The Christian church in mainstream African-American/B/black Southern U.S. culture has always been a touchstone and we who are gay or bisexual understand that spiritual connection well. The social experiences within the Christian church can provide an extended family whose bonds aren’t easily broken. This is why I believe that revealing sexual orientation to family and friends while a part of the Christian church can be very difficult, especially when the ideal is for you to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have children. Even more difficult is to choose to stay within the church and live your truth even if others disagree wholeheartedly.
My personal story is fairly simple. I grew up with Christian church experiences and influences and at age 10, I wanted to be baptized into a church that my father had just found out about from my aunt, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. My mother, a Baptist at the time, would allow it only if I also attended church with her on Sunday. So weekends for a couple of years were quite churchy indeed. The contrasts in worship styles at the time were interesting, too, but I enjoyed them both. Now, I knew early in life that I had attractions to guys, however I had no idea of what, if anything, to do about that. Until college. Then the attractions just wouldn’t be stilled. Being so involved in church life and music, I began to resent how my heterosexual friends could fall in–and out–of love and talk sex openly and receive a pat on the back, letting them know that they were still alright. Some of those same friends tried to call me out when I wasn’t ready, and I knew that I was definitely not alright with them. That emotional wounding coupled with a feeling of disappointing my family was the basis of my decision to leave the Christian church.
Part of my coming out journey involved talking with a new friend, Floyd Poentiz, of the local SDA Kinship chapter. What really impressed me about Floyd was that he was (and is) still a part of his local church worshiping regularly. I began to attend church again, however I just couldn’t stick with it. I needed space and admit that I still enjoy that state of separation from my church if for nothing else than respect for each others’ space. However, as I receive the Connection magazine still from SDA Kinship, Intl, I cannot help but be touched by the stories of those who choose to stay in their churches and continue the dialogue with parishioners and pastors and even authoring the book, Christianity and Homosexuality: Some SDA Perspectives, to aid in the process of creating talking points. Their work allows for people to understand who is really providing the salvation believed to be needed by all in the Christian church. I wonder if this is not a nobler form of protest in addressing the Christian community.
Why these experiences come to mind lately is because I when I think about how several bloggers and other individuals in and out of California who took issue with African-Americans/B/black voters who chose ‘Yes on Prop 8′, I said then that it had more to do with religion than with ethnicity. Then when my point was validated through Associated Press, I figured that where we would begin building alliances with individuals belonging to the churches in the communities of color that voted ‘Yes’. Could you really do that without being intimately involved with members of those churches in some way?
Another reason why my past experiences come to mind is the recent brouhaha of the selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama on January 20, which I believe is being blown out of proportion by Human Rights Campaign and others. This quote concerning the choice of Rick Warren conducting the invocation from the director of HRC’s Religion and Faith program, Harry Knox, on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer takes the cake:
And this is like putting an anti-Semite at the first part of the program and then saying, “Well, we’re going to add a rabbi at the end. Won’t all the Jews be happy?”
This is the worst possible choice the president-elect could have made. This is a divisive choice, not one that brings America together.
With similar respect to that of my friends in SDA Kinship, Intl., I respect Barack Obama for allow for different points of view at the table and as he says, “to disagree without being disagreeable”.
Churches are highly personal and optional communities that we choose and hopefully feel welcomed into to enrich our human experience. If that welcome and enrichment is not there, I will submit that it’s time for a new community. Like I mentioned before, I needed space from the church and admit that I still enjoy that state of separation from the church if for nothing else than respect for each others’ space. And in the spirit of that respect, I believe the fight for justice is the fight for both sides to coexist regardless of who is in the majority and I feel uncomfortable seeing protesters outside of a church, especially during worship services. I would not want some Christian group, as some have attempted, to try to stand outside my favorite bar/club protesting the patrons inside. My observation with both of the aforementioned scenarios is that any reciprocal change of heart and mind is less likely when tried in the court of public opinion. If reciprocal change on either side is not the goal, then why the protest?
SPIRITUALITY SHOULD ALWAYS BE LEFT TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO DECIDE ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. WHILE I FEEL THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH RELIGION, I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT SOMETHING GOES TERRIBLY WRONG WITH SPIRITUALITY WHEN IT IS PLACED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A CHURCH AND IT’S DOGMA. THE SPIRITUAL PRINCIPAL OF ACCEPTANCE SEEMS TO GET LOST SOMEHOW AT THAT CRUCIAL POINT, REPLACED BY BIGOTRY AND CONDEMNATION. I HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR BARACK OBAMA AND HIS DESIRE TO BRING TO THE TABLE MANY DIVERSE VIEWPOINTS, BECAUSE WITHOUT HEARING ALL SIDES OF AN ISSUE, HOW CAN ONE TRULY CHOOSE WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM? THOSE WHO CONDEMN HIM FOR THIS CHOICE ARE NO BETTER THAN THOSE WHO HAVE CONDEMN OTHERS FOR THEIR CHOICES, WHETHER THOSE CHOICES BE RELIGION/SPIRITUALITY BASED OR PERSONAL LIFESTYLE BASED. WE ALL COULD BENEFIT FROM A MORE OPEN DIALOGUE OF THESE ISSUES. SO, I SAY “BRING IT ON” TO ALL OPINIONS AND THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO PUT THEIR BELIEFS IN THE LINE OF FIRE BY MAKING THEM PUBLIC.
I hear you on that. Thanks, Wendi!
Jerry, I would like to build on what you (and others) have already so well articulated by commenting about opinions. We must sometimes remind people that not all opinions are equal. Some are reasoned, others are silly. We respect people’s right to hold any opinion (wise or foolish), but we must be judicious as to the respect we accord the opinions themselves. We often hear, “I have a right to my own opinion,” as if that somehow legitimizes the opinion.
Philosopher Mortimer Adler discusses the 3 “great ideas” we judge by (Truth, Goodness & Beauty), and the 3 we act on (Liberty, Equality & Justice). A good number of opinions, including many religious ones, fail to fare well when examined in the light of the principles behind these “great ideas.” Rick Warren’s opinions about gays are good examples. They may comport with majority opinion, and they may be sincerely held, but history presents many examples of an entire population holding opinions, quite sincerely, that were totally invalid.
Surely no one would fault Obama for bringing disparate groups to the table. But the opening prayer at the inauguration is not “the table.” It is a platform for symbolism, for setting tone, for pointing in a (different) direction. There are many ways to bring people to the table, and ample time to do it. I think the argument here is about whether the choice for this particular pedestal placement presents the wisest symbolism, the best tone, the right direction to point in.
I think it doesn’t, but I can’t get apoplectic about it. Both sides have to roll with some punches. There may even be a silver lining—maybe we’ll get a bigger bone tossed back to our side after all this. Like, maybe a femur, even! (I hope it’s not “gays in the military,” as I think we’ve already won that… don’t want it to “use up” the bone card we’re getting over the Warren thing!)
As for picketing churches (or bars), I think it all depends on whether the church (or bar) is harming society. Whoever seeks to impose upon human beings a deprivation of liberty, equality or justice ought to be brought to task and held accountable whether their motivation is religious or secular. Bad opinions must not be allowed to masquerade as good ones when they hurt others. In practical terms, if religious people think a supernatural deity forbids him to marry certain classes of people, then let them knock themselves out complying. But to seek to impose such a thing on the public is another matter, and I would picket any church or bar that would do such a thing. And THAT, dear friend, is my rather extended opinion, which I subject to your judicious review.
The best of the Christmas season to you and yours, Jerry, and happy holidays to all your readers and listeners.