Christian sexuality debate in Boston mirrors national conversation

Print More
At Q conference in Boston, a panel discusses same-sex issues (from he left: Gabe Lyons, Debra Hirsch, Matthew vines, Julie Rodgers, David Gushee, Dan Kimball). - Image credit: Parker Young Photography

At Q conference in Boston, a panel discusses same-sex issues (from he left: Gabe Lyons, Debra Hirsch, Matthew vines, Julie Rodgers, David Gushee, Dan Kimball). - Image credit: Parker Young Photography

At Q conference in Boston, a panel discusses same-sex issues (from he left: Gabe Lyons, Debra Hirsch, Matthew vines, Julie Rodgers, David Gushee, Dan Kimball). - Image credit: Parker Young Photography

At Q conference in Boston, a panel discusses same-sex issues (from he left: Gabe Lyons, Debra Hirsch, Matthew vines, Julie Rodgers, David Gushee, Dan Kimball). – Image credit: Parker Young Photography

(BOSTON) More than a hundred worshippers attend Boston’s Tremont Temple Baptist Church on a typical Sunday, but the historic church was once so prominent that legendary preacher Dwight L. Moody called it “America’s pulpit.” This week, however, Tremont’s massive auditorium played host to influence again when 1300 Christian leaders gathered for the Q conference to discuss the most pressing issues facing their faith.

While the annual gathering had no official theme, attendees would be excused for assuming it was sexuality and gay marriage. Plenary speakers addressed topics ranging from the connection between spirituality and sexuality to Americans’ attitudes on religious freedom laws. A breakout session focused on transgender issues.

Richard Stearns, president of World Vision U.S., even discussed his organization’s controversial decision to hire people in same-sex relationships and their abrupt reversal of that policy. Stearns claimed “World Vision never changed our view of biblical marriages” but was merely trying to find common ground on a divisive issue.

Even when the speakers weren’t discussing sexuality, they seemed to be discussing sexuality. Andrew Sullivan, a gay writer who formerly blogged at “The Dish,” spoke on how intellectual diversity makes us better. Michael Lindsay, the president of Gordon College who created controversy when he reaffirmed his university’s conservative stance on homosexuality, delivered a talk titled, “Do We Have to Agree?”

A pre-conference survey found that almost half of those in attendance were church leaders and 53 percent held graduate degrees. Thirty-one percent self-identified as “conservative,” 8 percent as “liberal,” and 59 percent as either “independent” or “moderate.”

While at least three other Christian conferences during the past year focused on same sex debates, this is the only one that featured both pro-gay speakers and those who oppose gay marriage and relationships.

“The aim of Q is to create space for learning and conversation and we think the best way to do that is exposure,” said Q’s founder Gabe Lyons. “These are conversations that most of America is having, and they are not going away.”

Tension rose during two discussions moderated by Lyons that pitted one side against the other. One explored whether the church’s historical teaching on the matter was reliable. For this, California pastor Dan Kimball argued the traditional position across from Dr. David Gushee, a prominent evangelical ethicist who recently announced he had changed his mind and is LGBT affirming.

Kimball claimed that pro-gay Christians were elevating their personal experiences with LGBT friends and family over the clear teaching of Scripture. Gushee countered that traditional interpretations of relevant passages of Scripture were flawed and amounted to a “toxic body of tradition that bears bad fruit.”

Another panel addressed “The Church’s Gay Dilemma” and featured two Christians who identify as LGBT. Julie Rodgers, a leader among the increasingly visible movement of celibate gay Christians, argued from the right, and Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships,” took the opposing side.

While the two panelists differed on whether the Bible allows for committed same-sex relationships, they both emphasized the need for Christians to make amends for their historically poor treatment of LGBT persons. Vines said straight people should acknowledge their “history of oppression,” and Rodgers said Christians should “repent of our treatment of gay and lesbian people.” On this point, the divided crowd was united and erupted in multiple rounds of applause.

Lyons, whose 2007 bestselling book “unChristian” included research indicating that Christians were perceived as “too political” and “anti-gay,” stated that he personally believes the Bible prohibits homosexual erotic behavior. At Stanford University in 2013, he debated the matter with Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church.

Lyons said his debate with Robinson taught him about the importance of listening to those with whom we disagree and inspired his decision to include a range of voices at this conference.

Matthew Vines and Julie Rodgers agreed that Christians should make amends for their poor treatment of the LGBT community. - Image credit: Parker Young Photography

Matthew Vines and Julie Rodgers agreed that Christians should make amends for their poor treatment of the LGBT community. – Image credit: Parker Young Photography

Even still, some conservatives protested the decision. Eric Teetsel, Executive Director of the Manhattan Declaration urged Lyons to rescind his invitations to pro-gay panelists who Teetsel called false teachers professing to be Christians. Owen Strachan, president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, echoed the sentiment and tweeted that he was “shocked that @QIdeas features pro-‘gay-Christianity’ speakers.”

Lyons did not respond publicly to the criticism, but said such positions were rooted in fear.

“Some people are afraid that if those who are theologically progressive are invited, it suggests they hold an equally valid idea,” Lyons said. “We still believe the historic view of sexuality is true, but we are also confident that the trueness of that view can carry its own weight.”

By committing to this sort of dialogue, the Q conference appeared like a microcosm of the larger debate on same-sex issues happening among many Christians across the country. These conversations have moved beyond outmoded questions such as “Is homosexuality a choice?” and “Can gay people be made straight through prayer and counseling?” and instead wrestle with biblical interpretation and questions of how LGBT people of faith should live.

[tweetable]Sexuality conversations do not occur in echo chambers of monologue, isolated from those who disagree.[/tweetable] They happen between gay and straight people, traditionalists and progressives, young and old. Some are maintaining their long held views, others have changed their minds, and others still aren’t really sure what they believe. And among the middle and fringes, the only point of agreement seems to be that the Christian movement has failed to love the LGBT community well and at times has acted oppressively.

The conversations at Q—both on stage and off—did not mirror the raging debates common on cable news networks, but they more closely resemble the national conversation as it occurs in many homes, workplaces, and churches. And in this way, it may be a model for other Christian organizations who are seeking to engage same-sex debates.

As Lyons said in the opening session from the same stage where Frederick Douglass first read the Emancipation Proclamation, “What starts in Boston tends to work its way around the country.”

Comments are closed.