A while back, Jeff Munroe, one of the RJ editors, wrote an article entitled, “How Big a Jerk Will Your Reading of the Bible Allow You to Be?” A very good question, because even though I am conservative on human sexuality issues, I’m well aware that it’s easy for us conservatives to act like jerks. Some of my “allies” in these discussions are an embarrassment.
One night after a heated synodical session, I was on a walk with a friend who was moderate on LGBTQ issues. Suddenly we were accosted by one of my “allies.” The antagonist demanded to know where my friend stood, and when my friend failed to readily pledge his allegiance to the cause, this man proceeded to read him chapter and verse (literally) from the Bible—informing him about the Greek words that backed his interpretation. It’s arguable whether or not the content of his message was correct, but there is no arguing that his tone undermined any chance of being persuasive. I may be a conservative, but I don’t want to be a jerk like that.
The primary way to avoid being a theological jerk is by growing the fruit of the Spirit, which is deeper than superficial niceness (Galatians 5:22-23). Jerks, however, are lacking in this fruit. They are not acting in love, but in self-serving hatred. They are not joyful, but are griping and complaining about their opponents. They are not peace-makers, but are war-mongers eagerly seeking satisfaction in vanquishing others. Nor can jerks be characterized as kind, good, faithful, gentle, or able to control their bitter impulses. Instead, they are mean and demeaning, liars who paint others in the worst possible light, proud of their positions, and unable to control their tongues long enough to listen to others. I have tried, by God’s grace, to avoid acting in nasty ways and have sought instead to cultivate life-giving spiritual fruit. I’m not sure how successful I’ve been.
I preached on LGBTQ issues four times in forty years, once in each church I served. I tried to model how to talk about these matters in a non-jerk way. I preached about same-sex relationships because they were widely talked about and I thought the congregation needed to hear from the appropriate biblical texts. I only preached on it once in each congregation because I didn’t think the church should make same-sex issues a primary concern. In those sermons, only half of the content was about my understanding of God’s will for living out our sexuality; the other half was about treating the LGBTQ community with love and respect, instead of hatred and judgment.
Still, Munroe’s article challenged me to ask whether I have practiced what I preached when it comes to interacting with the LGBTQ community. Immediately, my self-evaluation runs into a complicating factor: I might think I have avoided acting like a jerk, but the person I’m interacting with might perceive me as a jerk anyway. Being a jerk and being perceived as a jerk are not the same thing, but they are closely connected.
As I do a little self-reflection, I will share a few of my interactions with the LGBTQ community, some of which I thought went well, while others did not. My aim is not to persuade you that my position or my actions were right. (You might read what I write and shake your head about how misguided I am.) My hope is that you might gain a little understanding of how I, as a conservative, attempt to minimize my “jerk-iness.”
One summer, between college and seminary, I lived in a Christian commune. I knew my roommate from my home church and the “Jesus freak” coffeehouse I had been involved in during high school. Other people had told me that my roommate was struggling with his sexual identity and that he believed he was gay. That summer we spent a lot of evenings discussing many matters of faith. Never once did homosexuality (as it was more commonly called then) come up. I didn’t feel compelled to talk about it, and he must not have either. He already knew what the Bible said and what I believed, so I didn’t see any reason to belabor it. If he had wanted to know more about what I thought, I would have told him, but it didn’t come up. After I left for seminary, he sent me a note thanking me for never bringing up the issue and instead just being his friend. A few years later, when he was dying from AIDS, I counted it an honor when he asked me to preach at his funeral. I learned that while there is a time to speak the truth in love, there’s also a time to be silent in love. We conservatives become jerks when we forget that.
In the second situation, a good friend decided to come out, and decided I would be the first person he would talk to. Before we talked, I had assumed he was a life-long bachelor. He was telling me, he said, because he knew I would not hound him until he “agreed” with me. What I remember most about that conversation was being a listener. I tried not to make any judgments while at the same time not expressing approval. I assured him of my love and thanked him for trusting me enough to tell me. The next day, I added one brief comment (short comments go much further than long sermons). It was basically this: we get our sense of identity from what “tribe” we attach ourselves to, and I was hoping that he would find his identity in Jesus and not in any social group’s expectations. I expected God to work on his heart, and, as I see it, the Lord did. He talked with a few other people, including his pastor, about being gay, and within a month he reported that the Lord had changed his heart. Not long afterwards, he married a woman, and was very happy in that relationship until his death. I know many scoff at stories like this and wonder if he was truly gay, but I believe this was a work of God.
My next two encounters didn’t go as well.
A father sat in my office to talk. We had always been on good terms, but we had never had a conversation about his teenage son’s journey concerning his sexual identity. The son had been coming to church in women’s attire, and his father wanted to talk with me about this. I thought maybe someone had made some rude remark to him, but that didn’t seem to be the case.
The father was hoping the church would take some kind of public stand affirming his son’s journey. I told him as gently as I could that I wouldn’t do as he asked. I immediately began to talk about how much I liked and loved his son. He was a gentle spirit and very talented, and he and I had always gotten along well.
The father seemed a bit relieved by my words and said something like, “Well, then, at least we can agree that it all comes down to love.” Yes, it does. But I didn’t think it would be helpful in the long run to just paper over our deep disagreement with generic ideas of love. So I said, “Yes, it is about love, but that doesn’t necessarily resolve everything, because love has so many facets to it.” We may not agree on how best to show love in any given situation or to any given person. Love is always a mixture of honoring, accepting, affirming, approving, overlooking, challenging, correcting, warning, and even rebuking. In loving a person involved in same-sex relationships, there may be much I affirm and some things I overlook, but if I have earned the right to be heard by that person, there may also be a time for disagreement. I would want others to do the same for me. The father and I parted on good terms, but the family looked for another church that would do what I was not willing to do.
One more interaction comes to mind. After getting to know a lesbian couple in our small town, I sat with one of them in the hospital for a number of hours after a car accident. Later I went to their home and prayed with them when one of them lost a job. Perhaps because of these actions they began coming to worship and family night events with their children. I was pleasantly surprised by how welcoming my conservative congregation was towards them. But one day they phoned to ask if they could use our church building for their wedding reception. That was a bridge too far for me and the congregation. I tried to tell them “no” gently, and offered to explain why in person; but I could tell that the few words I said were interpreted as rejection. They never came back, and I’m sure they thought I was just being a jerk.
I felt badly about that, but didn’t see any way to respond differently. Prior to this, I felt no compulsion to correct or rebuke this couple, but when they wanted to pull me and our church into celebrating what I regarded as lamentable, I just couldn’t do it. Let me give an analogy, but please don’t take the analogy to mean that I regard the behaviors involved as morally equivalent. I only offer the analogy so you can understand my resistance to changing my beliefs. How would you respond if a member of your church asked the pastor to use the pulpit to endorse President Trump and his immigration policies? If you refuse, they might think you’re a jerk, suspect the orthodoxy of your faith and leave the church. I’m guessing you would not bend your convictions. Neither would I.
Could my convictions be wrong? Undoubtedly. But I have to live by my perception of what God calls me to believe and do, just as you do.
One of the things that make conservatives seem like jerks to the LGBTQ community is that we can come off as thinking we understand them better than they understand themselves. LGBTQ people believe their sexuality is just the way they’re wired. Then a conservative comes along and says, “No that’s not it; God has something better for you.” It sounds so arrogant, like conservatives know what’s better for people. But that’s actually the dilemma of every Christian who believes Jesus is calling the world to come and follow him. The mission of God is to let others know in a loving way that God in Christ made a better path than their own self-defined path. At some point, the conversation must go there.
I’m not talking about aggressively going after people and telling them to think and act rightly. I don’t like be told what to do and I don’t like telling others what to do. That’s what jerks do. That may sound strange coming from a preacher—isn’t the function of sermons to tell others how to live? In a way, yes, moral guidance and direction should be found in sermons. But the primary purpose of a sermon is for people to know God in Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life. Otherwise, all we’re sharing is our moral agenda. Ideally, the Holy Spirit speaks through the words of the sermon so that the hearers are confronted and consoled by God. God is the one who will tell people what do, not me. As a preacher, I hope to facilitate that without getting in the way. God uses my words to create a shoe, and if the shoe fits, the Spirit will help someone wear it. My job is not to force someone to put on the shoe. That’s what jerks do.
I must confess that I do feel some jealousy toward those pastors who have few, if any, qualms about same-sex behaviors. I like to be liked. It would be nice to avoid difficult conversations and the potential of looking like a jerk. It would be more comfortable to say to myself, “Leave people alone and things will work out just fine, and then people won’t be resenting the church for sticking its nose into their business.” But I have a hard time picturing Paul or Jesus doing that.
So I guess my answer to Jeff Munroe’s original question is this: my reading of the Bible does not allow me to be a jerk, but it certainly does allow for me to be perceived as a jerk. I apologize if I said anything you found hurtful and tone-deaf in this article. I mean no harm, but I know I am capable of causing harm anyway. I pray for the fruit of the Spirit to grow in my life so that others may see past my failures and instead give glory to the Father who is in heaven for any fruit they find (Matthew 5:16).
19 Responses
Thanks for writing this piece, David. It was full of grace, humility, truth, and love. Thanks for publishing it in the Reformed Journal too. It’s so important to hear voices like this that speak to the present moment of cultural divide regardless of stance.
May we all have the grace and wisdom to be able to follow your words during polarizing topics: “Could my convictions be wrong? Undoubtedly. But I have to live by my perception of what God calls me to believe and do, just as you do.”
I am astonished, I think. The hard fact about loving someone is that truth can and will be seen as being jerk-ish at times. Because the truth of the Lord should have some type of impact on the lost, an impact that causes a knee-jerk reaction of the heart, a truth that awakens the dead out of a deep sleep of spiritual death, and awakens them in rejoicing to be free. I have much to learn and I am not a new believer, but this type of teaching frightens me. It seems to come across as being more loving than the Lord is. More concerned about what others see us as. I fear that this stance will end in the church being more and more open to including anything into who she is. Not just physically, but spiritually. A mixture that was never intended. “You can be whatever you want to be here, we don’t mind because we love you. We are not Jerks”. I do not mean to be judgemental, mean-spirited, or anything like that. Your writing is clear that you are not mean-spirited, uncaring, or unloving towards the Lord or His word, quite the opposite. But your soft touch on this topic frightens me, because God does not appear to be as soft, in how He responds to in His word. He is not as accepting of it as you appear to be, not as welcoming. Yes, He commands us to love others, but not this way, I don’t think. Much Love dear brother.
Dear G. Jackson,
I appreciate you raising a concern which seems to center on what the Church is. As you wrote, “I fear this stance will end in the church being more and more open to including anything into who she is.” It is well for us to pay attention to our fears. I have heard this fear in my congregation too.
My mind goes to the Matthew 13:24-30 parable of the wheat and tares/weeds. Jesus shows that the Enemy sows false ideas in our midst, despite the good seed, God’s Word (from the previous parable), also being sown. Your fear is the same as that of the servant/worker in the parable, but the owner said “leave them. Let them grow up together until the harvest.” I believe Jesus is teaching against a false hope that the Church Triumphant will be unadulterated, spotless Bride before Christ’s return. God’s work is to sift the false from each individual and from the Church corporate, but that will not be finished until the End.
So what is our stance in the meanwhile? For one thing, tt is necessary that the Church be clear on its teaching. Yet, is not our job, even as preachers of the Word to “make” people hear. While God’s Word is fruitful, so that growth and fruit are promised, and in part it is happening now, “for God’s Word is powerful,…able to divide soul and spirit…judging the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12), still I think we should learn to expect that having “sinners” around who do not fully embrace or understand, is normal in the Church, and one that keeps us turning our fears again and again to God.
Something Jesus did, was that he ate with sinners. Not every sinner repented and perfected their life before Jesus ate with them. I find this is also a necessary stance in my own family. I don’t give up on my children because they rebell, argue, or even just have questions. My baptised children need to be evangelized as much as those outside the Church. So we have patience while we hold out the Word of Life.
Does this mean we have open communion? I think so. Anyone who receives in faith is taking the Lord’s Supper seriously. We don’t demand perfection, but Christ demands faith. The parable suggests there is more harm to the Church when we try to uproot sinners, rather than letting God’s Word do its work naturally. Let us not fear, but trust God to do what He says He will do. I hope I have given some hope that this “soft” attitude is merely making space for God’s Spirit to work—which is merely the harder thing God calls us to do.
David,
Thank you for this piece. I don’t know you, but this piece suggests two things about you. First, you are in no way a jerk–your responses in those four stories and here are full of grace. Second, you are brave to write it here in the R.J. where most readers will share a different perspective.
Here’s a few of my thoughts on your piece. You suggest that when we argue that it all comes down to love, that we need to see love more broadly. I agree. I would add to your list though, that love should also be concerned with understanding the full truth of the matter. In my forty years of teaching, science discovered a lot about the truth of human sexuality. That, too, needs to be considered when trying to follow what the Bible teaches on it. Too often, people with a more conservative view on LGTBQ+ issues ignore the science.
Second, an act like that of the young man coming to church dressed as a woman is too often misunderstood, I think. In my experience, that takes tremendous courage–courage I can’t imagine. I suspect you honored that courage, but too often it is dismissed by those who disagree as simply attention getting, or forcing his point of view on the others.
Finally, rest assured, we all want to be liked–on both sides of this issue, and we all wish we could avoid those difficult conversations. You know, of course, that those who have championed more openness to the LGBTQ+ issue have also had to participate in such difficult conversations, have also been “disliked.” In fact, those conversations have led to their churches being compelled to leave their denomination.
Again, thanks for this thoughtful piece.
Thanks for your gentleness and humility. I see issues differently from you, but I don’t see you as even close to being a jerk.
David, I too greatly appreciate the gracious spirit in which you write about our divisive issue, a spirit I rarely encounter from those on your side of the controversy.
I often wish there were more discussion about how the core biblical command to love our neighbor applies to same-sex marriage. Aren’t the biblical passages on the sin of same-sex activity always in the context of abuse or self-gratification rather than an expression of love for the other? There’s no example of a same-sex couple that pledge each other troth and lifelong love before the Lord.
I wonder, David, what your thinking is about that basic difference.
Hi Henry: Thanks for your question. I have many thoughts on issues like that one and others concerning same-sex relations, about which I wrote a whole book of essays called “Coming to Terms.” I suspect that only offering a short response to issues that have all kinds of inter-related aspects would only stir up a hornet’s nest, so I would prefer to focus today on trying not to be a jerk in theological and moral discussions. I’m sorry if that just feels like I’m avoiding a good question.
I think David’s desire to focus on “not being a jerk” and speculating that going deeper into the issues touched on without things getting off the rails is probably right. That said, the question is fair, and I couldn’t find his series online. For a detailed scholarly article that would answer your question in the negative, see Prof. De Young: https://tyndale.tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj3h.pdf. It’s not a bad read, and not badly reasoned, albeit a very traditionalist approach. I think Prof. DeYoung would probably argue that once the first question is answered in the negative, the examples you mention cannot be found because they would have been non sequiturs. I believe some here would also see his last two paragraphs as “being a jerk”, to be fair. That said, there is probably an argument on both sides of this that will ultimately engender a lot of “jerkiness”, depending how one defines to the term. Such tends to be the case when each side believes the other is misinterpreting or ignoring clear scriptural dictates, and engaging in sin (hatefulness or sanctioning prohibited conduct) as a result.
The nature of Jesus’ speech when addressing those who were addressing Him in sincerity, and the message He delivered were always both grounded in truth and in His loving desire for us to have a life-giving relationship with Him. What that looks like in action seems to be a living prayer in the moment these days. We must live within a constant request for discernment and direction.
“they wanted to pull me and our church into celebrating what I regarded as lamentable” That is insightful. As humans, it is natural to accept and love people. Any type of people. Accepting and affirming LGBQ+ individuals is the easy part. I have found (and the reformed community will find out too) that the problem for churches comes later, when more than acceptance is requested or demanded. The fine line between acceptance and conscience advocacy is where things get a lot more real – and sticky.
I don’t think I’m going to be jerk-y by offering this response, but I might be perceived as one. Anyway, a response.
First, I laud your statement “Could my convictions be wrong? Certainly.” That level of humility is all too often lacking when people have discussions of human sexuality. I take it that this is precisely (at least part of) what folks, including LGBTQ+ have seen in you, to which they have responded positively. And it is certainly not my place to doubt the responses you have received on the occasions you cite.
What I’d like to point out is a ‘move’ you made in the essay, intentionally or not. On a couple of occasions you do a kind of triangulation in which you stand with the Bible on two points of the triangle, and the more inclusive folks are on the other point. The form of the argument (I’m not quoting here), “I don’t want to be a jerk, but here I am over here holding onto what the Bible says.”
Of course, you are by no means alone in making that move. Hidden behind it, I think, is the assumption that goes something like: “I might be wrong, but the Bible isn’t, and I’m on the Bible’s side, so……draw your own conclusion.” Allow me to say that I find that to be less than helpful, in two ways.
First, it puts you on one side of a discussion, and puts the Bible on your side. The implication being that your discussion partner is speaking counter-biblically. Hence, it’s a subtle way of claiming “higher ground,” and, in essence, begging the question. (Assuming the only proper conclusion) However, in my years of experience, both the people who are more inclusive and those who are less inclusive have come to their conclusions through their own close readings of the Scriptures. And that’s all of my first point; I don’t intend to get into an argument of who is reading more “correctly.”
Second, and related to the first, when one argues “this is what the Bible says,” one makes the assumption that the Bible says only one thing (at least about the issue at hand) throughout. That is an assumption (or is it a hermeneutical assertion?) with which the more “inclusive” folks differ. I have never read or heard of anyone who would argue that the Bible offers positive advocacy for a breadth of sexual orientation. What is most commonly claimed is that a) the Bible, read in context, isn’t as prohibitive as modern Christianity claims it is, and b) the long arc of the Bible mitigates in the direction of more inclusion, rather than less. Again, I know that people have arguments both of those claims; all I am trying to do is to say – maybe “what the Bible says” is not as unilateral as you assume.
And, in a way, that is what so many discussions have come down to. Folks on the more inclusive side (like myself) will ask the question: Does the Bible HAVE to say only one thing about this? Does it do damage to faith if the Bible speaks (a funny idea, because the Bible doesn’t actually “speak”) in more than one, or in an evolving, “voice”? Can a reading of the Bible that comes to a different conclusion be recognized as honest? Or can only one side of the discussion ever say “The Bible says”?
The last, and perhaps most important thing to say, is that while we straight cisgendered males of a certain age can sit at our keyboards and have a fairly genteel discussion, LGBTQ+ folks are being rejected by their families daily, and, sadly, all too often, killed by people who have no compunction about being “jerks,” but who claim that they have the full weight of the Scriptures and the historical church behind them. Thus, while ‘being liked’ or being (or being perceived as) a ‘jerk’ might be a concern for us, all too many peoples’ lives are quite literally on the line.
Hi Paul: Thanks for your comments. I had earlier declined to answer Henry Baron’s question above, but I guess I’ll try to clarify a few things in response to you (without, I hope, sounding like I need to get the last word). First, I would not want to say, “I might be wrong, but the Bible isn’t, and I’m on the Bible’s side, so…draw your own conclusions.” Rather, it’s more like, “I might be wrong, but the Bible isn’t, so here’s how I’m understanding the living voice of God in Scripture at this point and I I have no other choice than to speak and act from the perspective…and I assume you are doing the same.” Along with you, I have no problem believing that Scripture has a surplus of meaning (as we see in the role of war in Scripture), so that there can be many perspectives on the same truth (see my earlier article in RJ entitled “Drawing 101”). And along with this, I also believe—and I’m assuming you do too—that Scripture is not all-meaning, that is, that every interpretation is as good as another. Sorting out perspectives is what we’re all working our way through in trying to discern God’s perspective on same-sex actions. As for your last point, you’re right. Whether you think I’m nice or not is not nearly as important as loving LGBTQ+ people who have experienced much rejection.
Thanks for the gracious reply, David. I misread what you wrote, or, as often happens, committed the error of eisegesis. I wonder whether, when it comes down to it, the bulk of the arguments on human sexuality center around just how “sola” one takes the teaching of “sola Scriptura.” And….as a corollary….whether the Scriptures themselves provide warrant for that teaching. And then…..whether folks can look at each other and disagree with one another without attacking one another. Peace to you.
I am astonished, I think. The hard fact about loving someone is that truth can and will be seen as being jerk-ish at times. Because the truth of the Lord should have some type of impact on the lost, an impact that causes a knee-jerk reaction of the heart, a truth that awakens the dead out of a deep sleep of spiritual death, and awakens them in rejoicing to be free. I have much to learn and I am not a new believer, but this type of teaching frightens me. It seems to come across as being more loving than the Lord is. More concerned about what others see us as. I fear that this stance will end in the church being more and more open to including anything into who she is. Not just physically, but spiritually. A mixture that was never intended. “You can be whatever you want to be here, we don’t mind because we love you. We are not Jerks”. I do not mean to be judgemental, mean-spirited, or anything like that. Your writing is clear that you are not mean-spirited, uncaring, or unloving towards the Lord or His word, quite the opposite. But your soft touch on this topic frightens me, because God does not appear to be as soft, in how He responds to in His word. He is not as accepting of it as you appear to be, not as welcoming. Yes, He commands us to love others, but not this way, I don’t think. Much Love dear brother.
Thanks to Jeff Monroe for highlighting this essay and the responses to it. I would hate to have missed this discussion. And thanks to David for his courage and honesty and his kind spirit. It is something of a relief to know that there are people out there with whom one could discuss disagreements on sensitive issues and still remain friends. Thanks to all of you who have responded.
I resisted commenting initially because I didn’t want to be the jerk…But after Friday’s “This Week” email, I decided to go back to see what people had commented and take a quick look at the piece again. This time, this passage stood out to me:
“I must confess that I do feel some jealousy toward those pastors who have few, if any, qualms about same-sex behaviors. I like to be liked. It would be nice to avoid difficult conversations and the potential of looking like a jerk.”
I don’t think I know a single pastor in an open and affirming RCA church that would use anything close to these words to describe their experience. I think it points toward perhaps unexplored assumptions the author is making about the motivations of those on this side of this issue. And I think those presuppositions are severely mistaken.
David apologizes for possibly being tone-deaf, and this was something that stood out to me. But, in the spirit of the piece, I don’t know and shouldn’t impugn the motivations of the author. I appreciate the effort and I wish him well on his journey.
Hi Jon: I misspoke/miswrote. I can see how my sentence sounds as if I think pastors of open and affirming churches have it so easy. I don’t think that at all. I have no doubt that pastors in open and affirming RCA churches have had plenty of difficult conversations with (I’m guessing) mostly conservatives. I was only trying to speak to my own heartache when I feel I must say “no” to an LGBT person that I love.
Hello, David. Thank you for your great article. Maybe you misspoke/miswrote those words regarding pastors of affirming churches in the RCA, who may still grapple with conservatives, but regarding pastors and congregants in most affirming mainline Protestant churches today, I must admit I am “jealous.” Our secular Western world completely celebrates and embraces their position. Yes, it’s nice to be loved and liked. It’s often conservative Christians who are unfairly accused of being homophobic, unloving, unkind. Some of them may be, but many of them are not. There’s a good reason why conservative Christians do not voice their opinions on secular campuses or in the workplace. They know they will be punished for it, although brave ones have spoken out now and then. I’m not diminishing the suffering and pain that gay people have had to endure, I’m simply pointing out that our secular world can be very intolerant/unloving towards those with a different opinion.
I’m sorry. I’ve thought about this essay a lot and it seems to me that until you can stop seeing same sex relationships as “lamentable” you will continue to be a jerk. There’s no way around that. The binary that conventional Christian belief forces you into OF COURSE produces jerks. If you truly believe that you have the one and only way to a “better path” then you will inevitably continue to see those who don’t follow this as “less than.” Only when the binary is discarded can we actually start to have reasonable discussions.