[Much important work remains unfinished.] |
Polls and surveys reveal that Christianity is increasingly associated with intolerance, mean-spiritedness, hypocrisy, and judgmental attitudes, particularly toward the LGBQT* community in the United States. Wasn't there supposed to be something in the heart of the Christian tradition about loving others, refraining from judgment, and caring for those who are excluded and heavily burdened?
To cut to the chase, yes there are Christian fundamentalists on the religious right who have contributed to such negative views of Christianity in North America, particularly in the United States. They have been supported many clerical leaders and lay people in the Roman Catholic Church as well as some mainline Protestant denominations such as the United Methodist Church, and in both of these examples there are members who are actively opposed to discriminatory policies and teachings. Yet even in many of the more progressive leaning Christians denominations the attitudes expressed toward the LGBQT* community are often luke-warm at best, and those Christians who feel that they are being misrepresented by their more conservative peers are responsible for their own efforts in presenting and living out their values.
Being "not as bad" as other Christian groups on such issues isn't good enough. Having an openly gay Bishop doesn't absolve a denomination of its other shortcomings in being welcoming to and actively affirming the dignity and worth of LGBQT* people any more than having an African American President signals that there is no more structural or personal racism in the nation. Slogans, committees, and press releases supporting equal rights and anti-bullying campaigns can't take the place of active education and proactive local measures to help congregations understand, display, and act upon those generically promoted values of acceptance.
Now for the excuses:
In the past few years many major denominations have moved at the national level have moved toward accepting the blessing of same-sex commitment ceremonies and civil unions.
Some have, some haven't. And for those that have, there is a clear distinction between blessing such unions and the sacrament of marriage. The blessing also tends to be optional, at the discretion of a particular congregation or bishop.
The procedures in place for making major changes to church law and policy are laborious and ponderous, and are designed that way to promote deliberation and allow for thoughtful changes gradually over time.
That is somewhat true, but here is a test case. Let's say one of the bigger mainline denominations found, to their embarrassment, something in an official bit of church rule or law that barred African Americans from being ministers, or which didn't allow interracial marriage. The scenario isn't meant to be likely, just an example. Slow and ponderous as the processes behind official policy changes may be, how long would it take to correct this oversight and strike it down?
There would be an immediate press release apologizing for the oversight, and at the very least a unanimous vote at the next national meeting of the denomination to rewrite the offending section. That is, assuming there wasn't some loophole found for calling an emergency meeting of senior officials to address such a problem. The denomination in question would be tripping over itself in a rush to make things right.
Anyone see that happening at the moment on the issue of LGBQT* equality?
Many members of the denomination, especially some of the older members, grew up in a different time and culture and it takes time for changes to filter into and become familiar within the congregations. Things are moving as fast as human nature and the denomination's demographics will allow.
Maybe, but a 2013 survey indicates that 62% of mainline Protestants who identified as "white" were in favor of gay people being allowed to marry, while 58% of white Roman Catholics agreed. Given that this and other polls have shown a major age divide on this issue, it isn't hard to see how these numbers play out within a particular denomination or congregation. This supports the idea that changes in attitude in the pews has an age-related factor and that this in turn can effect policy at the national level. The current strategy followed by the somewhat more progressive denominations allows some face-saving on the matter of being gay and transgender friendly while not upsetting and potentially losing more of the older or more socially conservative members who already feel things are changing too fast or that enough has already been done.
A harsh assessment?
The claim that US Christians are still failing the LGBQT* community may seem like a harsh assessment, but stand back for a moment and look at the situation. The bullying of gay and transgender teens and related teen suicide is still prevalent. Those who oppose equality and basic dignity for the LGBQT* are railing louder than ever because of challenges to their privilege, claiming persecution because they can't always get away with lying about and slandering gay and transgender people anymore. They are increasingly called out for it now, and this is a source of panic and outrage and, sadly, even acts of violence. Yet somehow discrimination against LGBQT* individuals hasn't magically vanished, and despite the protests of the religious right, such individuals are not untouchable nor are they running society.In midst of this chaos and the resulting din of social discord and political hyperbole, what is the audible message of those Christian denominations, congregations, and individuals who claim to support the LGBQT* community? Where are their voices? What is the bold declaration that they offer in such challenging circumstances, and how are the taking a visible and powerful stand for those who are heavily burdened?
Yes, there are reasonable sounding explanations for why bold change and decisive leadership seem so slow in coming. Yes, there are practical limitations to what the national leadership of some denominations can do to effect change in the congregations, or what congregations can do to effect change in the national leadership of their denomination. Yes, there are arguments for positive signs on the horizon and so on for many denominations.
But the fact is, whoever or whatever is responsible, the actual current effectiveness of Christianity in the face of attitudes and politics affecting gay and transgender people weighs heavily on the anti-LGBQT* side of the scale, with what can generally be considered slow and tepid efforts to reverse this dynamic.
So even if you can claim that you, your congregation, or your denomination is doing all it can at the moment for gay and transgender equality (can you make that claim?), the bottom line is that Christianity in the United States is overall still failing the anti-LGBQT* community. This isn't a put down or a dismissal of the efforts of those trying to change this fact, rather it is a reminder of the truth of the situation. There is no time for complacency. Too much work remains to be done.