Hi there. In case anyone is wondering, I’m now blogging at my personal website, http://www.matthewroot.ca.
I sometimes feel like every post I want to write could be titled “The Stories We Tell Ourselves.” Anyone who has known me over the past fifteen years knows just how important the concept of narrative is for me. This sense has only been reinforced by my readings in theology, history and psychology (and by my own life, which included a significant rupture that robbed me of my story for a couple years). There is nothing more human than to make stories, and the stories we tell ourselves—the myths we make and uphold—go a long way in defining who we are, what we believe, and how we interpret the world around us.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot the past couple of weeks in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s surprise win in the American presidential election, since so much of the Trump phenomenon seems to be driven by a powerful narrative of dispossession and loss, which in turn fuels another, related narrative of nostalgia for an America that once was “great” but has since lost its way. Coincidentally, last week I also started reading Mark Lilla’s wonderful little book The Shipwrecked Mind: On political reaction, in which he discusses the thought of several reactionary thinkers of the past century. Much like American Trumpists today, these thinkers all craft a kind of Golden Age narrative about some point in Western intellectual history after which everything went wrong and Western society declined and decayed into individualism and moral relativism. (I’m sure we’ve all heard at least one such story at one point or another!) Reading these narratives reminded me of a lot of Western theology of the past few decades, which has been dominated by similar (and similarly tempting if misleading and partial) grand narratives of failure and loss. Or even in a much lower-stakes situation, of many Canadian Anglicans’ wistful nostalgia for the ‘glory years’ of the 1950s and 60s, when churches were full and diocesan budgets expanding.
These narratives are so strong that no facts or statistics can overcome them. (Unsurprisingly in such a context, “post-truth” was just announced as Oxford English Dictionary‘s Word of the Year.) The stories we tell ourselves become to a great extent Truth for ourselves. And this is true whether these stories are political, historical, personal, or religious. This makes them incredibly powerful. And to my mind this makes it even more important to be aware of the narratives, the stories, the myths that shape our views of the world, and to try to be intentional in finding the best, most helpful, narratives possible.
The only way to counteract a story is to replace it with a more compelling story.
An intentionally narrative turn is, I think, both a tremendous opportunity and challenge for communities of faith, particularly in this moment. It’s an opportunity because—contrary to demythologizing agenda of liberal theology of the past two centuries—it insists that we tell our stories, that our stories are nothing to be ashamed of, that we try to strip Christian Truth from Christian narrative only at our great peril. To this end, I’m deeply gratified that the Christians I know under the age of 45 are unanimously creedal (in the sense that they are committed to the traditional formulations of Christian doctrine, which are themselves deeply narrative in character) and evangelical (in the sense that they are committed to telling the story of the Gospel (regardless of any other connotations that word may have today)). But it’s also a challenge because, if indeed the stories we tell ourselves interpret the world for us, we must give thought to how we tell our stories. Is the story we tell, preach and proclaim one of a lost Golden Age or does it point with faith and hope toward the future? (To use a nautical analogy, are we looking ahead from the bow or are we looking back from the stern?) On the flip side, however, is the story we tell naively dependent on political ease and ‘social progress’? Or does it understand what Fr Alexander Men beautifully called “the paschal mystery of the Church,” the idea that the Church is always suffering and dying with its Lord, but never defeated by the powers of darkness? Who does our story include? Who does it leave out?
It’s not surprising that my reflections this week and this morning would return to Fr Men, a man whose thought has influenced me more than probably any other aside from Jesus. As I’ve quoted time and time again, on the night before he was killed (likely for speaking out against the rising tide of nationalism in the Russian Church at the fall of the Soviet Empire), Fr Men proclaimed words that changed the course of my life, and which remain an incredible source of strength and inspiration to me, and which seem as good a place to end these reflections as any:
Only near-sighted people can suppose that Christianity has already happened. Christianity has only taken its first, I would say timid, steps in human history. To this day many of Christ’s words are incomprehensible because we are still neanderthals in spirit and morals. The gospel arrow is aimed towards eternity, and that which we call Christian history is in many ways a series of clumsy and unsuccessful attempts to bring Christianity about.
With Fr Men, I am heartily convinced that Christianity’s best days are not behind us. There is no Golden Age. That doesn’t mean the road ahead will be easy; far from it. But as our story tells us—from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; through Israel in its troubled monarchy, devastating exile, and incomplete restoration; through our Lord Jesus in his betrayal, execution, and ultimate vindication; up to the Church which has needed every last one of its “clumsy and unsuccessful” Saints to survive to the present hour—God will be present with us in the midst of it all: in success, in failure, in consolation, in abandonment, in rejoicing, and in suffering. And as our story also tells us, no matter the times, the work is always the same.
Let us go forth, then, working out our salvation in fear and trembling, doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with our God, with our eyes firmly fixed on that Gospel arrow aimed towards eternity.
I have a number of half-completed and ultimately abandoned draft posts attempting a constructive theological engagement of the issues same-sex marriage presents for the Church, and particularly the Anglican Church of Canada and broader Anglican Communion in this difficult season of its history. The drafts have all been started because I don’t feel I can remain quiet and abandoned because it’s just a difficult thing to write about well, particularly when I feel the way the conversation has been defined misses the mark in certain important ways. But here I go again…
One of the more helpful contributions of “This Holy Estate,” the theological report commissioned by the 2013 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada,*was its teasing apart of differences in the biblical witness between approaches grounded in Creation and those grounded in Redemption (p.47). The assumption seems to be that, if we ground our theology of marriage in Creation, then there is little room for the inclusion of same-sex marriage within the Church. The concern for a theology of human personhood, relationships, and sexuality that is grounded in the Creation narratives is reminiscent of something my theology professor said in our very first class thirteen years ago: “The question we must ask about homosexuality is not what it says about us today but what does it say about Creation?”
I wonder, though, whether this is really the case. Even if we accept that Creation rather than New Creation is the best place to look for such theologies, it seems to me that whether homosexuality is part of God’s good Creation or part of the fallen world is to some extent irrelevant: I’m not sure it clarifies anything, or even what criteria one would use to decide what kinds of differences among people belong in which category.
I suppose really there are three options: 1) homosexuality is not part of the created order and is a result of explicit, conscious choice; 2) homosexuality is not part of the created order and is a consequence of the generational sin that pollutes every human interaction; or 3) homosexuality is part of the created order.
I don’t think the first option deserves much comment; if it’s the case then the conversation is over: my experiences and the experiences of millions like me of an innate, early-manifesting, and persistent orientation are entirely delusional, Paul’s comment in Romans 1 is an etiology that is literally true for all of us, and there is no need to continue the conversation. But assuming the Church doesn’t want to simply write off the lived experiences of millions of people and the increasing scientific evidence that suggests some genetic or prenatal environmental influence (if not outright causation) on sexual orientation, this isn’t a very attractive or theologically interesting option. Really, in this case Christianity becomes little more than a ‘language game’ walled off from the world we actually experience.
The second option, however, requires a lot more thought. If we want to argue that homosexuality is not part of God’s original intention for Creation, but is a manifestation of the generational sin that infects and affects all of us, our cultures, systems and structures, relationships, and personalities, there is much to commend this view theologically. Certainly, homosexuality doesn’t fit in easily to the Creation narratives as received in the Scriptures. Nor does this perspective cause any problems for the legal strictures in Leviticus or to Paul’s comments, such as they are. It therefore requires no disruption to the traditional understandings of gender, sexuality, and marriage.
And yet, as tidy as the Creation narratives are, with their firm divisions of night and day, water and dry land, and male and female, what we actually see in the created world is far more complicated. Between night and day there is always dawn and dusk, and as anyone who has ever walked a beach at low tide knows, there is plenty of middle ground between sea and earth. And so it continues: there are mammals that lay eggs, there are fish who bear live young, there are carnivorous plants, fish with lungs, aquatic mammals, and even flightless bats. So diverse and unexpected is the created world that there was a common patristic belief that everything that God could create was created. As much as our Creation narratives love straight lines of division, the fact is, in our world as it has been given to us, when we see a straight line, we know that it is a human hand at work, and not God’s. In a world like this, unless we want to claim that the platypus is a result of sin (and really, hasn’t the poor platypus suffered enough ridicule!) all we can do is to stand back in awe and wonder and proclaim: How glorious are your works, O Lord! In wisdom have you made them all!
Even the seemingly cut and dry areas of reproduction and biological sex are far more complex than one would imagine. There are creatures which reproduce by division, creatures which reproduce by cloning themselves, creatures which can reproduce by parthenogenesis, and others which can revert back to less developed stages and begin life anew. Even among creatures with sexual reproduction, there are species that exhibit such great differences between male and female that the males are little more than genetically necessary parasites. (How glorious are your works, O Lord! In wisdom have you made them all!)
Then there are individual creatures that are biologically neither male nor female, or both, for entirely genetic reasons. What do we say about these creatures, human or non-human? Do we despise them as outside God’s creative will, or do we, as Jesus did with the man born blind, say that they were born as they are “that God’s works might be revealed in them”?
Our world is an unfathomably diverse place, and the fact is that our Creation narratives, as beautiful, profound, and paradigmatic as they may be, touch on only the smallest sliver of reality. So, when it comes to human sexuality (and also gender identity, which is a separate issue), why can’t we see — or why shouldn’t we see these things which are givens of earthly existence as equally part of the complexity, bounty and beauty of what God has made? (As an aside, I love the analogy of the paradigm for these kinds of discussions; anyone who has ever learned a foreign language knows that while paradigms are very helpful regular patterns and categories through which words change form, very few words fit the patterns perfectly — they are helpful descriptive tools of what generally happens, but are never prescriptive statements about what should or must happen.)
So, when I look at the world around me, I see ample reason why the goodness of God’s creation is vast enough, creative enough, and complex enough to include me, my sexuality included.
And yet, I find myself somewhat ambivalent between the second and third options I gave above. Or perhaps more accurately, my affirmation of the third option must be coloured by my affirmation that no aspect of human existence — sexuality most certainly included — is untouched by the impact of sin. If we are too quick to affirm that sexual diversity is part of God’s good creation in all its glorious complexity, the “Baby, I was born this way” mentality can all too easily blind us to the reality that all human relationships, and therefore all human sexuality, are skewed by our weakness, finitude, and sinfulness. It can therefore easily cause us to miss important aspects of our lives that require healing and sanctifying. No matter where we stand or who we are, no matter how easily we may fit into the our society’s traditional gender and sexual norms, or how paradigm-busting our humanity may be, the warm glow of God’s affirmation that “It is good” is always chilled by the cold wind of sin. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously reminded us, “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”
Getting back at long last to the issue of marriage, the good news is that where exactly we fall on this spectrum is actually irrelevant. Same sex marriage is not dependent on one view or the other, really. Even if homosexuality belongs to the fallen world, it means that it can be redeemed and saved by being turned towards God in and through Christ, just as all less-than-sanctified aspects our personalities must be. What greater way of saying, “You intended this for evil, but God intended this for good” could there be than to enter into a committed, God-focused, ecclesiastically-oriented relationship, forsaking all others, and committing to the hard work of working out salvation together in fear and trembling, till death parts us? Not to “explain away” the Scriptures but to live them out as fully and life-givingly as possible: to devote our life together to bearing good fruit and contributing to the flourishing of the community, not to demean, belittle or use someone for our own sexual or psychological gratification;** to see clearly God’s “invisible attributes” in Creation, not making excuses, but knowing and glorifying God, being thankful and giving our thoughts and hearts to the light of the Spirit;*** and neither trampling down the humanity of others in aggression nor being blown about by any and every passing whim of ourselves or others in passivity.**** Turning what might not be godly over to God in an intentional way is simply what believers do in all facets of life.
And in a very real sense, this means it is no different from heterosexual marriage. Something that often gets lost in these debates in the Church is that there is nothing essentially good or holy about marriage, procreation, and family life per se: these can be just as wicked and destructive as any way of life unless they are directed wholly, persistently, and consistently towards God. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann points out in his brilliant essay on marriage, “[M]arriage is, as everything else in ‘this world,’ a fallen and distorted marriage, and that it needs not to be blessed and ‘solemnized’ … but restored. … Needless to say, this restoration infinitely transcends the idea of the ‘Christian family’. … Family as such, family in itself, can be a demonic distortion of love — and there are harsh words about it in the Gospel.” And again, “The real sin of marriage today is … the idolization of the family itself, the refusal to understand marriage as directed toward the Kingdom of God.” ***** Those who choose to ground their theology in Creation can often, I believe, turn family life into just such an idol and therefore mar marriage’s genuine iconic nature. As important, beautiful and profound as family life is, Christianity is not and has never been a fertility cult. All human relationships find their meaning and their ultimate fulfillment not in finding ‘true love’ or in raising children, but in in the Kingdom of God, represented canonically as the marriage of God and Israel, of Christ and the Church. In this sense, marriage is not “heteronormative” as much as it is “christonormative.”
In a paradoxical way, this both centers and marginalizes gendered existence. It centers it in that the union of male and female in an iconic reading of marriage requires the male to ‘play the role’ of Christ, in his agency and priestly vocation, and the female to ‘play the role’ of the Church, in its radical openness towards God. And yet, even assuming for the moment that these traditional gender roles are good and holy, these differences are also marginalized in the Kingdom, for in Christ there is neither male nor female. Since we are all, male and female, within the Church Christ’s Bride, we are therefore called to embody this stereotypical symbolic ‘feminine.’ And since we are all, male and female, called to offer our lives in self-sacrificial love, as well as to offer up creation to God in thanksgiving as the priests of creation, we are also therefore called to embody the stereotypical symbolic ‘masculine.’ And this is true not only in our orientation towards God, but also to each other. When it comes right down to it, both stereotypical paradigms boil down to the same thing: humble, self-giving love.
But beyond the gender stereotypes, we know that both biological sexes include the full spectrum of personalities, strengths, and abilities. And it is not difficult to see what bad fruit is borne when gender paradigms are enforced strictly in a fixed and inflexible way, without reference to the personhood and individual characteristics of each man and woman. Even where men and women may match the gender norms perfectly and naturally, in some ways, they can act as too-convenient excuses that hide the genuine differences between two persons, as well as provide too-easy justifications for bad behaviour. (It’s exactly the same “Baby, I was born this way” attitude I was speaking of earlier.) As much as it can be true that part of the beauty and challenge of marriage is the overcoming of the solitudes of Male and Female, a world where ‘men are from Mars and women are from Venus’ can mask the fact that the true gulf lies between ‘I’ and ‘Thou’. To appropriate Solzhenitysn, the true gulf of separation lies not between the sexes, but between two human hearts, and every two human hearts.
And this is where I begin to see the theological prospects for what genuine part gender and sexual diversity might play in God’s good Creation. The idolatry of ‘typical’ family life and the reification of gender differences is always a temptation, whether in ancient Canaan’s fertility cults, or in Christian groups today who are obsessed with procreation and the 1950s-style nuclear family. The presence of same-sex couples, and the celebration of these relationships as channels for the working of the Spirit of God, can remind the Church that Christian marriage is not primarily about making babies, but about manifesting the Kingdom of God; just as the presence of those for whom traditional understandings of gender don’t apply can remind the Church that we all, male and female, are in this together, and are called to be Christ to one another, and are simultaneously called to be His Bride, that we contain within ourselves, and are called to cultivate within our selves, both halves of the marriage icon.
These are clearly very complicated issues and these reflections are only a small part of a vast picture. But as I sit here writing in the quiet beauty of my mother’s garden, I can’t help but marvel at how all these things I see — the birds, the flowers, the trees, the insects, the slugs, and even me! — are wonderfully and fearfully made. How glorious are your works, O Lord! In wisdom have you made them all!
*This report has sadly been largely ignored, and inasmuch as it has been read at all has been much maligned on all sides, I believe unfairly. It is a humble document, aware of the limitations of its scope and of the intractability of some of the hermeneutical difficulties faced; it is also a comprehensive document, giving full voice to the broadest scope of opinions within the Church; it is also very careful and generous in its conclusions, saying: “To say that it is theologically possible to make this change is not to say that the change is theologically desirable. We have attempted to show how it might be done—not why or even whether it should be done.” It is far from a perfect document, but I think it’s a helpful one and I hope it isn’t mothballed and forgotten.
** As Rabbi Steven Greenberg points out in his brilliant Wrestling with God and Men, the misogyny of the Levitical injunction against “lying with a man as with a woman” cannot be ignored. It was an assumption that the act of sexual penetration was demeaning and evidence of women’s inferiority to men. This would explain why there is no injunction against sexual activities between women.
*** cf., Romans 1
**** arsenokoites and malakoi
***** For the Life of the World, p 82 and 90.
Yesterday morning, as I was sitting on my mother’s garden patio, basking in the peace and blessing of a new day, a hummingbird appeared as if from nowhere and hovered a few feet away from me for a about thirty seconds before flying away. For whatever reason, I was inspired in the moment to look up the spiritual significance of hummingbirds in North American indigenous cultures. I discovered that across diverse cultures, hummingbirds represent such ideas as “new birth,” “joy appearing unexpectedly,” “lightness of being,” and “love, relationships, and marriage.” As I’m in a transitional period in my life, and since joy and lightness have been particularly elusive fruit of the Spirit for me, these are a welcome set of associations. And so, I chose to accept the appearance of this hummingbird as personally meaningful—not necessarily as an omen or prophecy, but at least as a reminder of what I already know and believe from within my own tradition: that the greatest blessings are often unexpected, and that the Spirit is within me as a constant source of new life, bearing fruit of love, joy, peace, etc. from the depths of my heart.
But the question is, why did I choose to experience this hummingbird as meaningful? What was it about this encounter with this hummingbird that inspired me to look up its significance in cultures other than my own? Why not the raven that flew past me just a few moments later? (As it happens, in Pacific Northwestern cultures, ravens symbolize prophecy, changeability, and, as quintessential ‘trickster’ characters, polyvalency and unpredictability—a set of meanings that would be equally appropriate, if not quite as alluring, to my present circumstances.)
I find such questions about meaning-making and discernment very compelling. Meaning-making is one of the brain’s primary tasks, at both a subconscious and conscious level: We are unceasingly bombarded by an array of data our brains must process, the vast majority of it without our active, conscious involvement. Whether we’re talking about weather conditions, distant sounds, facial expressions or body language, our brains are constantly sorting and filtering information, looking for potential threats or opportunities. And yet, these deep operations of the limbic system are prone to error and so we must also learn to consciously override them. This is the glory of the evolution of the human brain: when our anxiety spikes at a loud noise, we have the ability to discern whether or not the perceived threat is real: backfiring car or shotgun? freight train or earthquake? And so, unlike our feline cousins, we know we don’t need to hide under the bed when we hear the vacuum cleaner. But in order to do this successfully, we must learn to discern which perceived threats are real and which are not. And, as those of us with tendencies towards anxiety know all to well, this is often easier said than done.
A similar process happens with how we understand ourselves and our place in the world. We carry around with us internalized narratives about who we are and how we fit in with our surroundings. Most of these powerful narratives are subconscious and they are not always helpful. So, just like our reactions to loud noises, if we’re going to live healthy and meaningful lives, we need to bring these subconscious narratives into the light of day and learn how to help shape them in positive ways. We have the power to choose what elements of our past we incorporate into our stories and therefore how we interpret that past and what it might mean for the present and future. But with power comes responsibility: as with the previous paragraphs, the question becomes one of discernment: How do we go about choosing which elements ‘fit’ our narrative? And how do we know which story is the ‘right’ one to tell?
Belonging to a faith tradition interacts with this process in an interesting way, providing a set of ready-made narratives through which believers understand our own stories. So, for example, it is common for Christians to understand their experiences of suffering in the light of the sufferings—and ultimate vindication—of Christ. Yet, these ready-made narratives can be as problematic as they can be helpful. When the story doesn’t go ‘as it should’ it can create a strong cognitive and spiritual dissonance that often leads to disenchantment and disillusionment. (‘By the rivers of Babylon—there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion. … How could we sing the LORD’s song in a foreign land?’) Of course, any faith tradition is big enough and broad enough to contain many narratives and sub-narratives through which we can subsequently be reenchanted. And, because of the way we form and shape our own stories, we see this reenchantment not as a re-illusionment after disillusionment, but as a re-illumination, a coming out the other side with a deeper, more complicated (and therefore truer) understanding of ourselves, our faith, and our God.
But what if we’re wrong? What if yesterday morning’s hummingbird was meaningless? Or what if the real sign for me was the raven? How do we know if our spiritual or cognitive re-enchantment really is re-illumination and not re-illusionment, an exercise in self-deception and delusion?
And I think it’s these questions that lie at the heart of why I find the idea of meaning-making and spiritual discernment so compelling. In the midst of the endless confusion of data, what is signal? What is noise or static? And how do we know what a signal means? In the case of the hummingbird, the stakes are low: worst-case scenario is that I was reminded of something that is universally true. But of course there are other areas in life in which the stakes are far higher. Before my life took its sharp turn in 2010-11, for example, I was unable to reconcile my sexuality and my Christian faith; when my faith reasserted itself two-and-a-half years later, this thing that had been so huge, so immovable, for so long, had ceased to be an issue for me. In one way or the other, my story requires me either to have been wrong, either before or now. Is there any way to know?
With the hummingbird, I was inclined to see it as meaningful because it appeared at a moment when I was in the midst of deep prayer and profound praise of the beauty of God’s creation, a moment when the universe felt particularly transparent to the presence and glory of God. Yet this is not a criterion I can really use for the other issue, because in both of the seasons of my life in question I was equally committed to following Christ and to discerning the leading of the Spirit. So what gives? Has God’s will for my life changed? Or was I just wrong all those years? (Or am I wrong now?) None of those options feels satisfactory; each raises more questions than it resolves. (In may ways, I think this is the crux of the issue felt by the Church at large right now when it comes to ‘the gay issue.’ Has God changed his mind about gay people? Has the Church been wrong all these centuries? Are the experiences of gay Christians simply deluded? These notions are very difficult to fathom and all seem somewhat unsatisfactory, and I think this is ultimately why there has been so much fear, anger, and mistrust involved in the conversation.)
Now, I have good reasons to believe that in my own story, it is the case that I was wrong before, that there were things in my life that clouded my ability to discern matters correctly: un-dealt-with anxiety; a desire for certainty, structure and black-and-white answers as I witnessed my family falling apart; a longing for a sense of belonging after a rootless childhood; a personality inclined to trust authority and disinclined to rock the boat; and a deep-seated, neurotic need to be ‘normal.’ Indeed, looking back at my pre-2010 faith, as beautiful and formative as it was and as grateful for it as I am, it was also marked by an unhealthy neediness and clinging. (One perceptive observer once told me that I seemed to be someone who needed to be Christian; I see now that this need was unhealthy and motivated entirely by fear of the reality of my life.) It seems by no means coincidental looking back that my crisis of faith occurred just as I was beginning to address my anxiety; to a surprising degree, a faith that I remember and experienced as being rooted in love and gratitude was really rooted in fear. In a more positive line of thought, however, I also have reason to believe that I am correct now: As a Christian, I trust Jesus’ teaching that ‘a tree will be known by its fruit’ (Mt 12.33), and there is simply no doubt that the fruit my life is bearing now is so much more abundant and good than that borne by my previous faith.
Could I be wrong? Of course. Only a fool would be so bold to answer otherwise. We are finite creatures with limited understanding, so of course I could be wrong. Six years ago I couldn’t fathom thinking as I do now about my life then. And I trust that six years from now I’ll look back at my life today with a similar sense of deeper understanding and perspective. Every interpretation of the signs and signals of life must be held with an open hand and open heart; every telling of our story is provisional. I don’t think this is a bad thing; God is always at work creating and re-creating, and so are we always creating and re-creating our experience of being alive, shaping and re-shaping our stories. And this process can bear surprising fruit and unexpected joys and blessings—just like the hummingbird I encountered on a garden patio yesterday morning.
Much to my shame, I’ve become so accustomed to stories of mass violence that they barely even register anymore. But, somehow Orlando feels different. Living in a major urban centre in a progressive Western country, the risk of a terrorist attack that I, my work colleagues, my friends, my coreligionists, or Muslim neighbours, could be caught in or targeted in, is simply a given. But, somehow Orlando feels different. I read often about attacks of one kind or another—small scale, large scale, physical, political, or theological—on the “rainbow communities.” But, somehow Orlando feels different.
As I’ve been reflecting over the past day as to why it feels different, my mind has drifted to the last time there was an attack that left me with the same feeling, and it was an attack just under a year ago at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. There’s no doubt that these are very different attacks: a church and a nightclub are certainly not the same, and the struggle of rainbow communities must never be equated with the centuries of systemic oppression, suppression, and dehumanization the African American community has experienced. However, what these two terrorist acts share is that they shattered safe space, places that acted as a refuge of security and hope for a marginalized group.
It’s hard to understand from the outside (and even at times difficult to remember for someone like me who is on the inside but doesn’t resonate with much of the ‘gay subculture’) just how important these nightclubs have been for this community. It’s easy from the outside to simply see them as places where the most hedonistic stereotypes of gay people are played out. But, this is not a fair assessment. They are and have been places where people who feel they have to hide their identities in their day to day lives can be free to be themselves; places where people who don’t feel safe holding their beloved’s hand walking down the street are able to show their basic human affection in public; places where people carrying painful emotional and psychological scars from the past, or deep anxieties about the future can leave those pains at the door and, even if just for a few hours on a Saturday night, just be. And so, because it robbed a community of its safe space—and thereby to some extent, the safe spaces that exist all around the world for all kinds of marginalized peoples, Orlando feels different.
Orlando also feels different simply because it’s Pride, a celebration that originated with a small group of people defiantly saying ‘we exist’ and which has transformed in many parts of the world into simply one of the biggest and best parties of the year. (I remember last year talking to a (middle aged, straight, white male) colleague who expressed—to my surprise—his excitement about going to the Pride parade. As it turns out, many years ago, as a paramedic, he’d been assigned to work the Pride parade; he enjoyed it so much that he volunteered to work it the next few years, then started bringing his children to it annually. Why? Because it was, in his words, ‘the safest, happiest, friendliest, funnest cultural event in the city’. High praise coming from someone with no vested interest!) Yet, Orlando is a reminder that despite how far we have come, our Existing is still an act of defiance; and so, Orlando feels different.
Pride is also simply the time when the rainbow communities are at their best. Even as we advocate for diversity in society, we are by no means perfect in dealing with our own diversity: “bi-erasure,” difficulty in understanding and acceptance between gender-normative and gender-queer people within the community, and outright racism are genuine struggles. But every June, groups that have little in common except for their difference march together and cheer each other on. And just like how attacks against religious groups always cut deeper when they happen around their important celebrations and holy days, because this attack struck at Pride, when our ‘best self’ is on display, Orlando feels different.
But specifically for me, and I’m sure for many other gay Anglicans in Canada, Orlando also feels different because of current debates—wholly unrelated to this horrific terrorist act—going on within our Church, which are leaving us feeling rather exposed and vulnerable. We find ourselves in the awkward position of either not participating in an important conversation that directly impacts us and our community, or having to re-engage (for the thousandth time for many of us) with arguments which have proven to be harmful and poisonous to us and our faith. While conservative advocates often accuse us of simply not dealing with their arguments, they fail to realize that we have been confronted with these arguments all our lives. And many of us have accepted them, taken them to heart and lived them out, only to discover that they are destructive to our hearts, souls, minds, bodies, faith, and relationships. And for many of us, the memories of the destructive power of these poisons are still too vivid, their wounds still too raw and fresh, to want to address them again. We feel like we’re being asked to re-live the darkest nights, and re-fight the most horrific spiritual battles of our lives, and to do so in public, under the false guise of an ‘objective’ theological discussion. And so, because this terrorist act comes at a time of increased vulnerability, Orlando feels different.
It’s far too soon to tell what the impact of the massacre in Orlando will be. But, I know that it feels different, and I believe that I am different accordingly. I may not resonate strongly with gay (or more broadly LGBTQ2S+, what I’ve called ‘the rainbow communities’ above) subculture, but I am more committed than every to creating safe spaces for authentic and integral personhood. I don’t care much about Pride events, but this year I am committed to being loud and proud. And, while the last thing I want to do is wrestle with the poisonous arguments of those who would exclude me from the Table, I am committed to engaging the conversation, to telling my story, and to preaching the Gospel, which is and must be good news for all people.
Life is not for the faint of heart. This little phrase is one that has come to mind often for me over the past few months as I’ve reflected on the past three, five, ten, twenty-five, and thirty-six years of my life.
Within this often harrowing adventure that is human existence, we are often unaware of what moments will turn out to be important—seemingly insignificant events can change our lives, while things that at the time feel like earthquakes can quickly fade into obscurity. But there are rare occasions that are genuine moments of turning a page in our life.
This past Thursday was one such day for me in two important ways.
First, I paid off the last of my debt. While this is always exciting, this was of particular meaning for me because I had accrued the debt during my difficult entry into Toronto. In a genuinely freeing way, paying it off felt like finally turning the page on that difficult year. I hadn’t noticed how much of that experience I was still carrying with me in my heart until I could see the end of that debt and all that it symbolized in sight. But with the tap of my thumb on Thursday morning, it was all lifted from my shoulders—the disheartening job search, the horrible part-time job where I was set up to fail, the mouldering furniture, the unreliable electricity, internet, and hot water, the trio of unhelpfully critical people in my path, the disappointed hopes, and all this during the most unrelenting winter in recent local memory—it all moved permanently into the past, where it belongs. (And good riddance!)
This would of itself represent a wonderful page-turning day. But later that morning, I received word that I had been invited to be a postulant for ordination in the Anglican Diocese of Toronto. This is obviously a big deal and will involve some big changes in my life. But, just as importantly, in its own way, this too lifts some of the weight of the past from my shoulders.
They say discernment is an act of defiance, of “staying with the discordant notes of our lives”(Wilkie Au & Noreen Cannon Au, The Discerning Heart, p.19). I love this definition because my life has involved more than its share of dissonance. Even ignoring the Dark Night of my soul and its long aftermath, my spiritual life has been marked by irony and oddity from the start: I never felt at home in the Anglican tradition in which I was raised; an evangelical charismatic parish taught me to value Tradition; my first encounter with the Orthodox Church taught me to value the Future; it was the very integrity of my Orthodoxy that made that Tradition an unsustainable home for me; it was encounters with Buddhism and drag queen wisdom that allowed me to hear the voice and call of Jesus again; and I ended up back in the church of my childhood, but (at least for a time) as a spiritual refugee.
While beginning the journey to ordained ministry in the Anglican Church in many ways represents the ultimate of these ironies—following in the footsteps of my grandfather and father after such a long and winding road—it also represents the resolution of many of the “discordant notes” of my life. (Far from all of them, but at least it is now far less noisy than it was even a few days ago!) And even more amazingly, it is the path that brings the most of these notes, the most of my past, with it, no longer as absurdities, inconsistencies, or loose threads, but as deep resources of joy and strength. (See what wonders the Lord has wrought!)
This news will likely bring much joy to many of you who read this, but by no means to all. I know that some of you, for deeply held and understandable reasons based in traditions in which you have experienced liberation, truth and joy, cannot imagine how the affirmation of homosexuality can coexist in faithfulness to the Gospel. I understand where you are—I’ve been there myself! And I know some of you, for your own deeply held and understandable reasons based in a culture in which you are now experiencing liberation, truth and joy, cannot imagine why a (seemingly) intelligent, thoughtful gay man would have anything to do with ‘organized religion.’ I understand where you are too!—I’ve been there myself!
But whether this is news you can celebrate or not, I would ask that you would walk with me on this new journey I am undertaking, and uphold me in your prayers, thoughts, and intentions. Because, Life is not for the faint of heart. And if I am to make it through the next three years, five years, ten years, twenty-five years, thirty-six years, and beyond, I’m going to need you by my side.
I’ve been thinking — rather unoriginally this time of year — about the symbolism of dust on Ash Wednesday: For you are dust and to dust you will return. I used to be tempted to see this as a minimizing message, reminiscent of the high school bully throwing me against a locker yelling, “You’re nothing!” But this is a false temptation. Remembering that we are dust is certainly about smallness — Sagan’s “pale blue dot” (1) comes to mind — but smallness doesn’t make something any less beautiful or precious. The preciousness of smallness is of course not a new idea. Centuries before Sagan spoke of being made of “the stuff of stars” (the expression was actually widely used by astronomers from at least 1918 — Sagan merely popularized it) (2) and of the pale blue dot, Julian of Norwich spoke of all that is created as “a little thing, the size of a hazelnut, sitting in my hand,” something so small she marveled how it could even hold together. She was assured that “it lasts — and will always last — because God loves it; and so all things exist by the love of God.” (3) C.S. Lewis wrote more extensively about this paradoxical inconsequential-ness and infinite value in Perelandra, where he writes:
That Dust itself which is scattered so rare in Heaven, whereof all worlds, and the bodies that are not worlds, are made, is at the centre. … Each grain, if it spoke, would say, I am at the centre; for me all things were made. Let no mouth open to gainsay it. Blessed be He!” Each grain is at the centre. The Dust is at the centre. … Where [God] is, there is the centre. He is in every place.
He has immeasurable use for each thing that is made, that His love and splendour may flow forth like a strong river which has need of a great watercourse and fills alike the deep pools and the little crannies, that are filled equally and remain unequal; and when it has filled them brim full it flows over and makes new channels. We also have need beyond measure of all that He has made. Love me, my brothers, for I am infinitely necessary to you and for your delight I was made. Blessed be He!”
“He has no need at all of anything that is made. An [angel] is not more needful to Him than a grain of the Dust: a peopled world no more needful than a world that is empty: but all needless alike, and what all add to Him is nothing. We also have no need of anything that is made. Love me, my brothers, for I am infinitely superfluous, and your love shall be like His, born neither of your need nor of my deserving, but a plain bounty. Blessed be He! (4)
We are both everything and nothing: everything because we exist and are sustained by God’s love; nothing because we are completely unnecessary in and of ourselves. This is a beautiful balance.
But more than smallness, I think the power of the ashes metaphor is what it says about impermanence. It doesn’t matter what we build or amass, how much we know or how defined our abs are, it will all just be dust in a matter of years, “three score and ten, or if by reason of strength, four score.” The most beautiful cathedral or temple, the tallest skyscraper — even the mightiest peaks of the Himalayas — come from dust, and will return to dust (albeit on a slightly longer timescale than our own lives). When we look even at the history of our planet we see this long process of things coming into being, existing, then being broken down again: continents and land-masses, animal kingdoms, ecosystems, species, and entire modes of life, have all come and gone. The time scales of these processes are incredible. (Again, we are so small! so impermanent!) God in this sense is always at work, always Creator, always making all things new. I think this is one of the most exciting and beautiful things science has taught religion. There is such cause for wonder and humility in this. We really are “like grass, which is here today and gone tomorrow.” And the Word of God — the Logos, the Deep Structure or Grammar of the Universe which is eternally bringing forth newness and life — really does “endure for ever.”
Yet even within the span of our lives we see that everything is in a constant state of coming into being and disintegrating. Nothing is permanent. We blink and infants have become toddlers, blink again and our hair has turned grey and wrinkles line our faces. And whenever we think we’ve got life figured out, the rules of the game change without warning and we are left to start over again. Despite the universality and ever-present reality of change, our minds strive for and cling to permanence, to what has been, to what is safe and predictable. This fear, grasping, striving, is at the heart of so much suffering and the root of so much sin: It’s such a huge issue for our unwillingly impermanent minds that how to manage it is the fundamental question behind one of the world’s great religious and philosophical traditions, Buddhism.
It’s no wonder then that at the start of this season of penitence and honest reflection, we remind ourselves of our smallness and impermanence. Over and against the ego’s instinct to puff itself up in the face of these simple realities of existence — like a house cat arching its back and raising its fur at the sight of its reflection in a mirror — we instead lean into our smallness and impermanence and remember that, just like the hazelnut of Julian’s vision, we are crafted and sustained by the love of an infinitely creative God.
And this is good news indeed.
1. Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (New York: Random House, 1994), xv.
2. Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (New York: Dell Publishing, 1973). For further information on the use of “star stuff,” see: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/06/22/starstuff/.
3. Julian of Norwich, Showings of Divine Love, Chapter 5.
4. C.S. Lewis, Perelandra (London: The Bodley Head, 1947, 1963), in Canada, available at http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-perelandra/lewiscs-perelandra-00-h.html.