Fundamentalism at the Equality Ride?
I really love Susan. She comes from a fundamentalist evangelical background and started to feel out of place in heterosexuality in high school. Being a Christian she felt like she needed to repress, that this was her “thorn in the flesh” moment. She did this for years, eventually moving here to plant a church. But after a while Susan found that she couldn’t hide her sexuality and be “fully human.” So she left the small Bible college she was attending and came out.
What I especially appreciate about Susan is how she still struggles with what the Christian faith has to say about homosexuality. All she knows is that there is something inside her that is incompatible with the sexuality the church believes she should be expressing. But she would never try to make the Bible work for her. She’s smart and astute; she doesn’t know if her choice to come out is compatible with Scripture but she certainly wants to figure it out.
It was this sense of progression and formation that made me think Susan was perfect for the Soulforce Equality Ride. If you aren’t familiar, Soulforce sends a group of young people on a bus tour to talk about gay and lesbian oppression on evangelical Christian college campuses. They strive for “open and honest discussion on these topics (as) the first step towards reconciliation” and they do this both formally and informally at the Wheatons, Gordons, Messiahs and Westmonts of the country.
But there are a couple of funny things about the project. Interestingly Soulforce rarely if ever has actual Christians on the ride. My friend Laura had the Ride visit Wheaton when she was there. She remarked that the Riders weren’t at all ready for the rigor of theological discussion and engagement asked for by Wheaton students. Instead there were a lot of stories, usually very emotional stories. Laura said it was strange that the Riders couldn’t engage in the way their audience needed to be engaged.
The other strange thing was learning that Susan is probably going to be rejected from the Ride because she told the leaders she’s not sure that homosexuality is not a sin. Soulforce said that a position that homosexuality is absolutely not a sin was essential to their mission and maybe this wasn’t a “good fit.” (This is also strange because I’m not sure that it matters or not if non-Christians think homosexuality is a sin. Sin is a theological term used by the church. I’m uncomfortable with Soulforce using that word.)
This seems problematic for “open and honest discussion.” The more I heard from Susan the more I felt like Soulforce was at odds with its own mission. Instead the group seems like they’re trying to convince others that they are right. The possibility of vulnerability to other opinions, a willingness to engage critically with disparate theologies and a willingness to allow people to be in process were totally absent. Essentially, this sounds like a missionary effort. It looks a lot like the worst parts of evangelicalism to me.
I’m ending with part of Susan’s letter that followed up on her closing-door interview. I think it’s such a poignant and helpful reminder of faith driven by non-violence. It’s reminiscent of the wild patience of John Howard Yoder that Romand Coles writes about: “vulnerable relations with outsider are integral to the otherness of the church that when this understanding of caritas is forgotten and unpracticed the church loses its otherness and is assimilated to the violence of the world. When Christians cease to engage outsiders with receptive generosity, they cease to let the church be the church; they lose sight of Jesus Christ.” That’s real pacifism, baby.
Here’s Susan’s gloss:
I think this is true non-violence: being honest in ways that expose our own vulnerabilities so as to draw others into our experiences, create understanding and acceptance, and break down the barriers that have been built because we have so often remained separate and immovable in our beliefs. From here we can build relationships that truly reflect the love, compassion, and sacrifice that has been exemplified through the life and work of Christ.
Filed under: Uncategorized







Hi there. My name is Matt. I was on the 2007 Equality Ride. As such, I don’t know what the experience was like on the first ride or at Wheaton. I do know that I am certainly Christian and there were many Christians on the Eastern route of the ride in 2007.
You said, “This is also strange because I’m not sure that it matters or not if non-Christians think homosexuality is a sin. Sin is a theological term used by the church. I’m uncomfortable with Soulforce using that word.”
Many, many Soulforce members are Christian, and a part of the church, although perhaps not conservative churches. The founder is himself Christian and a minister. Also, because the church really does have so much power in this nation, and because LGBT people are constantly called sinners whether or not they are members of the church.
Sorry… that last sentence was not even a complete sentence.
This is what I meant to say:
Also, because the church really does have so much power in this nation, and because LGBT people are constantly called sinners whether or not they are members of the church, I feel as though non-Christians should have the right to address issues of sin. If the “sin” label is going to be applied to people, they should be able to respond.
Matt - Thanks for comments. I too was surprised that Laura found there to be so few Christians on the Ride. A lot of the folks she met actually seemed “post-Church” which put them even more at odds with the people with whom they wanted to dialog. I’m sure there were some Christians on the Ride, but she felt like not enough.
But my question does have to do with asking those non-Christians to name or dis-name homosexuality as a sin. Sin means something particular for a particular community. In Buddhism you might upset balance, in democracy you disobeyed, in liberalism you are acting outside normative flourishing. To ask non-Christians to hold a particular view on “sin” when they don’t constitute a member of the community seems strange at best, coercive at worst.
Thoughts?
“To ask non-Christians to hold a particular view on “sin” when they don’t constitute a member of the community seems strange at best, coercive at worst.”
Conservative Christians do this all the time. They constantly attempt to force LGBT people (Christian or otherwise) to see themselves as sinners based solely on their sexual orientation.
I’d posit, that for straight people to ask LGBT pepole to hold a “sin” view on their sexual orienation — when many of these straight people have never lived the life of an LGBT person — is abusive and harmful, spiritually and, sometimes, spiritually.
“the church really does have so much power in this country” Matt - I don’t think this is necessarily true. When Jesus calls people to the church he bids them come and die. As a member of a Mennonite church, that means laying down coercive and violent political gain just as Christ did. My concern is that you/Soulforce are giving power to Judeo-Christian ethical Convervatism by conflating it with the church. The fact that W happens to be a Methodist has very little to do with how he acts as a President. His job is to act within the bounds of the Constitution, not the Bible. I know he thinks that Judeo-Christian conservativism is Christianity. Having gone to a Christian college I know that many many students, fac/staff believe this as well. But empowering those men and women to constitute “the church in America” is dangerous. If sin is a marred relationship with the God of Israel which has the potential to be reconciled through the salvific work of the God-Man Jesus, then I am still baffled why non-Christians would have a stake in this claim or how they can truly engage the question. If we’re talking about rights, ethical justice, Constitutional freedoms then Christians have to be willing to work within the legal framework of our nation, just like everybody else. “Marriage” is where I get my most libertarian. I don’t understand how how the church continues to sanction a our current system. In the church marriage (at least now) is defined as a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman made before God. I’m not sure why we are haggling over one of those requirements when all 3 define Christian marriage. And why are we asking non-Christians to submit to this designation??! But let’s not be so ridiculous as to call the over 50% divorce rate based marriage culture of the US “Christian marriage.” If you want to debate Christian marriage of same sex partners, then its a different conversation. I know that’s a long response, but I hope it sheds light on my main concern - the best way for Soulforce to hold the church accountable is to address homosexuality as the church to the church, not to allow Christians to believe they can get away with conflating political (usually economically based) purity with faithfulness.