When I think of people who are certain of their beliefsâ€”no possibility of compromiseâ€”certain strains of conservative come to mind. My conservative friends, however, tell me that progressives can be just as certain.
I think Iâ€™ve found a case in point: a compelling article by Candace Chellew-Hodge. In â€œSmashing Our Idols,â€ Chellew-Hodgeâ€”a pastor and editor of an online magazine for LGBT Christiansâ€”muses on her interactions with David Gushee, an evangelical and professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University.
The thinking from both parties is remarkable for its civility and nuance. Gushee makes clear that, while he is currently opposed to â€œall sexual acts outside of heterosexual marital acts,â€ the question requires a rethinking on his part, and that process is ongoing. Chellew-Hodge, meanwhile, affirms the humanity of people on the â€œother side,â€ is glad to have allies like Gushee with which to dialogue, and stresses the importance of patience.
I wish all interactions between adversaries were like this. It could easily serve as a model for the whole Church. One piece of it, though, doesnâ€™t quite sit well with me: Chellew-Hodgeâ€™s sense of certaintyâ€”and what that might do to the dialogue. She writes:
â€¦we must give people time and space to come to the side of full equality. Those who are making an honest effort, like Gushee, must be applauded and nurtured â€“ not attacked. In the same manner, we who want full, unconditional inclusion in church and society need to be in relationship with people like Gushee so we can encourage them to keep whacking at the statues of exclusion and oppression until they are finally gone.
Her underlying assumption, as I read it, is that she is on the right side of the issue, and that the most gracious thing she can do is to â€œbe in relationship with people like Gusheeâ€ until they come around.
Just for clarityâ€™s sake, I happen to believeâ€”passionatelyâ€”that she is on the right side of the issue. I hope to God that the Church continues to move in the direction of welcoming all people. But authentic dialogue, as I see it, requires one more step than Chellew-Hodge has taken: a suspension of oneâ€™s preconceptionsâ€”however temporarily. Only with that step, I believe, can we be fully open to the other.
Suspending oneâ€™s preconceptions is a nod to one of humanityâ€™s most fundamental realities: â€œI donâ€™t know.â€ We may believe with passion. That passion may be enough (in some cases, it must be enough) for us to wrap our lives around the conviction and even attempt to steer the world in that direction. But especially in matters of the spirit, we know nothing. While this bedrock reality may not play a huge role in our daily lives, we can best extend compassion and a listening ear to the other if we enter dialogue with it in mind.
What would happen in a dialogue entered this way?Â We could create a space in which, no matter how much we disagree, we can listen for the value in the otherâ€™s perspective and for how it might make our own thinking better. Itâ€™s unlikely I will ever adopt Gusheeâ€™s current stance carte blanche, but if I am fully open to it, I might hear more about the values beneath it and how they resonate with my own thinking. Maybe what happens is that I reaffirm my current thinking on LGBT issues but reimagine the place of spiritual intimacy and commitment in it.
Dialogue rarely changes a participantâ€™s position completely or instantly. In many cases, thatâ€™s not the point. The point is, more often, to grow together in love and reconciliation and to accumulate wisdom wherever we can find it. Goodness knows, we can all use more wisdom.