Andy Tix Ph.D. from Psychology Today, Feb 18, 2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges seemed to settle many civil issues about same-sex<\/a> marriage<\/a> in the United States, the topic remains contentious in many religious<\/a>\n communities. In recent years, some denominations have broken with the \nhistorical Christian view that same-sex relations \u201cmiss the mark\u201d and \nhave become more LGBTQ affirming. Many have not, however, meaning they \nwill not support \u201cunrepentant\u201d same sex sexual behavior or same-sex \nmarriage in their churches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From February 23-26, 2019, another major denomination will meet to \ndiscuss its official stance about same-sex relations, as leaders in the \nUnited Methodist Church will convene in St. Louis, Missouri to discuss \u201ca way forward<\/a>.\u201d The plan<\/a>\n recommended by the Methodist Council of Bishops would allow local \ndecision-makers to implement policies about matters such as same-sex \nmarriage that best fit their social contexts. If approved, this would \nenable more progressive districts to support the ordination of gay and \nlesbian Pastors and marry same-sex couples, subject to the conscience<\/a> of the local pastor, while allowing more conservative districts to remain unchanged in policy and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At play in these deliberations are questions of how to know what is \ntrue about matters of faith. The founder of the Methodist tradition \u2013 \nJohn Wesley \u2013 proposed four \u201cways of knowing,\u201d now organized in what is \npopularly termed the \u201cWesleyan Quadrilateral<\/a>:\u201d\n experience, reason, tradition, and Scripture. Basically, Methodists \nlook for \u201cconverging evidence\u201d in these four domains when creating \nchurch policy, although Scripture is prioritized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In anticipation of the denomination\u2019s upcoming meetings, I have led a\n discussion group at my local Methodist church exploring same-sex \nrelations, using the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as an organizing tool, for \nthe past six weeks. Members of my church community have discussed their \nexperiences with gays and lesbians, we invited several gay Christians to\n our group to listen and learn from their stories, and we have explored \nScripture from both conservative and progressive perspectives. As a \nfacilitator, my charge was to lead this group neutrally, meaning I have \nnot shared my opinion very often, I have tried to make sure the best of \nmaterials are shared from both conservative and progressive viewpoints, \nand I have sought to create an atmosphere that is hospitable and \nconducive to honest, respectful conversations among individuals who \noften disagree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a psychological scientist, I have found an understanding of \nPsychology to be invaluable in my work. For instance, in the Wesleyan \nQuadrilateral, psychology illuminates how individuals may differ in \ninterpreting experience, tradition, and Scripture. More centrally, part \nof \u201creason\u201d is \u201cscience,\u201d and so insights from psychological science \noften have taken center stage in this group\u2019s discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, many group members were surprised to learn about the connection between religion and suicidality<\/a> among sexual minorities. In particular, in one study<\/a>\n of over 20,000 young adults, researchers found a link between the \nimportance ascribed to religion in participants\u2019 lives and the amount of\n suicidal thinking among those identifying as gay, lesbian, or \nquestioning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a session devoted almost entirely to science, we explored what research has revealed about the causes of sexual orientation<\/a> and the changeability of sexual orientation. I assigned chapters from two books, reflecting both conservative<\/a> and progressive<\/a> perspectives. Doing this allowed us to focus on where psychologists with different theological positions agreed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n More broadly, psychological research suggested ways to encourage constructive dialogue. Applying a tactic similar to the \u201cjigsaw classroom<\/a>,\u201d\n I randomly assigned group members to tables during the more \ndiscussion-oriented sessions. This ensured that individuals were not \nself-selecting into groups with others who would further confirm their \npositions, but rather share views that would provoke deeper thought. We \nalso often relied upon \u201cground rules\u201d for conversation, including the \nimportance of using \u201cI statements\u201d that required individuals to take \nownership of their positions rather than asserting their universal truth\n value.article continues after advertisement\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n In our last session, most people noted that they did not change their\n beliefs very much as a result of their participation. What was almost \nuniversally agreed upon, though, was how much complexity was involved in\n the issue, and how much intellectual humility<\/a> is necessary. Many people reported how learning from both sides stretched them and helped them gain greater empathy<\/a> for those with whom they differed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Personally, I felt like leading a group on such a contentious, \npoliticized issue with people I know and like was a huge risk. After the\n first session, my wife wondered aloud with me whether we were going to \nmake enemies of everyone we knew! However, taking this leap taught me to\n trust that good still is possible and that, with a little guidance and \nencouragement, most people really are capable of open, respectful \nconversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s a lesson we all need to remember.<\/p>\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Gays and the Church Applying Psychology to facilitate constructive dialogue. Andy Tix Ph.D. from Psychology Today, Feb 18, 2019 Although the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges seemed to settle many civil issues about same-sex marriage in the United States, the topic remains contentious in many religious communities. In recent years, some … <\/p>\n