for people to have a healthy view of themselves and others, but the typical model used by such individuals may not be as helpful as they think.

When faced with mainstream views of beauty people often claim, “that these standards are unrealistic” (rightly so) and “that everybody is beautiful in their own way.” Fair enough—I completely agree. What I do not agree with is how these two ideas are then implemented in culture. The next step from individuals who are anti-media (as far as views of beauty in the strictly physical sense are concerned) is to affirm beautiful qualities in other people. These movements come in the form of “imperfectly perfect” tags or “#flawless,” where people affirm their “imperfections” and proclaim that they are valuable and beautiful in spite (and in some cases, because) of them.

These movements are not problematic because they motivate people to appreciate themselves, rather they are problematic because they affirm the concept that in some form or another, one’s physical appearance and how one feels about their physical appearance affects one’s value. A person in these forums may say something along the lines of, “I have scars on my knees #flawless.” What they really mean is that the physical scars on one’s knees may seem like a flaw, but really they are an asset to my perceived perfection or “flawless-ness.” This perfection does not refer to one’s physicality necessarily, but to one’s very being, their immateriality (personality) included. And may I say that although this is very romantic in nature, we cannot hold physical appearance so close to our value (even positively), because it is just not realistic. Sometimes we are ugly and that needs to be okay.

Ah. Ugly, it is such an “ugly” word. You probably cringed when I said it and if I called myself ugly you would run to my rescue affirming that it were not true. The question though is why? Probably because you are afraid that if I call myself “ugly,” then I will think of myself “less than” or “not equal to” others; and this is the notion that we need to kill if we want individuals with a strong self-concept. It is absolutely okay to not be beautiful, in the physical sense of the word. We need to have the self-confidence to admit that sometimes we are ugly (also in the physical sense of the word). When you’re playing sports, sleeping, crying, eating with your mouth open, wearing those plum pants, you might be ugly. That is fine. It is okay. Human beings are sometimes beautiful and sometimes gross, and there is nothing surreal about that fact.

If we want to raise young men and women who have strong self-esteem do not teach them to add transcendent notions of goodness to their arbitrary physical qualities. Because in all reality, one day their skin will wrinkle and their hair will go drab and all they will have to cling onto is the catchphrase that “they are beautiful, if only they choose to see it.” And in the romantic sense that might be true, but it is still an insufficient foundation to build one’s sense of worth. Instead teach them that some days they will be incredibly striking, and other days will be a little rough—but what they should put their faith in is not the physical attributes of their body, but the mind inside it. Because whether or not the corporeal image is attractive, the mind shall always be enticing. A person who knows that they themselves and those around them are valuable, both when they are physically striking and when they are rough around the edges is a person who has mastered the art of confidence and has shed off shallow notions of love.