Over the past couple of years my once favorite pastime, bashing organized religion, no longer displays the vigor I used to put into it. Most likely that's because it's lost its urgency for me. For one thing, purveyors of organized religion are diminishing in clout of their own accord. A Guardian article from six months ago reported that while there were 3000 new Protestant churches starting up in 2019, (the latest available figures on the topic), in that same year 4500 churches were closed.
For another, since white evangelicals tied their reputation to the Trump train, they are suffering the much deserved ignominy that much of America sees as just desserts. They no longer need me or anybody else to bash them. In fact, my sympathies have effectively taken a 180-degree turn. I now am feeling great sympathy for mainstream Christians, as I did for all the decent Germans of the Hitler period and as I do for Russians during this time of the bitterly ugly invasion of Ukraine. All these folks deserve better than to be tied to nasty people who claim the right to speak for them.
My loathing - I won't mince words, that's what it once was - for organized religion, Christianity in particular - was due to the fact that I grew up a self-loathing homosexual. And I acquired that self-loathing from the teaching and preaching of otherwise decent church folk. I was not bothered by the fact that everybody in the pews was white, or by the fact that women in many denominations could not serve clerical roles. I was neither black nor female. And like the "good Germans" who didn't go along with Hitler and the "good Russians" who have no opinion on the war in Ukraine and insist it's because they are "not political," I found no reason to have an opinion on issues I felt no responsibility for. But coming out as gay was a long laborious process for me, and as my awareness increased over the years of just how central the church was to generating and maintaining homophobia, so too did my loathing of the institution.
What has changed, and to a remarkable and once unthinkable degree, is the slow but certain acceptance of gay people. Not as sinners, or people who are "inherently disordered" to use the phrase slapped on us by the official Roman Catholic Church, but as equals, no better and no worse than other saints or sinners among us. At the same time, just as the average Catholic in the pews rejects the church's teaching on birth control, abortion and the need for women to be denied leadership roles in the church, 70% believe homosexuality should be accepted by society. That's an even higher percentage than the 66% figure for mainline Protestants. And, while we're at it, compare that with 36% for both Mormons and Evangelicals.
We're by no means home free. Just as the Supremes overturned Roe v. Wade, they're now kissing up to the homophobic Republican white Evangelicals in whittling away at gay rights. I see us as mid-way through the battle. True, we have the Supremes to worry about, but at the same time the progressives in the country are still going strong. Sixteen years ago I was on the phones trying to keep California from passing Prop 8. A losing fight. We lost the right for same-sex couples to marry. Then, two years later, we got it back and my now husband and I took advantage of the thaw to marry in 2013. The anti-gay amendment to the state constitution is still on the books, but repeal is on the ballot for November.
My claim that organized religion is the primary source of homophobia in American society is supported by the fact that many churches have been split down the middle over whether one can be both gay and Christian. Remember how the Southern Baptist Convention got its start? How it pulled away from the Baptist Church over the right to own slaves, a stance they only apologized for in 1995. Remember that? Well, look what's happening these days in many mainstream Protestant churches: The Methodists, for example, second to the Baptists in number among Protestant Christians, lost 1831 of its member churches, mostly in the south (the same places as "conservative" religionists split over slavery back in the day). Not as bad as the 5800 "disaffiliations" they expected, but notable.
You'll forgive me if every time I hear the word "conservative" the little voice in my head whispers, "racist, sexist, homophobic." Conservatives are essential to a balanced society, I know. Lefties can go off half-cocked sometimes. But my heart is with those who eliminated child labor laws and slavery, who gave women the right to vote, and were at the heart of every other extension of human rights to include more and more people and offer them a way to engage more fully in the great American democracy project. People who believe in the possibility of a better world. Progressives.
Not to be outdone by the Baptists and the Methodists is the Reformed Church of America (RCA), the erstwhile Dutch Reformed Church. It too has split in two over the RCA's acceptance of gays in their ranks. The splinter-group, shuffled the letters in their acronym and now call themselves the ARC, the Alliance of Reformed Churches. They continue to oppose same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBT clergy.
The Lutheran Church, which once claimed my Christian loyalty, is split between conservatives and progressives like all the other denominations. According to a Missouri Synod site: "The position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, repeatedly affirmed, is that homophile behavior is intrinsically sinful, expressly condemned as immoral by the Scriptures." Contrast that with
In 1991, the Church wide Assembly passed a resolution stating that, "Gay and lesbian people, as individuals created by God, are welcome to participate fully in the life of the congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America."
the position espoused by Lutherans at the other end of the spectrum.
As for the Roman Catholics, I'm with the Catholics in the pews, 70% of whom are gay-friendly, and not with the official hierarchical church who are not. As for the so-called "progressives" among the conservatives, this statement had me rolling in the aisles recently. A celibate catholic may
have a Catholic funeral and be buried in a Catholic cemetery unless the bishop or pastor determines that doing so would cause public scandal.
Gee, thanks, guys. You get a gold star for trying.
But no cigar.
Christians are all over the map, in other words, when it comes to homosexuality. Christianity in America is a work-in-progress, and for that reason I have decided to cast my lot with the seekers, those listening for "the still small voice of God" and not with those who can't tell the difference between a bible and a hammer. Both claim to speak for the church. Neither does entirely, and its a buyer-beware kind of situation. The fact that I don't share their faith is irrelevant. I am a fellow-seeker and I find every discovery of common ground with my fellow human creatures a cause for celebration.
For those of you who are still reading and might be interested in more chat along these lines, I highly recommend a discussion between two gay Christians with opposing views on how to be both gay and Christian which I came across recently. The two speakers are Brandan Robertson, a pastor in the Sunnyside Reformed Church in Queens. At the time of this discussion he pastored a progressive Disciples of Christ Church in San Diego. David Bennett is an Australian Anglican theologian and doctoral student at Oxford. It's on the podcast, Premier Unbelievable, moderated by the Christian apologist Justin Brierley, who (I mention only as a side note, and in passing) has spent the last ten years taking on atheists.
Two gay Christians, both outspokenly and (apparently) happily gay, one fully at home with progressive institutional Christianity, and one who follows the same line that the Roman Catholic clerical set advocate, that happiness lies in living a celibate life, as do most nuns and priests who see themselves as fully dedicated full-time worshipers of Jesus Christ, with no need of such things as sexual companionship.
Neither of these guys shares my view that religion is a no more than a form of poetry, as opposed to science, and like other poetry can be written creatively in aesthetically sympathetic ways or clumsily, in ways that lead to the crushing of the soul. And if they were running for president, I probably would not vote for them.
But I'd be delighted to have a beer with one or both of them at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment