🗣️ Are Constructive Conversations on Sexuality and Gender Possible?

My dear friend Karen Keen says yes! I spoke to her about her new book she co-edited, "Christlike Acceptance across Deep Difference: Constructive Conversations on Sexuality and Gender."

I say this without exaggeration: I believe “Christlike Acceptance across Deep Difference: Constructive Conversations on Sexuality and Gender” may be one of the most important books I’ve read this year. The book is an anthology of essays from a variety of writers—including those who affirm same-sex marriage and those who do not—all focused on understanding how to discern the best way forward on one of the most contentious topics right now, not just in the church but in our society as a whole.

One of the co-editors of this book, Karen Keen, is a dear friend of mine who I’ve gotten to know over the years. She is the wife of one of my favorite people, Sally Gary, who has been instrumental in my own journey of wrestling with issues of faith and sexuality. (Sally is executive director of CenterPeace, an organization that helps provide community for LGBTQ Christians while helping foster productive conversations around LGBTQ matters.) I have been blessed to attend retreats with these two godly women, and I can think of no one better to help edit a book on how to foster constructive conversations.

The book provides deep wisdom, not just on how to navigate this thorny topic, but also how to work together despite our differences on any number of topics. This is sorely needed right now. As the editors note in the introduction:

The crisis in our discourse is hard to deny. A staggering 93 percent of Americans feel incivility is a problem and over two-thirds feel it is a major problem. Moreover, incivility is not just a matter of how we talk to one another, but at a foundational level it often keeps us from talking to one another. As twenty-first-century followers of Jesus, we must consider our role more seriously in healing the divisions that are tearing our churches apart and destroying our witness to the world around us.

That’s why I’m so thankful for people like Karen and all the voices in this book who are modeling a better way forward. I’m also grateful for the work of The Reformation Project, led by Matthew Vines. I wasn’t able to attend their biennial conference last month, but I was heartened to hear that Matthew Vines began the first night by condemning the murder of Charlie Kirk.

As one attendee, Robert Vandenberg, eloquently put it in his summary of The Reformation Project Conference:

In years past, I would have said that we needed the Reformation Project to act as a bridge between LGBT people and conservative churches; now I would say we need it because it’s one of the last islands of reconciliation in a culture where two warring factions seem intent on beating each other to death with crosses and Pride flags.

I recently spoke to Karen about this important book and her work in general to help foster better conversations on sexuality and gender. That interview is below and has been lightly edited for clarity. I’ve also included a few insightful quotes from the book, sprinkled throughout.

Ryan Self: I finished your book last night, and it’s fantastic. There are so many great chapters and voices. It’s incredible to find such a diversity of views all centered around this important topic. How did you go about finding the authors for each of the chapters? What were you looking for? Basically, how did this book come together?

Karen Keen: Good question. Most of the authors I already knew. Some of them were referrals — a friend of a friend. Given that I’m fairly active in the faith and sexuality conversation, I know quite a few people, not just on Side A [those who affirm same-sex relationships] but also Side B [those who do not affirm same-sex relationships]. I tried to find people who I thought would do a good job with the intent of our book, which wasn’t just a biblical discussion or ministry aspect, but the crucial component of how to connect across differences. Not everybody can sit in that space, and not everyone has the gentleness and respect to be able to do that. I wish everyone did. So I was looking for character — people’s character, Christlikeness. And of course, my co-editor Ron Pierce, who taught at Biola for almost 50 years, knew some of the contributors as well, including one of his former coworkers, who is one of the contributors.

Speaking of Ron, I really enjoyed his chapter — especially where he talks about acceptance. Not just welcoming as in “welcoming but not affirming,” and not just fully affirming either, but a third category of “acceptance.” I thought that was an interesting addition. Obviously that’s not your chapter, but could you talk about what acceptance means and what that framework looks like?

Yes, I do want to clarify that, because there was recently a podcast critiquing the book. It was actually one of Ron Pierce’s former coworkers, Sean McDowell, talking with another Biola person. They suggested the book conveyed some kind of “third way,” which in many people’s minds means a melding of views — not really holding your convictions as much as both sides are somehow compromising and creating a blend of views. They were troubled that the book might be suggesting compromise, because in their mind we can’t compromise; we have to maintain convictions. The book is not proposing that. One of the people on that podcast admitted he hadn’t even read the book, so it wasn’t a fair or accurate review, unfortunately. That makes me sad.

Christlike acceptance is drawing from Scripture itself. There was that disagreement over food sacrificed to idols and whether someone should be able to eat it or not. There was a disagreement in the first church about that. Some felt it was sacrilegious, of course we shouldn’t do that. Others said it didn’t matter because those idols weren’t real gods so it doesn’t matter if we ate the meat. Paul counseled them to accept one another — specifically, to accept one another as Christ accepts us. That’s a radical kind of acceptance that’s not contingent upon agreement. It is a mercy that we extend to a person or group even as we disagree.

So the goal of the book isn’t for everyone to come to the same viewpoint and agree. It’s about how do we engage with one another with Christlike acceptance, love, kindness and respect in the midst of disagreement.

And along those same lines, your chapter talks about discernment — that we need to listen to those who have opposing views because that helps us get at the truth we’re all hopefully aiming for. Could you talk about your chapter and the role discernment plays in our Christian faith, especially on this topic?

My chapter is called “Genesis, Discernment, and God’s Will.” The first part of the book looks at biblical passages, but we intentionally discuss them not as fodder for debate. Instead, we say, “Let’s back up a little here” because sometimes in the debate we get very myopic and miss the point of what these passages are really about. That happens with Genesis. Genesis 1 and 2 are frequently brought up, particularly by traditionalists arguing against same-sex relationships.

I suggest going back to Genesis and ask: is there a word that can speak to both traditionalists and reformists, reformists being those who are affirming? What would it be like to read this passage in a way that exhorts everyone? My chapter looks at how, when God created human beings, He created them to steward the earth. “Let us make humankind in our image so that they may rule.” As human beings, we take that role seriously — building societies, civilizations, and culture. Of course, that should be done in a Christlike way. We govern in a Christlike way.

That theme of governance continues into the New Testament. Ephesians says we’ve been seated with Him in the heavenlies — meaning enthroned with Him. In Revelation, Jesus says, “To the one who overcomes, I will give a place on the throne with me.” It’s mind-boggling that the God of the universe would share a throne with fallible human beings. That shows how humble God is — He shares power.

But in sharing power, God gives us responsibility. Too often, in the tradition I come from, it was as if God made all the decisions, and that shirks our responsibility. We’re supposed to collaborate with God — to take responsibility for stewarding the earth and governing it. Part of that governance is discerning ethics.

We see that play out with the Israelites. Moses gets exasperated because everyone comes to him daily saying, “Help me discern what to do.” Moses says it’s too much for him, so he appoints other leaders. Why do we have different leaders appointed? Because discernment is part of the responsibility God gave us. We’re supposed to sort out and make decisions through discernment. That includes sexual ethics—we are given responsibility for discerning.

That involves reading Scripture and other ways of knowing God’s will, including reason, prayer, and spiritual discernment.

That’s a powerful framework: collaborating with God. You had two recent Substack posts, one about arguments the affirming side makes that fail to persuade, and another about the non-affirming arguments that fail to persuade. Could you share some the main ideas of those posts?

Yes, this isn’t in the book but it’s on my Substack Uncommon Saints (it used to be called Bible, Sex, and Gender, but I decided to give it a more constructive name). I have two posts: one looking at weaknesses of the reformist or affirming argument, and one looking at weaknesses of the traditionalist argument.

I wrote them because I want to have a good conversation on this. If we’re pursuing truth, we should be able to admit weaknesses in our own perspective and what can we learn from the other person. Even though I don’t agree with traditionalists now, there are things I do agree with and that I can find commonality on and I can concede as a good point. I want to do that because I’m pursuing truth, not just being right.

I get frustrated because in the debate people often just put out talking points without listening. We end up talking past each other, preaching to our own side. That doesn’t change minds or help us learn. I’d love to see a more robust conversation. We’re living in an amazing time where our generation gets to contribute to the church’s understanding of the theology of sexuality and gender. That’s a big and wonderful responsibility. We can best do that through iron-sharpens-iron relationships. Let’s talk about this together: how should we think about sexuality and gender?

One of the biggest weaknesses in the reformist view is saying that in antiquity the same-sex relationships were exploitative. We know that in antiquity these relationships were exploitative; we have the extra-biblical, textual evidence that most same-sex relationships were pederasty, prostitution, masters raping slaves. And obviously we’re not trying to affirm that, that’s very different from a Christian marriage between two gay people who don’t have the option of a heterosexual marriage because they can’t function in that. Traditionalists are in a completely different place. They say, “That may be true, but that’s not our argument. Our argument is that Genesis proposes a created order — God made them male and female. So even if there was some cultural, exploitative practice, we’re looking at Genesis.” So the reformist side doesn’t engage enough with Genesis and sexual differentiation as much as needed.

On the traditionalist side, one of the biggest weaknesses is assuming reformists don’t take the Bible seriously, that we just give cultural relativity arguments. That’s not true. There are scholars on the reformist side that are engaging Genesis robustly: James Brownson; my own book Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships proposes legal deliberation using a very evangelical hermeneutic; Robert Song’s work on Genesis and eschatology. There are writings exist that are engaging with the primary concerns traditionalists are offering, but many traditionalists don’t seem aware of them or don’t engage them directly. I’ve had very few people engage with the actual argument of my book. I actually just read a critique today where they didn’t even discuss the key argument I make around legal deliberation. That’s pretty common. They often create straw men because they don’t know what to do with the real arguments.

I’m sure that’s frustrating. What would you hope non-affirming and then affirming Christians might take from this book?

I hope both traditionalists and reformists respond similarly — that we need to be willing and eager to talk across differences, learn from one another, and consider what we have in common. The more we understand what we have in common, the more we can refine those distinctions and discuss them.

I think the conversation has stagnated for decades. The same arguments have been repeated for decades since the 1970s when the affirming view began to be presented more. That makes me sad. It makes me sad that 50 years later, we haven’t made a tremendous amount of progress in the conversation because people haven’t been willing to listen to each other. I’m trying to change that. But to even get to those iron-sharpens-iron conversations, we have to be willing to listen to each other and appreciate one another and have Christlike acceptance. I would hope we can still have that Christlike acceptance even when we have that robust conversations and we still end up in disagreement. We have to figure out how to live together and share this planet together amid disagreement.

In the tradition I was raised in, there was perplexity around dialogue. The thinking was, “What’s the point? We know we’re right and they’re wrong.” I think Paul would say, “Maybe you are right, but God is teaching us to accept one another as Christ accepted us — to be in relationship.” You can’t love your neighbor if you’re not even in conversation with them. There’s a bigger picture than just being doctrinally right.

As 1 John says, “No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God’s love lives in us and is perfected in us.” That’s deeply relational. We can have all knowledge and be right, but if we don’t have love, it means nothing. Love is the ultimate goal — not being right.

That’s beautiful. As we wrap up, you’ve been in these conversations a long time, doing research, study, and dialogue. What’s been one of the more frustrating aspects? And what’s something that brings you hope?

The most disheartening thing is misrepresentation, having my work misrepresented by the other side, either because it wasn’t read carefully or because of intentional straw men. That’s challenging and disheartening, and I have to guard my heart against becoming uncharitable. Sometimes I have to throw away my first draft or rewrite something completely because it wasn’t charitable enough.

Recently, I’ve been thinking about letter writing. I used to write letters a lot when I was younger. The New Testament is full of letters. Letters can be so valuable for communication. Today, we have so much public venting on social media, people vomiting their woundedness out there. I’d love to see more people, instead of posting that tweet critiquing someone, instead that person write personal letters — email or postal — saying, “Hey, I was concerned about something you said. Would you consider this point of view?”

Letter writing slows the process down. Social media is impulsive — it’s venting, not advocacy of any kind, really. Writing a letter forces you to be personal, to think and face the person. I’ve even created a journal where I log people I feel led by the Spirit to write letters to. There are some letters where I feel concerned about something that somebody said, and I feel like that might be better for me to reach out relationally and personally to express my concern directly rather than an impersonal post. Posting is just about myself and my own feelings rather than having a conversation with someone who offended me or concerns me.

That’s wonderful advice. I’m sure if we wrote more letters and fewer tweets, we’d be in a better place. So last question: looking to the future and your work with CenterPeace, the Reformation Project, and work that you and your wife, Sally Gary, are doing — what gives you hope?

One thing that gives me great encouragement is the witness of young Christian LGBTQ leaders, especially in the Bakos Project that Sally and I co-founded. We’re working with young leaders in their 20s and 30s who love God. We’re shifting from debate to a more constructive focus on looking at what LGBTQ Christians have to offer the church. Let’s talk about: What are your gifts? What’s your calling? How is God working in your life? How can we support your vocation?

Too often, we spend all our energy defending our existence and letting our opponents so utterly shape our lives, always reacting to opponents’ agendas. I want to shift the focus to listening to God’s call and what He is calling people to do and His purpose.

That makes me very excited, especially when I meet these young leaders who are smart, devout in their faith, full of energy to make a difference in the world. That excites me.