Division and Christianity: Can queers stop the need to exclude?

By John G.

More news coverage of division in the Episcopalian Church, globally and locally. I think that plenty of queers of faith and spiritual queers are speaking out about how the mainstream media only talks about LGBT people of faith when there’s some sort of conflict in the Christian church. I myself have written about it at length, as have many of my fellows on this site. Indeed, its important for us to continue to call the media on this bias, as making noise is the only way we’ll see change, in both better representation of the reality of Christian queers and also the much lacking representation of queers who express their faith/spirituality in ways other than Christianity.

But now that I’ve pointed out how this article fits into a trend in the media, I’d like to focus on the whole issue of conflict and division in the church. While queers of faith and spiritual queers are rightly indignant that we’re often portrayed as being at the center of division in the Christian church, we need to challenge more than just the media; we need to challenge the church itself. Obviously, right? I’m not talking about challenging the church or any denomination on its/their attitudes towards queers, but about its/their whole attitude on division.

The history of Christianity, it seems to me, can be seen as an attempt to more and more stringently define an “us” and a “them,” to define “believers” and “non-believers” or at least “false believers.” When you read the Pauline Epistles, you see many references to divisions in the church along the lines of exactly what one has to believe to be “in.” The Nicene Creed, used in the vast majority of Christian churches today was written to define what it meant to truly be Christian. Deviance from it was heresy. Follow to the Inquisition, the Reformation, and the plethora of denominations and non-denominational traditions around the world today.

The conflicts many churches are facing over lesbians and gays these days don’t strike me as much different than any other theological debate that Christianity has experienced in its history. Divisions, schisms, and hard feelings are nothing new. The definition of a denomination could be: a group of believers who accept others with different beliefs than their own up to x point, but no further.

Queers come into this culture of division with a powerful critique of the church. Indeed, we offer many powerful critiques for the church, but lets focus on this one example. Being queer is (among other things) about doing one’s best to be inclusive, to recognize the unique experiences of others, and not trying to force anyone into a box. What if we brought those characteristics to the church: being inclusive, recognizing the unique experiences of others, and not forcing anyone into a box. Instead of defining a denomination by how much difference from our own beliefs we are willing to tolerate, what if we adopt some of the methods of the Unitarian Universalists or of some Quaker communities, which allow members to define their own beliefs, and the only qualification for membership is to earnestly wish to be in community with the others in the denomination?

Because then it wouldn’t be Christian. I recognize the hopeless utopianism of my vision. But I do believe that as a queer Christian I need to work to push for a more inclusive church, for greater communication across denominational barriers, and for a Christianity that eschews the us/them dichotomizing that has characterized so much of Christianity for so much of its history. While an idealized unity will probably never be achievable, I think we can do a lot better than we’re doing now.

On the most basic level: Would Jesus get involved in a prolonged lawsuit over ownership of a building that a now divided community used to pray in? On a deeper level: Who are we to deny the religious experiences of others? While some Christians do not believe that they hold the only way to God, we still define ourselves as Christians by excluding other faiths. What if we tried thinking of Buddhists, Muslims, New-Agers, etc. as co-religionists, not people of other faiths? We don’t have to compromise individual belief, just open our minds a bit. Well, I’m getting a bit utopian again. The ultimate goal may be utopian, but I think we can do a lot of practical and achievable things while reaching for it.

(And on one last note, I want to throw out a great resource for those interested in following the drama in the Episcopal Church. frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com is a great blog on all things Episcopal, especially the national and international power-jockeying that’s going on now.)

Comments

[Michael]

Reflecting a rabbinic story, I used to say that if I were asked to explain the Gospel while standing on one leg, I would say, "God loves us. And there's only us -- no them." I still believe that is at the core of the gospel although I am one of "them" to so many Christians. My personal struggle is to avoid making those Christians into a"them" to me.

[joe perez]

Michael: "I would say, 'God loves us. And there's only us -- no them.'"

Beautiful. I couldn't agree more. AND... this is one element of a very complex text, the Bible, and has NEVER been the predominant way of reading the text. Indeed, the very notion of the Old Covenant flies in its face; and the orthodox interpretation of the New Covenant is that all who are not "Us" will burn in hell eternally.

What worldview have you found to allow you to hold to a view of the Gospel that flies in the face of most premodern and contemporary interpretations? Speaking for myself, I find an evolutionary worldview to offer the greatest explanatory power--the notion that history is the territory by which the Holy Spirit becomes manifest in our midst.

[Michael]

What worldview have I found?

I have to say I am not aware of how to describe my worldview, nor that I was taught this directly from any particular person or group.

I spent over thirty years as part of a Catholic Christian contemplative community founded on the principles of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Ironically, these two great figures of the so-called Counter-Reformation led me towards this very undefining point through the practice of prayer, meditation, listening, pondering, seeking to see, to understand and to love. This insight (limited and such as it is) came to me as a result of that journey.

That insight also led me to leave the community (which was itself pretty inclusive) and the Catholic priesthood when I could no longer function in a public role as a spokesperson for a church that appeared to be putting more energy into defining people out than into welcoming people in -- particularly gay people such as myself.

I continue to identify as Catholic -- which does mean, after all - universal in its Greek roots. I have also, however, decided that when asked what I am, to reply, "I am." If asked what religion I am, I say, "I am not a religion." I am not formally connected to a faith community or tradition. Since I believe what I believe, though, I am always in community -- the community of us.

[joe perez]

thanks, michael. :)

[Yvonne]

How about defining Christians as "followers of Christ" - that would be pretty inclusive (then you just have to persuade all the homophobic ones that the Bible doesn't support their views).

[kristony panjaitan]

hi am kristony i really need help in handling this queer force,
i dont know what else to do.
help me please