Skip to the posts
Buffalo's neighborhood journals since 2003 🍀 Patrick Spicy Devil Logan🌭 Sahlen🥨 Weber Spank🥟 Pierogi🐸 Scaj🍺 Labatt Utica Pink Cherio❄️ Snow Murder

drew’s journal

Churches and Gay People

· · 🌡️ 51°F


Last Sunday, members of my Sunday School asked me to teach a class on homosexuality and the Bible.

Which I expected would happen eventually, because really, Christians tend to talk about sex more than anything else.

But I was hoping to avoid said topic, because people tend to fight and not listen and judge when they talk about sex. And I want to avoid these things.

But they really wanted to talk about it, and promised they would be kind, and hinted that a lot of people would be interested and come to hear if I talked about what the Bible said about Homosexuality, and really, the proud part of me wanted a lot of people in my class, and I thought I could make an even handed presentation so I said, "Yes, I will do the class."

But since then I have changed my mind.

And here's why. There are no (out of the closet, at least) gay people in our church. So the class would be full of people that want to discuss an issue that DOESN'T apply to them, and that doesn't seem to be a worthwhile use of our time.

So instead, I plan on offering a class called, "Why we aren't going to talk about homosexuality for at least one year."

Points will include:

Right now, nobody (on any side of the issue) is open to change. If education does not lead to a change in heart or behavior, than it isn't really worthwhile or necessary education, in my book.

Right now, this does not (as far as I know) directly apply to anybody that will be attending the class. It is a waste of time to talk about hypotheticals when there is real stuff that we can deal with in the moment.

Christians have a reputation for being obsessed with sex and hypocritical about it. Such a class would feed into that unhealthy reputation.

Our goal for the next year is to welcome young families and people without a Christian community. Right now, we need to learn how to do this, and this class does not feed into said goal (It also does not feed into our mission of Loving God and Loving People, at least not right now).

There are right ways and wrong ways to develop any ethical position, and I would much rather teach the right ways to develop said position with a non-polarizing issue, so that those same principals can be applied to other situations.

So maybe in one year after focusing on other things, we will be ready to address this issue which I know IS important to talk about, for people of all positions.

So my question, critical thinking friends, is: Am I dodging? Is this a cop-out? Will this make things better? Worse? I am I being true to my calling, both to work for justice and to preach the word faithfully?

I really want your opinion on these matters, so please don't be shy.
498 words

💬 15 comments

  1. lauren ·

    Hmm...ok. Where to start?
    First of all, I think it is dangerous ground to say that since there are no homosexuals, you needn't talk about homosexuality. What if someone is closeted in your community? What if someone has a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, child, etc...who is gay or who they think might be gay...? Furthmore, I would argue that not talking about one group because you aren't in that group creates an otherness...and can perpetuate a reliance on the other to teach you about them. Should it always be up to the marginalized group to educate the priveleged? This is indeed how it has been in the past, but I think a progressive politic would include educated yourself, not relying on "them" to do it for you. Finally, homosexuality is never a hypothetical...it is real and alive and moving forward always. Just because you (not YOU Drew, but the communal "you") are not gay does not mean that you are in any way immune to the influences and effects of homosexuality.
    However, I do agree with you that it is indeed possible that your congregation is not looking to learn, but rather reinvest in their already made assumptions about what the Bible says about sexuality. But perhaps you are not giving them enough credit, or the benefit of the doubt.
    Will they ever be "ready"? If you are indeed looking for young families without a Christian community, and you wish to include homosexuals in that category...don't you think your community should be ready for them? If you do indeed wait to talk about the subject and by then have a homosexual in your congregation...will they become the "token" gay person who is expected to explain his/her position to the whole?

    Oh dear...I have ranted! Surprise surprise :) I hope I have sparked some ideas for you Drew... I know you have the best intentions and I wish you luck...I wouldn't want to be in you shoes!

  2. jason ·

    Without going too long here -

    Identity politics, sadly, rule the day, and there is a certain level of rigid ideological orthodoxy that unfortunately goes along with that. If you step out of line, you risk being crushed by people who want to control messages and minds.

    I think you have a fantastic opportunity to smash that mentality into pieces, and I hope you do. I understand the apprehension, and I could be wrong here, but I think it is quite possible your message about how to approach ethical issues could be more effective with a polarizing issue than with some vanilla no-brainer. Whether that means they need pre-reqs or not is up to your discretion - you know them better than we do.

  3. james ·

    Lauren has a lot of good points.

    But if you really feel that the group wont learn from the conversation, then it really isn't worth having.

  4. drew ·

    yeah. Here's a couple more issues:

    Not too many years ago this WAS made an issue in an exclusionary way. At the same time, several churches made it clear that they were open and affirming. So the population has already shifted, even though we do have people that think differently in this community.

    Lauren, I totally hear what you are saying, which is why I wonder if I am being a wimp. And I don't want to perpetuate an "otherness," either.

    I hope I haven't underestimated the people here. To be honest, so far they have done nothing but impress me.

    Maybe I will teach the class after all, but if I do, it will be a dance.

  5. joshua ·

    They want to talk about homosexuality and church. The first question for me is, to what end? If it can't be assured that the discussion would be positive, the whole thing could be self-defeating. There is no point in fracturing your congregation. This could also slip into politicization of religion, which is terrible destructive and serves no appreciable purpose. If an approach like advocating for gays brings about some derision amongst your congregation, its simply not worth it. Its nice to be idealistic about rattling cages, but if it is going to cause chaos it shouldn't be done.

    If I were in your shoes, I'd approach it very, very delicately. Its my belief, anyway, that as Christians its not our job to be the judge and jury of our fellow man. I've always felt that if it is indeed wrong and sinful to be gay, then God can sort it out. For the time being I'd rather encourage people to be happy, good neighbors and not have to feel marginalized within the context of religion. Unfortunately, there may be some at your church that don't see things that way.

    Maybe an approach that might help is to have some gay, committed Christians participate in the discussion so that your congregation can see what its like to struggle with religion and have the shoe on the other foot. There are people out there that happen to be gay but are devoted to God. If I'm talking about religion and homosexuality, for me anyway, I would really want to hear what they have to say.

    Ultimately though, I would say that the needs of your congregation come first, so whatever you do I'd consider that obligation first and foremost. If you choose not to discuss it, that is no cop out... wipe that idea out of your head.

  6. ladycroft ·

    When you say Sunday School; is this an adult class or teens? The motive for wanting the discussion may be different for those. You mention not wanting to discuss it for several reasons and I can see where your concerns are understandable due to your church's history.

    I agree with Lauren's thoughts that they may not necessarily be asking for themselves, but consider a friend or family member they may be struggling with.

    I think it might be a bit to much to presume the topic does not directly apply to any of your class. Even if they are all heterosexual, how is it a waste of time to discuss it?

    To be very frank, if I were in the class and we talked about having a session on this topic,then you agreed to it, and then showed up with "here's a class on why we AREN'T going to talk about it"...I'd be pissed. That's just me. Maybe I'm just a hard ass and hold people accountable for meaning what they say and saying what they mean.

    Perhaps you can use some experiential exercise circles to create an agreement as part of the class. (I can explain in more detail privately if you're interested.) It can help to keep people focused on the real purpose of your discussion and not get lost in judgements. Not everyone will agree with what you have to say, but you already know that.

  7. lauren ·

    @joshua - not talking about sexuality for fear of it fracturing his congregation would indeed be a cop out. There is nothing to learn from comfort. There is no change, no movement, only stagnant self righteousness. It is highly unlikely that any discussion about homesexuality would be solely positive and if that was the only thing keeping you from discussion, you will never get anywhere.
    I do however agree with you that bringing in some openly gay Christians (or reading their work) might be a good place to start. The key is to keep the discussion grounded in whatever way feels best so as not to get of topic. This could easily damage the potential outcomes.
    And @drew I say dance! What else can we do? Nothing can be accomplished from the sidelines or the bleachers, the only way to live is to get out on that dance floor :)

  8. fellyconnelly ·

    this whole thing reminds me of lauren's parents, both of whom are active members of the presbyterian (sp?) church of their town. I know that they would love to go to one of these classes. they aren't gay, but you know i bet they would take comfort in the education. I bet they would also take that information and use it to open the minds of others.

    LAUREN SAYS:
    but i would just like to point out that never ever should anyone be asked, outrightly or inadvertantly, to out themselves or people they know...this can put people in a very compromising position.

  9. janelle ·

    I take a more long term perspective. Drew has a larger vision for the church of it being a community church, which among many things also includes being welcoming to the GLBT community. When you have a vision, you have to lay a foundation. This church needs healing from is past division and a foundation of trust in one another and in its minister. Fear of the congregation fracturing from introducing the topic prematurely is IMO a perfectly legitimate reason. A fractured church is an ineffective church that will not reach its vision of being a community church that's inclusive of GLBT community, it could halt what might be an incredible ministry or at least make it significantly more difficult to accomplish.

    I think the discussion strays from actual issue, which is, should the topic be addressed now, or later, when the congregation is ready. Drew never says that he WON'T address the topic, he is simply wondering if the topic should be best addressed now or later and if it's a cop out to discuss later.

    I think the conversation also represents a common issue in civil rights. Both the black civil rights movement and the womens rights movement struggled internally over whether change should happen immediately at any cost or whether a long term approach has the best outcomes in the long run. There's plenty to debate on both sides with no clear cut answer in my mind.

  10. jim ·

    Janelle, it looks like one of your comments got eaten, I'll email Paul about it.

  11. drew ·

    Wow. Good stuff. A little more clarification:

    Class would be for grown-ups, but may include some high school students.

    If I did have the "Why we aren't doing the class" class, it would be advertised as such.

    Bringing Christian gay people would be part of this, but not to be a part of a debate. I don't want this to turn into a "sides" issue. It would be to make a group of "them" into humans.

    I would never force anybody out or otherwise violate a person's choice to participate or not. If this class did happen, there would be very clear ground rules that would have to be agreed on to even be a part of the class. I normally don't do this with other classes, but really sexuality has become THE litmus test by which churches divide. Now, there are times for division, I will admit that, but I also think that people of good faith can disagree about rules for ordination and marriage and remain in community together. In fact, I think they SHOULD remain in community together.

    Janelle is right--I have big plans for this crowd. I have already pushed them a lot in just 6 months, and I think that this might put them into overload. That being said, I like the church and trust the church, and we will have to deal with these questions sometime, but I hesitate because I think the conversation will e more fruitful if we first grow even more in collegiality, generosity and trust (again--all of these things are pretty high, but I've only been part of the community for 6 months, so they aren't to the point with me that they could be.)

    I really do appreciate the feedback.

  12. libertad ·

    Most openly gay people I know want their religious organization's views about homosexuals clearly spelled out. I actually assumed that your church had already done so and thought that they were one of the many churches that march at gay pride every year. I imagine this must be a difficult situation for you. Keeping unity is important, but on issues like this I think members have a right to know their church's position.

  13. janelle ·

    Interesting point about church members having the right to know the church's position @libertad!

    In one sense, the members ARE the church. So to some extent, the members are the ones who determine what the church's position is. That's where the unity bit gets tricky, because it can be difficult for the members to find a position for the church that allows for diversity in belief on the issue instead of splitting the church.

    I think it definitely can be done in time though!

  14. paul ·

    I restored @janelle's missing comment - sorry guys.

  15. drew ·

    Sure enough, but as Janelle explained, its a little bit complicated.

    Officially, the PC(USA), the denomination to which I belong, has barred non-celibate gay people from marriage and/or ordination. There is a large movement within the denomination to change this, and another large movement that is fighting this change.

    Because the latter group thinks that the denomination as a whole is compromising, that group is leaving the denomination, and thus getting smaller.

    Because the former group doesn't really do a good job of helping people become Christians, that group is also gettings smaller, but not quite as quickly.

    So, from a demographic standpoint, it looks like the policies will change, but at that point we may be such a small group of people that we will be irrelevant. Calculating the rate of change: soul calculus! (that's a great song waiting to be written)

    Some churches, such as First and Westminster in our neighborhood, have become aligned themselves with those in the first movement--they want the rules to change. Some churches in that movement break the rules, others ignore them, others do a semantic dance to play by the letter of the rules but not the spirit.

    Others have declared themselves to be in the second group. Sometimes those in that group have organized to prosecute any rule-breakers in the first group. Lately, they have done that less and decided that they are better off forming a separate group that is not a part of the same denomination as those in the first group.

    My church has made no declaration, and would have a hard time reaching a consensus, either way. We are like most Presbyterians in that way. Some people think that this throws GLBT people under the bus. Others think that this throws the Bible under the bus. A lot of us realize that this has been a battle for the church for some time and are tired of fighting. Others are too eager to fight.

    In short, we don't march in the pride parade, but we don't hold up signs and shout at the parade, either.

    I know that we have lost people from both sides of the aisle by not taking a firm position, and I understand how keeping quiet almost (never?) helps people move forward. These two facts mean I should probably speak up, but as soon as I give a position, it can (likely will) kill any discussion.

    I find this important, because both of the groups outlined above have flaws, and both could learn from one another, but instead they blame and fear one another. Because of the way they treat their "opponents," I do not want to be a part of either group.

    Anyway, the church's unwritten position is something like this.

    All people are welcome. All people are invited.

    All people are also sinful (gay and straight).

    God forgives all (or, at the very least, all who express a desire to be forgiven--depending on who you ask).

    God also calls us all to radically re-shape our lives. Everything, our time; our money; our homes; and yes, our sexuality (regardless of orientation) is changed by the new life that we discover in Christ. In short, we no longer live to please ourselves (we found that didn't work anyway) but join with Christ in expressing his love for (and therefore reconciliation with) the world. This is done through death (not attacking and killing death, but accepting our own deaths, joining ourselves with Christ's suffering on the cross) and resurrection (again, Christ's resurrection--a new life that is the same, but radically different at the same time.)

    Therefore (getting more particular, again)If your sex life is more important than following Jesus, you cannot be a follower. We have to be ready to even abandon our own mothers and our own lives.


    Now for some particulars, that may or may not reflect the theology outlined above, may or may not be good and faithful, but are what we do:

    GLBT are welcomed into membership, and encouraged to join us in our worship and in our mission. Some in our church would consider their behavior sinful, but would likely keep their mouths shut, as they also recognize their own sinful behavior, and don't like having it pointed out, either. Extremely harmful sin, however, is dealt with by the community. We recently had to do just that, and it wasn't about sex, but I won't say anymore because we love and respect the person involved.

    GLBT people are not likely to be elected as leaders (this is against our constitution, but is often ignored and rarely prosecuted). I am barred from marrying a gay couple, but allowed (by the denomination and the state) to "bless a union."

    If I did bless a union, the congregation would be upset with me, and likely would not allow it to happen in our building.



💬 Write a comment