[generous spaciousness]

What is generous spaciousness? While some people grasp this easily and others can find it confusing, it is a key term in the conversation about relating with one another in the context of gender or sexual identity differences. It applies equally to the broader context of how people can relate to one another in the context of differences in beliefs, history, experience, tradition, etc.

Generous spaciousness is a descriptive term that is used extensively by Wendy Gritter, executive director of New Direction Ministries whose blog, Bridging the Gap, is subtitled "nurturing generous spaciousness in the church." In a recent post, she addresses the question of what "generous spaciousness" is all about:

And that raises the first point about generous spaciousness: It is intended to describe the environment, climate, ethos within expressions of the Christian community as it pertains to engaging with gender and sexual minority persons. It is not a theological position statement. It is not about doctrinal boundaries. It is not about promoting particular positions.
We believe that such an environment is best nurtured from a series of postures:

• The posture of hospitality: all are unconditionally welcomed and invited into relationship
  
• The posture of humility: we all hold our own convictions deeply with the keen awareness that, “I could be wrong” given the reality that none of us has a perfect pipeline to God and all of us see through a glass dimly
  
• The posture of grace: I seek to have eyes to see the good fruit in another person’s life – particularly those with whom I may have particular disagreements; I expect the best, not the worst, of those I am in community with; I recognize that there will be times I am misunderstood and I determine to not get defensive or combative about it; I will do my best to not take offense and respond in the manner of Christ

Read the rest of the post for the second and third points, as well as examples of how this might apply in a Christian family, a church, and a Christian organization.

Bridging the Gap has another fifteen or so posts about generous spaciousness -- click here or click "generous spaciousness" in the labels list on Bridging the Gap.

Note: Wendy Gritter is writing a book on this topic, due out in May of 2014. Catch a glimpse of the cover here.

the first shall be last

texas

Really? LGBT people would also know them as the friendliest little church in Texas? Or is this just wishful thinking in the pastor's mind?

What does it mean to be gay-friendly? What kind of stickers do churches need on their front doors?

And how do you feel about adults addressing someone they don't know as "honey?"

[the view from there]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace:

In The View from Nowhere, Thomas Nagel suggests that in order to know the world adequately we must “step outside of ourselves” and ask “what the world must be like from no point of view” (Nagel 1986, 62)…. Nagel concludes: “One must arrange somehow to see the world from nowhere and from here, and to live accordingly” (86). This seeing “from nowhere” and “from here” he calls “double vision.”

I suggest that we keep the double vision, but that, at least when it comes to knowing the social world, we replace “the view from nowhere” with “the view from there.” …

Seeing “from here comes naturally…. But what does it take to see “from there,” from the perspective of others? First, we step outside ourselves…. We examine what we consider to be the plain verities about others, willing to entertain the idea that these “verities” may be but so many ugly prejudices, bitter fruits of our imaginary fears or our sinister desires to dominate or exclude. We also observe our own images of ourselves, willing to detect layers of self-deceit that tell us exalted stories about ourselves and our history. To step outside means to distance ourselves for a moment from what is inside, ready for a surprise.  

….

Second, we cross a social boundary and move into the world of the other to inhabit it temporarily (MacIntyre 1993, 78). We open our ears to hear how others perceive themselves as well as how they perceive us. We use imagination to see why their perspective about themselves, about us, and about our common history, can be so plausible to them whereas it is implausible, profoundly strange, or even offensive to us….

Third, we take the other into our own world. We compare and contrast the view “from there” and the view “from here.” Not that we will necessarily reject the view “from here” and embrace the view “from there”; nor even that we will find some compromise between the two. These are two possible outcomes but other outcomes are possible too…. The only thing we must do as we take others into our world is to let their perspective stand next to ours and reflect on whether one or the other is right, or whether both are partly right and partly wrong.

Fourth, we repeat the process. Before the movement away from the self to the other and back starts, we inevitably possess explicit or implicit judgments about the rightness or wrongness of the view “from here” and the view “from there”; it would be both impossible and undesirable to suppress these judgments…. We can never presume that we have freed ourselves completely from distortions of others and deceptions about ourselves, that we possess “the truth.” Every understanding that we reach is forged from a limited perspective: it is a view “from here” about how things look “from here” and “from there.”

Volf, pp. 250-253 (selections)

small group

Words mean different things to different people. Sometimes we need to step into their heads to understand what is meant or, if all else fails, to ask them directly.

seek and destroy

This is usually not expressed so clearly, but it does happen. We identify the person with their sin instead of seeing their heart, and we seek to destroy them, in subtle or not so subtle ways. It could be the whispers behind their backs or the looks of disgust we cast in their direction. It could be less subtle, like standing outside an abortion clinic or at a gay parade, holding signs that label people.

Definitely some mixed messages here. The initial "so we love the sinner" gets completely neutralized / cancelled out by the idea that "hating the sin" is accomplished by identifying the source (namely, the sinner) and destroying it (him or her).

Would you read this differently?

[people of the second chance]

People of the Second Chance (overthrow judgment. liberate love) bills itself as "a global community of activists, imperfectionists and second chancers committed to unleashing radical grace everyday, in every moment, for everyone." They seem to be a "newer kid on the block", but have well-expressed mission and goals, and some interesting projects to show with more planned for the future.

They have just launched a new campaign called "Labels Lie: Don't Accept Them. Don't Use Them." Here's how they describe the campaign:

"The campaign’s focus is on being liberated from the prison of societies’ labels. We don’t have to live with the shame of what people have said about us. We don’t have to accept these statements as our true identity....

When we judge, label, diminish and criticize each other, this becomes the fuel for
shame and guilt to fester in our souls. A label says we are unworthy, flawed and unacceptable.

Sadly we live in a society driven by stereotyping, gossiping, labeling and blame…and it is destroying us. Words like ugly, stupid, adulterer, addict, illegal, failure, ex-con, slut, fag and other dehumanizing labels are thrown around with no regard for how they damage.

It is time to talk about shame and the toxic labels we believe about ourselves.

It is time to be liberated from the lies of labels and experience the powerful truth of who we really are…Loved…Worthy…Beautiful…Accepted. "

(from Mike Foster's introduction)

View entire set of Labels Lie posters

People of the Second Chance website

ten virgins

The words in the first panel of this cartoon come from a sermon I heard recently. It is the passage from Matthew 25 about the ten virgins and the bridegroom, and how some were ready and others were not.

The other two panels carry on to a possibly logical conclusion. Not one that I agree with, nor one that is in line with the ethic of Jesus, who seems to have spent much time with those who were excluded from the traditional religious circles.

getting along

"People are people so why should it be,
You and I should get along so awfully..."
(from "People are people" by Depeche Mode)

That is the question, isn't it.

[the self of the other matters more than my truth]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace:

But what about those who in the name of truth oppress the weak? This brings us to the second implication of the encounter between Jesus, Caiaphas, and Pilate, which must always complement the first: the self of the other matters more than my truth. Though I must be ready to deny myself for the sake of the truth, I may not sacrifice the other at the altar of my truth. Jesus, who claimed to be the Truth, refused to use violence to “persuade” those who did not recognize his truth. The kingdom of truth he came to proclaim was the kingdom of freedom and therefore cannot rest on pillars of violence. Commitment to nonviolence must accompany commitment to truth otherwise commitment to truth will generate violence. The truth is a shield against the violence of the strong against the weak, I argued earlier. If the shield is not to turn into a deadly weapon, it must be held in a hand that refuses to do violence, I want to add here.

Volf, p. 272

hellooo

It's easy to "love" people from a distance. But do they feel the love?

 It's also easy to label people from a distance, a distance that lets us think that we (whoever we are) are somehow different, normal, better, right, a distance that hides our common humanity.

[flexible order and changing identities]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace, discussing the prodigal son:

For the father, the priority of the relationship means not only a refusal to let the moral rules be the final authority regulating “exclusion” and “embrace” but also a refusal to construct his identity in isolation from his sons. He readjusts his identity along with the changing identities of his sons and thereby reconstructs their broken identities and relationships. He suffers being “un-fathered” by both, so that through this suffering he may regain both as his sons (if the older brother was persuaded) and help them rediscover each other as brothers. Refusing the alternatives of “self-constructed” vs. “imposed” identities, difference vs. domestication, he allows himself to be taken on the journey of their shifting identities so that he can continue to be their father and they, each other’s brothers. Why does he not lose himself on the journey? Because he is guided by indestructible love and supported by a flexible order.

Flexible order? Changing identities? The world of fixed rules and stable identities is the world of the older brother. The father destabilizes this world—and draws his older son’s anger upon himself. The father’s most basic commitment is not to rules and given identities but to his sons whose lives are too complex to be regulated by fixed rules and whose identities are too dynamic to be defined once for all. Yet he does not give up the rules and the order. Guided by the indestructible love which makes space in the self for others in their alterity, which invites the others who have transgressed to return, which creates hospitable conditions for their confession, and rejoices over their presence, the father keeps re-configuring the order without destroying it so as to maintain it as an order of embrace rather than exclusion.

Volf, p. 165

prodigal

Definitely not the story that Jesus told, and definitely not a picture of our heavenly Father who loves all his children.

opposite sunday

What we do and what we say are often not in sync, and it seems that "opposite Sunday" has made this apparent to this pastor. Not that the "unopposited" saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a good saying to start with, but if a person says it and then is actively doing the opposite....

guess

A "Guess who's coming to dinner" program would be a lot more exciting if the invitations were handed out on street corners and in the inner-city, don't you think? Unfortunately, it's not any more likely to happen than "Back to church Sunday" attracting large masses of people. In this example, one can only assume that either the woman found the brochure lying around somewhere, or that a very adventurous parishioner handed some out in a red-light district.

Today's reading: Matthew 22: 1 - 14.

Background for those who are not part of this particular church sub-culture phenomenon: some churches hold a "Guess who's coming to dinner" event. Everyone interested signs up. The organizer makes groups comprised of four individuals or couples, and chooses one host from each group. The host only knows that three other sets of people will be coming over for dinner, but not who they are. The other three sets of people only know whose house they will be going to, but not who the other invitees are. After the first dinner where they all meet, each couple takes a turn hosting during the following three weeks.