On one of my recent trips up to Sactown to spend time with my extended family, especially Mom (who'd just be pre-diagnosed with pancreatic cancer), my brother Rob and I began a conversation around this issue of the Christian Church and those with same-sex attraction (SSA).  Rob grew up in the same Chinese American Baptist church as me, but he and his family attend a Presbyterian church downtown, directly across the street from the state capital.  My brother is a city councilman and it doesn't surprise me that he and his wife love and respect their pastor for preaching about current events and controversial issues.  Even before the May ruling on same sex marriage by the California Supreme Court, Rob's church has been welcoming and affirming same-sex couples for years.  So you can well imagine the tenor of our conversation when I shared with him what our church hosted on May 10th (see earlier posts).

I'm older by five years but Rob's probably 100 IQ points smarter than me (and I'm not stupid).  He doesn't miss a trick.  If you've got any holes in your arguments, he'll spot 'em long before you do and drive a truck through them.  As we got deeper and deeper into the conversation around the Christian Church and homosexuals, I began bracing myself early for his expert cross examination (when he was arguing cases in the courtroom, he went 10 years without ever losing a verdict!  His very first legal victory was defending Renault against an anti-lemon lawsuit!).

The clock on the desk in the guestroom read "1:22 AM" when he exposed the flaw in my publicly pronounced position.

"So let me get this straight, Ken.  You're saying that homosexuality is just one outcome of all of human sexuality's being broken, right?  But since the church is supposed to be a place of God's healing and hope for all broken sinners, people at EvergreenLA now are open to receiving those struggling with same-sex attraction, with the operative phrase being 'struggling with.'  However, if someone with same-sex attraction was NOT struggling with this, was NOT convinced that this orientation was contrary to God's Word and God's specific will for him/her, then you would have to draw the line there.  Did I hear you say that?  That's what I thought.

"Okay, look, you're the theologian, not me.  I'm a lawyer and this is about religious convictions, not the law of the land.  But even though I'm not a theologian, I'm troubled by the flagrant inconsistencies of your publicly stated position on this important issue.  Again, I'm not a theologian like you, but do you mean to tell me that there is no one--not a single person--coming to your church today, even serving as a lay leader or on your ministry staff--who is actively sinning AND not struggling with that sin?  You said that you're trying hard not to single out homosexual behavior as the worst sin, that instead you're trying to treat this 'sin' in the same way that you treat any and all sins, right? (At this point, I became familiar with feelings of entering a battle of wits unarmed).

"So let's start with you, Ken.  Are you a sinner?  Okay, but are there any sins that you in fact AREN'T struggling with?  You know, they don't bother you, you don't spend any time fretting over them, and you and the church certainly don't believe that whatever these might be don't disqualify from being a pastor, let alone just coming to church.  Let me get really concrete for a moment: Is being too materialistic a sin?  Definitely listed as such in the Bible.  Do you have a problem with being too materialistic?  (I was about to plead the 5th but that would have been fruitless.)  But let's say that you know that being materialistic was a sin but you aren't struggling one bit with being too materialistic.  Or let's say it was the sin of gluttony.  Any obvious gluttens going to your church, Ken?  Any in leadership positions?  Or let's say it was the sin of an unforgiving heart.  Do you think there might be a good number of folk at EvergreenLA who harbor long-standing grudges without ever really struggling with their refusal to forgive? 

"So if sinners who AREN'T struggling with certain sins are welcomed and allowed to serve throughout the church, why are you changing the standards just because this time it's about people with SSA?"

As the big hand was just minutes away from making it clear that we were approaching 2 AM, all I could tell Rob was that those were great points and that God had just used him to kick my behind.

I'm really starting to believe that the crux of this crucial issue before us all comes down to these questions: 1) Is someone born with SSA or is it a choice?, and 2) Regardless of whether scholars and scientists will ever solve the mystery of sexual attraction, how will you respond when the person with the SSA is your own flesh and blood or your best friend since first grade?

Can you get me unstuck from my apparent inconsistent application of Scripture towards LGBT community members?

I tell you one thing: The next time someone begins by saying, "Well, I'm not a theologian like you..." you'd better either brace yourself for a bumpy ride or it's time to strap in and TAKE OFF!

Peace,
pken.

For all the hype and anticipation leading up to the unprecedented May 10th Conversation about Homosexuality that our church hosted for Christians on Social Issues (CSI), I find it hard to believe it's been 48 hours since it happened.  Our church is selling a 2-CD set ($4, I believe) if you want to have your own copy but the entire conversation (sans the 22-min movie "In God's House") should be available for listening/download at www.ebcla.org this week sometime.

As I shared in my brief opening attempt to "frame" the evening, my wife's biggest concern/fear is that both some who attended and some who didn't will distort and contort what we not only were praying would happen but we believe indeed happened that evening.  Even though Moderator/Host Bill Watanabe made a point of repeating throughout the evening that the purpose was to facilitate an honest and personal conversation around the issue of homosexuality and the AsiAm evangelical church, that there was little chance that anyone or everyone would agree with what people up front said, that this was not going to be a debate on what the Bible really says, there are still plenty of people, especially Christian ones, who do not believe it is wise or even 'biblical' to foster an unconstructed, unbiased dialogue on the subject of homosexuality.  Even to 'allow' an openly gay Christian (shudder!) the freedom to reveal his painful journey and to speak of his current conclusion that making him homosexual must have been God's choice because it certainly wasn't his, that by itself is a terrible error because it says to people that any person's journey carries the same weight of 'truthiness' as God's eternal Word.  I know for a fact that there were some in attendance who came with these convictions and left with these concerns because I observed one of them near the end of the evening trying to convince Bill to allow him some microphone time (denied!) and immediately afterwards that person and his buddy (I was going to say 'partner' but that might REALLY freak them both out!)--well-worn Study Bibles firmly in hand--spent about 10 minutes spelling out the above concerns (and more!) before I told them that their time with me was up.  Before I lost patience, I kept trying to tell them that, in my two earlier sermons, I'd already clearly stated that the practice of homosexuality was a sin--as they believed--but I just wasn't as uncivil about it as they were.   If the camera  wasn't  filming  this confrontation, I probably would have pulled the trigger on that argument sooner!


What Gary Hayashi did that night was talk openly and insightfully about what it was like to grow up and serve in the Christian Church while struggling secretly with feelings of same sex attraction.  He remembered feeling stirrings of SSA as far back as age two.  Most of us straight folks who were there that night had never before heard the pain-soaked journey of a now-openly-gay Christian.  Of the years of self-loathing.  Of the failed attempts to 'butch up' and be more masculine.  Of the reprimands growing up for having crushes on boys.  Of the two desperate episodes when suicide seemed the better option.  Of the startling challenge from the God of the Bible one day to see "if I don't love you as you are."  Marian Sunabe and I had heard bits and pieces of Gary's story, but even we were astonished at the level to which Gary took us into his life.  He was able to do that BECAUSE he knew that he wasn't going to be attacked, wasn't going to be put on the defensive, wasn't going to be invalidated because some of his Christian convictions don't match some of ours.  And so what we were treated to was breath-takingly revealing.  The deep degree of self-revelation that Gary risked in front of more than 300 people was unprecedented in a predominantly AsiAm evangelical setting.  Gary was able to give us an amazing gift that night BECAUSE we had all agreed that this was going to be a conversation around the issue of homosexuality.

Did I agree with everything he said?  No, and he didn't need me too.  Did I agree with everything Marian said?  No, and she (maybe for the first time) didn't need me too either.  Did those two agree with everything that I said?  Absolutely not, and I'm STILL upset about that! (I kid you, ok?)  Again, what we had been learning in our times together in preparation for May 10th was what I believe we were able to model: how to have a civil, respectful, and real conversation even in the face of differing convictions. 

I've heard from a number of people from EBCLA who were there who said that, while they didn't agree with some of what any of us three said, they were elated that we displayed such honesty and respect around an extremely controversial and divisive subject.  Those from the activist LGBT community who were there were simply astonished that there was such a huge turnout AND that it never became a witch-trial AND that it happened in an evangelical, historically Asian (but now diverse) church.  They haven't stopped thanking us for pulling this together, even though they know that my official position stops way short of theirs on this issue. 

I'm sure that there are very conservative, very concerned Christian brethren at this very moment who are sounding the warning claxons on their blogs that Pastor Ken Fong and this church (hey, what about CSI?) are wolves in sheeps clothing, that we can't be trusted and that we are a dangerous church.  But I also know that right now, Christians and nonbelievers in the LGBT community are also talking nonstop about what happened on May 10th.  About how CSI and EBCLA were willing to risk getting tarred and feathered because God's perfect love casts out fear (1 Jn 4:18).  And perhaps, just maybe, some of them are rethinking their attitudes about God and His good news, that it might even include them, but on His terms.  So maybe we ARE a dangerous church.

Every day, each of us must share the same living space, the same church, the same work environment, the same country, and the same planet with LOADS of folks who don't share our convictions.  Our differences revolve around things like sexuality, politics, culture, religion, music, etc.  I'm convinced it's crucial that we all have solid convictions and as a Christian, I'm biased towards the kind that come from a high view of the Bible.  But there's never going to be a day when everyone on earth or at least in our specific portion of the planet share all the same convictions.  All of this is to say that it's absolutely necessary AND crucial that we all come to our senses and realize that each of us is already here (personhood), that none of us is moving to another planet (global village), and so ALL of us better figure out how to co-exist civilly alongside people who don't share our convictions. 

And if, like me, you claim to be an apprentice of Jesus, we should be forging that path of reconciliation for the rest of the world.

Several weeks ago, I was this close to putting forth a blog-defense of Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his "God d___ America!" sermon-sound-bite was being used to pillory Sen. Obama.  But with the retired minister's grabbing the microphones this week, I find myself utterly dismayed with him.

You see, originally, I was going to write about how much of White America simply didn't know about or "get" the long and storied tradition of the Black prophetic pulpit (which were the proving ground for the now famous speeches by MLK).  That what to untrained, mainly White ears sounded alarmingly like inflammatory, 'un-Christian' rhetoric was actually the unique perspective of those who once had been enslaved and who continued to suffer prejudice and injustice in "the land of the free and the home of the brave."  Rev. Wright had suffered innumerable injustices and oppression, growing up pre-CRM in the South and knew first-hand of the national sins that he was exposing.  It is far too narrow a definition of patriotism never to criticize our culture or country when called for.  And it's far too convenient for those who've never or rarely suffered or been sinned against by the darker aspects of America to rear back in horror upon hearing such accusations.  In fact, I still am chewing on the question of why I, as a nonWhite preacher, am not EVER angry at things like corporate greed and systemic injustice, even if I don't have first hand experience with it.

I listened to Sen. Obama's Philadelphia response and was among the many who were very moved with his measured and gracious response to criticism of his former pastor and spiritual mentor and his eloquent and thoughtful treatment of the ongoing issues attached to race in America.  Like many, I was more than ready to move on.

Apparently, Rev. Wright wasn't.  This week he was back in the headlines, making fresh outrageous statements in support of Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan and again, raising the spector of AIDS being a plot of the federal government aimed at unsuspecting Blacks (like the horrible Tuskegee Experiment, whereby over 400 Black men with syphilis were not treated in order to see firsthand the consequences of this venereal disease).  Whatever his motives, Wright came across as egotistically defending himself, as if he felt like Obama had thrown him under the proverbial bus in order to distance himself politically from his former pastor.  Wright could have (should have) waited until after the presidential election had been decided to say such things (which is his right) if he TRULY believed what he has preached for decades: that it's critical for this country's future to diversify the places of power with capable people of color.  I don't blame Obama for dropping Wright altogether this week; he didn't really have any choice.  But I got the distinct impression that Rev. Wright barely noticed.  He seemed to be enjoying his 15 minutes of fame too much.  I'm smelling a bigger advance for a book deal if he can prove he can grab the spotlights and the headlines. 

If you ever catch me doing that kind of ego-feeding garbage, do me a huge favor and please slap me upside my big fat head.

Peace,

pken.