Coming Out of the Closet - At Church

Julie Chavez-Roderiquez, the granddaughter of the late Caesar Chavez - a legendary organizer of migrant U.S. farm workers in the 1960's and 70's, spoke at our church two weeks ago. The main point of her presentation was to explain how her uneducated grandfather, living out his faith with courage and perseverance, rallied an oppressed people to organize and non-violently challenge the unjust labor system in which they toiled. Successfully to boot!

Come to think of it, that’s the object lesson of Martin Luther King and Ghandi as well.

But I digress. During the question and answer period, someone asked Julie how she selected her causes? Julie explained that you have to ask yourself "what are you tired of?" What do you care enough about that "you’ll go the 11:00 p.m. meetings." Upon further prompting, Julie provided our congregation with the list of injustices that she was personally tired of. The finale on her list was that Gay people are not allowed to marry.

Personally, I saw Julie’s answer coming the moment she got the follow up question. Her previous comments told me where she would be on the issue. Her obvious passion and commitment to justice also told me she that would not pass up the opportunity to state her view on this highly controversial issue, despite knowing that almost everyone present would disagree with her. In fact, I was certain that she would mention the issue precisely because she knew that almost everyone present would disagree with her.

That’s what prophets do.

Anyway, during the interval between Julie’s initial comments and what I believed would be her almost certain inclusion of gay marriage rights on her justice list, I debated within myself as to whether I should shout "here here" in support when she finally came to the issue. I quickly remembered that I was in church, and that the appropriate supportive response in a church setting is "Amen." I almost laughed out loud when I acknowledged (to myself) that "Amen" might prove unnecessarily provocative.

In the end, however, I decided against the "here here" response as well. Its not that I was afraid to publicly identify myself as a supporter of gay marriage or gay love. Its rather that most Christian leaders have taken such an unyielding stand against homosexuality, and expressed their opposition in such vitriolic terms, and presented their entire project of opposition as a scriptural imperative on which the fate of western civilization depends, that they have made it nearly impossible for believers to consider these issues with an open mind.

Having taught moral and political philosophy to (arguably) the most conservative undergraduate students in the country (Salt Lake City, Utah), I have learned that direct frontal assaults on religiously grounded belief systems are pointless and inflammatory. To get a hearing, internal dissenters - as opposed to prophets who deliver their messages and move on - must tread lightly and build trust over time. More importantly, unnecessarily blowing up a Christian community by saying something that people are clearly not ready to hear is wrong (not to mention worrisome - I recall something about an offending party’s fate being worse than having a milestone tied around his neck and being cast into the sea).

So I said nothing.

Unfortunately, Julie’s comment provoked such strong negative reactions among various members of our church (both during the service - directed at Julie, and after the service - directed at our pastor) that our pastor convened a special meeting (held yesterday) to discuss Julie’s comment.

Initially, I was angry about the reactionary and ungracious behavior of some of the objectors. However, the more I thought about their reaction, the more sympathetic I became. The people who reacted negatively to Julie's comment were operating on three very reasonable assumptions. The first was that there is unanimous agreement among Christians - or at least among the members of our congregation - that homosexuality is a "sin" issue rather than a "justice" issue. That assumption was reasonable because homosexuality has been condemned as sinful by nearly all Christians, including our own pastor, and no one in our congregation has ever publicly identified themselves as dissenting from that view.

The second assumption was that scripture clearly condemns homosexuality as sinful. That assumption was also reasonable because few Christians - and certainly no one from our pulpit - have ever challenged that premise.

The third assumption was that the bible’s condemnation or endorsement of a particular pattern of conduct provides us with a sufficient justification for rendering a definitive moral judgment on the issue. That assumption was eminently reasonable because few Christians - and certainly no one from our pulpit - have ever challenged that premise. It is the moral theory and/or deliberative strategy taught in almost all of our churches. Philosophers even have a special name for it - the "Divine Command Theory."

I’m moderately confident that assumption two is wrong. I’m far more confident that assumption three is wrong, and I’m absolutely certain that assumption one was wrong. (It has to be wrong, given that I reject the claim that homosexuality is sinful and know of at least one other member of our congregation who shares my view). However, even assuming these assumptions were wrong, they were not unreasonable, and this makes me sympathetic to the people who reacted strongly to Julie’s comment.

So I came out at the special meeting.

Actually, I wanted to come out intentionally, but agreed, after a lengthy "discussion" with my wife prior to the service, that doing so might conflict with our Pastor’s intentions for the meeting. Instead, I outed myself accidentally when I noted that there were people in our congregation sympathetic to Julie’s view - and it was readily apparent from my comments and tone that I was one of them.

But what the hell - I’m out. I’m no longer a closeted supporter of Gay rights at our church. Assumption one has now been obliterated in our congregation. I’ll keep you all updated on where things go from here.

Joe. H

UPDATE

When I said that I was sympathetic to the objectors' response, I meant only that I understood why they felt the way they did. I was not condoning ungracious or uncivil behavior.

Joe. H.