Do We Have To Be At War?
The LGBTQ Community and Christianity
A number of people have asked me to turn my attention to the state of relations between the Church and the LGBTQ community. In a few of my recent articles, I have taken to task conservative and fundamentalist Christianity in its attitudes to the LGBTQ community and have been very critical in my conclusions. However, in 2012, when I first published my book Being Gay Being Christian, I challenged the churches to revisit their teachings on human sexuality and change them in the light of better understandings. So it seems only fair that I myself revisit things to see if and where that change has occurred. Where it has, I am comfortable to acknowledge it. Where it hasn’t, I remain damning.
I speak here only in terms of the Christian Church in Australia, not in other countries. I cannot speak for what is happening in other Western nations or anglophone countries, even though I am across what is happening at the macro level in the United States. There, old monoliths are cracking, unhelpful allegiances between religion and the Right are being shown up for the deserts they are; their moral bankruptcy on show for all to see. The widening generational chasm between the old and the young continues apace in attitudes to LGBTQ people, marriage equality, women, abortion, the Bible, and the clergy. The breakdown of fundamentalist non-negotiables is now past the point of arrest as the twenty first century and modernity come crashing in to break up the conservative party (non-alcoholic punch served only). Yes, even evangelical America is slowly changing.
The Australian Scene
But Australia is not America. In order to look at the scene here in Australia, let us for the sake of analysis say that there are five groupings of Australians regarding attitudes to Christian faith. This is my own analysis and I freely admit these groups are not scientifically derived and identified and are actually fairly broad categories, as there are many variations and nuances within each. Affiliation to Australia’s denominations would be spread through Groups 3,4 and 5. So, for the sake of the exercise, we will accept their broad veracity.
1. Atheists
According to the Australian Community Survey 2016, 21% of Australians consider themselves atheists. These folk do not believe in God or the divine. Most would say that life on earth is all there is and there is no after-life. This does not mean they are joyless or have meaningless lives or are unethical in their behaviour, as some religionists would have it. They would simply say that they do not need to believe in a god in order to experience fulfillment and to live an ethical life.
2. Non Church-Goers but not necessarily atheist
This group does not go to church and does not participate in any ecclesiastic liturgies. They are either not interested or are unimpressed with the Church. Some of these would say that they do have their own spirituality, which is to say, that they understand the world, life and any possible after-life in their own way, and not according to church doctrine. They would not consider themselves atheists; maybe closer to agnostics.
3. Nominal Christians
These people regularly put down ‘Christian’ on the Census form. Some of them go to church, but the majority do not. Some will attend on high days such as at Christmas and Easter but not at other times. Some might attend for a short time if they are struggling. Most do not hold the doctrines of the Church too tightly and are fairly casual about specific theological allegiances. If you ask them, they will tell you they are Christian but that they don’t go to church or are not a member of a church.
4. Everyday Church-Going Christians
This group is the most interesting. They are regular church-goers, often in mainstream denominations. They take their faith seriously and are genuinely interested in trying to live the Gospels in their daily lives. They are probably more switched on to living out their faith with people rather than trying to convert them by way of a ‘salvation experience’. Many would be comfortable with an approach to spirituality that asks questions and has doubts. They would also be less comfortable with literalist interpretations of the Bible and instead in taking a more sophisticated and nuanced approach to Scripture than their Fundamentalist cousins. If they are Catholic, the same could be said of them regarding the pronouncements from Rome. On the human level, they lack the intensity of the Fundamentalist and would be more willing to listen, discuss, and help out, than attempting to persuade to, or declare as truth, a particular theology. They appear to me to be less ostentatious about their faith as well as less judgmental and show a warmth and humanity that Fundamentalists often seem to lack.
5. Fundamentalists
For me now, this group takes the least amount of analysis. Their position is based on a classical world view regarding knowledge and they rely on a sacred text written in the Iron Age, the Bible, for their single source of authority. For many, this is actually codified as sola scriptura, scripture alone. They will comfortably eschew other sources of authority such as science and hold with tenacious grip the traditional teachings of the Church as espoused by St Paul and the Creeds. They see these as truth revealed by God that cannot be tampered with or altered in any way. They tend on the whole to take a face-value approach to scripture and its interpretation, or if they are Catholic, the pronouncements of Rome. They also see themselves as orthodox and ‘real’ Christians; everyone else is either in partial error or wrong.
Normal Bell Curve
I see these five broad groupings essentially under a bell curve, representing roughly, a normal distribution. The head and tail (and therefore the least number), represent how strongly they adhere to and codify their beliefs. Under the curve, Group 1 Atheists and Group 5 Fundamentalists, occupy these outer edges, the head and tail of the curve, indicating they strongly adhere and codify their beliefs, although I freely admit that the Fundamentalists would codify much more than the Atheists. At the centre of the curve, and therefore the largest group is the ‘Nominal Christian’ group and on either side, to the head, the Non-Church Goer group, and to the tail, the ‘Everyday Church Goers’ group.
For me now, holding spiritual beliefs lightly, as distinct from rigidly, is a greater mark of maturity, as it allows for adjustment as new information arrives, and for evolution and thus personal growth. The holding of beliefs claw-like and rigidly always feels like an adolescent style of spirituality to me now. It is the way of dogma. It feels forced and it feels like indoctrination.
The Church and the LGBTQ Community
For historical reasons, the LGBTQ community tends to deal with the Church or Christianity in Australia as one entity. While I can fully understand this, it is not strictly correct. The Church in Australia is multi-faceted and varied. It is not a homogeneous monolith that speaks with one voice. In fact, far from it.
It seems uncontroversial to me to say that the intensity of belief and tenacity with which different groups hold on to core tenets of their view of faith will be congruent with the way they treat issues like sexuality. Core tenets would be issues like, but not limited to, monotheism, the Trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, the nature of salvation and Jesus’ part in it, the resurrection, the Bible being the Word of God, the second coming, and Heaven, just to name a few. Thus, if a group holds tightly to such core central beliefs in a conservative way, they will do the same with sexuality. Conversely, if a group is more open, more exploratory with core beliefs, allowing for a range of theological views, they will likewise bring that approach to issues of sexuality.
Christians and Sexuality
Groups 1 and 2 The Atheists and The Non-Church Goers
Regarding some of the strict doctrines of the faith, the first two groups would discard them as being irrelevant to life. With no belief in the divine, these doctrines are essentially meaningless and therefore not engaged by such people and would only ever be considered in an academic forum or discussion. As a result, any Church teaching about gay sexuality, I think it is safe to assume, would likewise be dismissed as irrelevant. People in these groups would more likely take the science around sexuality as a given and look to other modern sources like sociology and history for their beliefs around human sexuality. They would also rely on their personal experience of LGBTQ people they know.
Group 3 Nominal Christians
Nominal Christians would probably have varying views about fundamental Christian doctrines. Some might hold to them rigorously, others might shrug their shoulders at one or more and say, “I’m not so sure about that”. Regarding sexuality, I think that most of them would be fairly casual about gay sexuality in the twenty first century as they would know someone LGBTQ or work with someone closely. Many would have a gay family member somewhere in the tribe and would know the character of such a person. It is highly doubtful that the first thing they would think of is the person is ‘an abomination’ or ‘will not inherit the Kingdom of God’ or is ‘inclined to moral evil’. People in this group would probably be more inclined to take a ‘live and let live’ approach as they would with all things spiritual.
Group 4 The Everyday Church-Goer
This group of people would probably side with the core beliefs of Christian teaching fairly closely, but undoubtedly, some might wonder if there are alternate ways of viewing God and the world that would be considered legitimate. Many of these could be termed Progressive Christians and would exhibit a more relaxed approach to doctrine; in other words, new ways of looking at and expressing old teachings. I think too that most would shift the focus off proselytising and gaining converts, and on to a Matthew 25 spirituality, where the poor, the needy, the hurt, the sick, the imprisoned, the marginalised were all singled out by Jesus as his focus of compassion and love.
My impression is that many in this group are people who live and work in the everyday world and who appear to have moved on from the harsh doctrines of tradition regarding sexuality. One survey taken of Christians in Australia regarding marriage equality showed that 53% of them support marriage equality and the 2014 Crosby Textor poll has it scraping 60%. That’s a majority. It’s also an eschewal of fundamentalist discourse. Two ministers working in the Uniting Church recently wrote saying that, despite a small group of hold-outs, most of their average pew sitting church goers have evolved on this issue and have left behind the traditionalist myopic view that sees gays as sinners, unnatural and deviates, and are quite supportive of the gay community and our push for equality. That’s good news. Why might this be?
Well, I think that people are not silly. They can read. They hear the stories. They know gay people themselves. They see gay people living life like they do. They even know gay Christians. They’ve seen gay people in every walk of life from professionals to unskilled workers, from the highly educated to the not well-educated. And further, they’ve heard something of the science of human sexuality and understand that it is not a choice and can’t be changed. But as followers of Christ, they also know that his dominant message was one of love. Without love, there is no authentic Christianity. They also know his message included compassion and forgiveness. And perhaps most importantly, they know that Jesus not only taught about the marginalised as recounted in Matthew 25, but that he lived it, mixing and living with the marginalised of his day and not with the elites. It really should not be too difficult to join those dots in the way the Church deals with gay people, as I think many every day church goers have already done.
Group 5 The Fundamentalists
This group would strictly adhere to traditional doctrine and declare (this lot do a lot of declaring) that anyone not believing the traditional tenets literally and exactly as they have been passed down is not a real Christian. Some would go even as far as suggesting extraordinarily that such a one’s eternal life could be in jeopardy.
I have written elsewhere, particularly in We Have History and Out of Sight Out of Mind of the conservative religious forces arrayed against the LGBTQ community. These are the Fundamentalists. Denominationally, these can be found in the Sydney Anglicans, certain Catholics, the traditional Presbyterians and similar denominations, and of course, the independent Pentecostal style churches. They are also to be found in para-church groups like the Australian Christian Lobby, The Australian Marriage Forum and Marriage Alliance. They would be saying the Bible says clearly that homosexuality is an abomination, that such won’t enter the Kingdom of God and that homosexuality is unnatural and against the created order that God intends for humanity. Gays need to repent, abandon their sexuality and live celibate lives for life if not married to an opposite sex person.
Relying on a face value approach to Scripture, and that alone, they will ignore all that psychology, biology, genetics and neuroscience have to offer, as well as the understandings brought by sociology, anthropology, history and linguistics.
I have had countless ‘run-ins’ with such folk since the publication of my book and have now decided that I will no longer engage with them on the basis of their own frame of reference, ie., ‘the Bible is right at face value and cannot be wrong under any circumstances’. At this point, with such a myopic and stultifying view, I think the Fundamentalists have dealt themselves out of the conversation and cannot be taken seriously. Their view of God (we’ll all stand before the Great White Throne on Judgement Day where he will mete out his retribution) and humanity runs counter to much of how the the world sees spirituality, life and human rights today. The world has left them behind and I think, so has much of the Church.
More Complexity
Yet it is even more complex than these five groupings, for as I said earlier, there is variation and nuance within denominations. You will probably find Progressives and Conservatives in most of them. The Baptists for example take a hard line scripturally on gay sexuality, yet there are pockets of Baptists that have a broader understanding and seek to be inclusive. There are groups of Presbyterians who are thrilled to help out with inclusivity and to change things from traditional ways. But there are others who will insist on the ‘sin/against nature’ model of gay sexuality.
Anglicans come in all shapes and sizes. The whole world knows of the conservatism of the Sydney Diocese, but leaving them aside, as they also have problems with women and ‘headship’ teaching (not an accident), there are many Anglican people and dioceses around the country who are inclusive to the LGBTQ community.
The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that gay folk are “intrinsically disordered”, “inclined to moral evil” and that sexual acts by gay people are “gravely immoral”. Yet you’d be hard pressed to find many everyday Catholic people who would subscribe to such a theology. Much as they do with Catholic teaching on contraception, many would just ignore the declarations about gay people and just welcome them into their churches and their lives. At the local launch of my book, there were several Catholic priests present, as well as the Bishop of the diocese, and several nuns. Their questions were open, inclusive, and the nuns in particular were out there asking, “How can we change things for gay people? We want to help”. The priests were trying to reassure me, unconvincingly I might add, that things are slowly changing. While I acknowledge this with some hope, it is nonetheless true that, despite Pope Francis’ somewhat softer pastoral language regarding gay people, the official teachings remain and continue to do harm. I will not commend the Catholic Church until I have seen it discard these false and harmful teachings on gay sexuality. With their record on child abuse being so abysmal, it is not time to give them a break. It is time for them to change. Maybe more hierarchs like Diarmuid Martin of Dublin need to take the reins.
Positive and Observable Change in the Church
Both the Uniting Church of Australia (UCA)and the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) are by far, the stand outs for how to deal with the gay issue in the Christian Church in Australia.
The MCC is a gay friendly international church that has long actively celebrated both sexual and gender diversity and welcomes all. It was founded by LGBTQ people and is run by LGBTQ people. It has been a beacon of light in a very dark Christian place in Australia for a long time.
The UCA is an example of how a mainstream denomination — it is Australia’s third largest — has actively wrestled with the tradition, the theology, the texts, and the knowledge they must love people. The UCA is inclusive to LGBTQ people and now has out and partnered gay ordained minsters, both men and women. It is likewise a beacon to other mainstream denominations of what you can do when you are open to change and the reality of life. The UCA recently submitted a proposal to the Senate supporting marriage equality as a positive thing for gay people and for society, and is the first church in Australia to purpose-build and run an aged care facility for LGBTQ people; an extraordinary thing to do, where about half of the sector is non-faith-based and still struggling to recognise this particular need. In my own home-town of Newcastle, after the Orlando mass shooting in June 2016, a Uniting Church parish, with an out gay minister, put on a vigil with poetry, story, personal testimony, music and silence. It was very beautiful and was attended by many LGBTQ people who were not Christian but who nonetheless felt welcomed and honoured.
In the para-church category, A Progressive Christian Voice Australia, has been an increasingly present voice in this space and has been very strong on advocating against headship teaching (men over women), and for refugee and asylum seeker rights, and for marriage equality for the gay community. Its leader, the Dean of St Johns Anglican Cathedral, Brisbane, the Rev Dr Peter Catt and I together penned an article for the Fairfax Press entitled Christian Australia Is Ready For Marriage Equality, which of course sent the Fundamentalists into apoplexy.
And finally, the gay community itself has begun publicly to take back the ‘sacred space’ that it has been so long prevented from engaging. There is a world-wide movement of gay people of Christian faith, who are not freaks, not self-loathing, or in denial about history. They want to follow Christ and have a conscious relationship to God, and they see their sexual identity as zero impediment to doing so. And they are right.
LGBTQ Point of View
That’s how the situation might be seen from the Church’s point of view. But what about gay people and how they feel about the Church? In truth, I would suggest that, with a majority of gay people having disengaged from Christianity, most LGBTQ folk would not be able to parse the Church into its constituent groups with greater and lesser degrees of conservatism or progressivism as I have done above. The melancholy fact is that, aside from the odd Bishop, Moderator or President of a denomination saying something at Christmas and Easter, the conservative voice of Christianity as espoused by para-church groups like the Australian Christian Lobby is the loudest and most present voice in the landscape. Thus, I believe that when gays hear about the Church or Christians, they immediately think of this strident oppositional voice. To all of us LGBTQ folk, that voice sounds rejecting, harsh, insensitive, untrustworthy, ignorant, unrealistic, harmful and hypocritical. Seriously, if the Church is ever to mend any fences or build bridges with the LGBTQ community, it has its work cut out for it! Is it fair that gays tar everyone with the same brush? Perhaps not, but it is entirely understandable. The alternate Christian voice has been too silent in the public space and unchurched Australians do not know the difference.
Do We Have To Be At War?
My answer to this question is a tentative no. We certainly have been at war, but I don’t think we have to be, that is, provided change continues. There will always be zealots on both sides. And angry people on both sides. I do recognise that the Church in Australia is not a singular homogeneous monolith. On the contrary, it is varying, disparate and very diverse in its theologies, its liturgies, its foci, and its praxis. Really, there is no such thing as the Church in Australia. Having acknowledged that, I am still unwilling to give the Church a ‘get of gaol’ card yet. Its historic treatment of children, women and LGBTQ people has been appalling. And it must answer for this. If it is to survive and to have any credibility, it cannot be any other way.
And I will not forget for one moment that, in the words of Bishop Gene Robinson, ‘it is the Church that has caused the most harm to the LGBTQ community’. I cannot forget the harm done. One gay man recently described his childhood Christian indoctrination around issues of sexuality as “psychological rape”. I understand his pain. There are so many casualties of this war. I myself am a casualty, and thankfully, I survived. But only just. Many did not. Most gay people have walked away from the Church never to return. I think that is fine and perfectly understandable. There is much antipathy towards the Church in the gay community for the horrific treatment it has meted out to us.
However, it is my belief that LGBTQ and Christian people do not need to be at war. We do not need to be on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to looking after our loved ones and caring for those who are marginalised or broken-hearted. Gay people ourselves are marginalised, so we know exactly what that feels like and there is much we can teach about being with the marginalised. The Church does not have a patent on love and compassion.
Changes
I would like to see the Church very quickly abandon the old traditional teachings on human sexuality, understand that there is much complexity in this part of the human condition and to welcome LGBTQ people whenever they want to be part of the Church’s life. And undoubtedly, some will. There is an immediate need for the Church to stop harassing young people with outrageous lies about their sexuality and telling the rest of us we are sinners. As I have said elsewhere, those days are over. We do not accept such teachings as legitimate and we recognise that wider society too has moved on and will not accept religious bigotry as okay and getting a free pass.
I want to see acknowledgment of wrongs past and apologies offered humbly and without excuse. I also want to see the Progressive part of the Church ramp up its own voice in the public space in Australia instead of vacating the field and leaving it to the Fundamentalists who will not hesitate to fill the void with their strident voice. If Australians are to hear anything of the Church’s voice, then for God’s sake, let it not be the voice of the Australian Christian Lobby.
No, war between gays and Christians is not essential. But the Church must continue to change on this issue, and where it does, to announce its position proudly and argue it in the market place of ideas. For those in the Church, it is really way past time that you treated the love commandment with the centrality that it deserves and also, to get your selves up to date with modern scholarship on sexuality matters. For the Church to be taken seriously on this issue, it needs to distinguish itself strongly from fundamentalist denominations and para-church church groups. I am happy to leave the Fundamentalists and their diatribes behind.
Peace and amity between the LGBTQ community and the Christian Church can be brought about by root and branch change in a Church that is open to rational and compassionate thinking. We have the evidence already that it can be done. It just needs a will.
