Life & Religion

[eredien]

Had a lovely dinner last night with baaaaaaaaaah and meanfreepath. It was great to see S. again and catch up with her; it turns out that meanfreepath lives literally a block away and we are going to get together and play games.

I am currently in the process of making major life changes. Something that I suspect will be big and important, and sucks really hard, hit me upside the head about 20 minutes ago; no, I'm not ready to talk about it yet, if at all.

That's on top of trying to deal with religion. I don't know if I'm going to be living in the Boston area in the next few years--it depends on if rax decides to go for a PhD around here or not--but I've decided that it's time to move on from being a queer who's scared to be Christian, just like I moved on from being a Christian who's scared to be queer. I need to deal with the lack of a faith community in my life, and there's one easy way that I can do that: get my ass to a faith community. There's two churches I've been to in the area which I liked:

First Church Somerville UCC - I felt comfortable here the few times I went. That might be a problem, as I think that too much comfortability can be a drawback in a church (comfortability is good; too much is bad, IMO). A lot of the population of this church seemed white and in their mid-20's to mid-50's when I went in the summer, though when I went for Advent last winter there were some more older people in greater evidence. They sent me a mug. Their main pastor is a woman, which is cool. Stuff I find problematic:
- I like their stance on gay rights, can't help but like it, but it's inherently political to fly a rainbow flag outside of a church. It's also inherently religious (at least in the USA). It's also my cause. But places of worship which play overt politics games bother me. (I'm well-aware that individual places of worship in specific, and organized religion in general, both play internal and external and overt and covert and intra-faith and intra-denominational politics games, and have for centuries; they're institutions run by people. Thanks.) Should faith inform political stances for people of faith? Yes--in fact, I think it would be dishonest not to have faith inform a political stance for people of faith. Should people of faith speak up about injustice and combat it where they see it? Yes. So why am I still so conflicted about a church making an overt inherently political statement, especially as it's in support of a cause I agree with and which my life is part of, and one which I think people need to be overt about? Probably becauase integrating faith and sexuality is hard in any case, and I personally am still angry at my faith for making my sexuality harder and my sexuality for making my faith harder. (But I have determined that whining about that is not helping either cause, so I am going to try to do something to strengthen my faith which will also strengthen the rest of my life, incl. sexuality).
- The UCC is a non-creedal church: there is nothing you have to believe in order to belong. Somewhat discouraging. I can not believe something at home and be able to sleep in. Why bother showing up if I don't have to believe anything?

St. James' Episcopalian Church - welcoming; I have friends I know who go there and are involved in church life & committees there (younger people involved in church life--always a good sign). Diverse in terms of race and age with a healthy mix of college students, families, old people, etc. Gorgeous building. Moravian star over baptismal font, which is kind of awesome. Seems to do interesting missionary work, though I want to research more into what it is they are actually doing and where they are going. Does not make me feel as comfortable as UCC though I think perhaps that is a good thing. Stuff I find problematic:
- I don't beieve in saints; sermons taking place on 'St. X's day' make my very protestant-tradition-steeped heart nervous. There are good people and were good people who are Christian and did some amazing stuff, but I don't want to pray to them. More research needs to be done in terms of theology impacting practice.
- Worried about hierarchial relationship structure of Episcopalian church.
- Episcopalian church in US currently going through protracted and sometimes nasty theological debate surrounding gay people in life of church, ordination for gays, gay marriage, etc., with possible schism in the near future. Don't really want to be a poster child, and don't want to join a church only to be told I can't get married in it.

Thoughts welcome, esp. from local folks and/or folks involved in churches.

Comments

[jadia.livejournal.com]

re: flying a rainbow flag

I think part of my issue with the political nature of that is kind of like that makes a political statement *as* the church, rather than a political statement as a person *in* the church.

[badoingdoing.livejournal.com]

What if the church wants to say "queer people are welcome here, and are full members of our community"? I mean, is that not a churchly thing to say? Is it an inherently political thing to say? Or is it only political because there are some people that think that queer people *shouldn't* be full members of communities of faith?

I mean, I could be wrong in my estimation of what the church is saying with the flag. I've never been a member of a church (though I have been a member of synagogues), so I really have little context.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

I think it's inherently political because of the current culture - ie, that there are some people who think queer people *shouldn't* be full members of anything.

On the other hand, thinking of it more, maybe churches not taking political stances as a church is too unrealistic. I was thinking about how much it would suck to have to switch religions or churches because your application of "Christianity" didn't fit the pastor's (or the congregation's) instantiation of exactly what Christians all should do with respect to a specific issue. Shouldn't you be able to disagree about specific political issues and still be considered the same flavor of Christian? But then, maybe, what's the point of religion if you don't apply it in practice in any real way, by taking a stand as a community?

...of course, being pretty areligious myself, maybe that's the sort of debate I should simply recuse myself from having with people who are religious. :-)

[eredien]

I think that religions, themselves, are inherently adopted and professed (and profess themselves as) social/moral stances. So, as far as any moral stances inform a community's politics, you're going to get faith (or other non-faith-informed moral stances) tied up in politics in ways that are unavoidable. And since places of worship are communities of people of faith that as a matter of course have to decide what moral stances they are going to present to the world, I think that communities of faith also get tied up in politics in ways that are unavoidable. I think that communities of faith can also band together to transcend politics in ways that laws can't, and can enact social justice from time to time for the very reasons that laws can't, which I think is one of the redeeming factors of organized religion.

I think that moral stances have probably been informing politics and related law since the Code of Hammurabi, and probably further back than that.

I was thinking about how much it would suck to have to switch religions or churches because your application of "Christianity" didn't fit the pastor's (or the congregation's) instantiation of exactly what Christians all should do with respect to a specific issue. Shouldn't you be able to disagree about specific political issues and still be considered the same flavor of Christian? But then, maybe, what's the point of religion if you don't apply it in practice in any real way, by taking a stand as a community?

This is a problem which has vexed organized religion and the Christian church as a whole since its beginning. It's a very hard problem, and manifests itself in individual decisions and small group interactions as well as being mirrored in the larger American culture as a whole. These are political views, yes, but they are also religious issues and moral stances. Example: I visited a Bible study in highschool which instantly became unwelcoming to me when I asked a question about abortion at the beginning of the session that was not in lockstep with the rest of the group's views. It was very uncomfortable because I was both condescended to and silenced; though I was welcomed back, I never went again, because I understood through their actions that they weren't interested in the views I held, and could never be a part of that community unless I changed my views or consented to their silencing, which I would not and could not do.

People vary where they put their foot down, as well as how much give and take they are willing to have, and on what issues. I deal with these issues as best I can by trying to live by the Moravian motto ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, love.") It fails sometimes, possibly most of the time. It's very hard when people, especially people who claim to profess the same faith as you, differ so widely on what is essential, as well as how best to acheive unity on those essentials.

This problem of being unable to entirely separate the political and religious and moral--which I believe is one of religion's great strengths, as well as one of its great weaknesses--is what I feel also blocks much dialog between Christians on issues such as ordaining or marrying gays (as well as dialog between Christians and those with non-Christian faith, and Christians and those with a non-religiously-informed moral stance).

...of course, being pretty areligious myself, maybe that's the sort of debate I should simply recuse myself from having with people who are religious. :-)

If you would like to recuse yourself, you are certainly welcome to do so for your own comfort, but I hope you won't, unless you want to--for one thing, I hope you feel comfortable here. If you don't, please tell me what I can do to make you more comfortable.

[capsicumanuum.livejournal.com]

Your Moravian motto sounds a whole lot like the via media.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

Thanks for writing that! It explained the issues very nicely, I thought.

I feel fairly comfortable here - at least, as comfortable as I ever get when I talk about religion. :-)

[capsicumanuum.livejournal.com]

It's one thing for a church to fly an Obama or McCain flag, which I think crosses a line, not just Jefferson's wall-between-church-and-state line, but also one based in Scripture. However, given how queer people are marginalized in mainstream society, I think a rainbow flag, or other overt symbol of welcome, does not cross a line. It only seems political because gay marriage laws are being fought over and are hugely partisan. Being welcoming to queer people goes far far beyond the narrow question of legalizing same-sex marriage.

[eredien]

Being welcoming to queer people goes far far beyond the narrow question of legalizing same-sex marriage.

I totally agree with that. Thank you for mentioning it, which centered me back on that main idea. I think that what I am really struggling with here is what "being welcoming" to queer Christians means, and how that expresses itself in the life of a congregation, and through the life of queer and non-queer Christians.

I think part of what I am struggling with here-- which I started to figure out and articulate below--is how being an out queer Christian in a church almost makes one automatically into a poster child for both Christian queerness and queer Christians, and how I would struggle with that expectation of being a poster child as being intrinsically unwelcoming.

I would be interested in talking with you over coffee or somesuch about your personal answer to that, as well as maybe a perspective from you as a member of St. James' vestry, though I should also get the perspective of a lot of other folks at St. James'.

[capsicumanuum.livejournal.com]

Well, I can't really offer a perspective on being a poster child for being Christian and queer, since I'm straight, vanilla, and monogamous :)

I would recommend talking to Marian King at St James's. She's a long-time member, an out bisexual woman, and very involved in political activism around LBGT rights. Also, JT Kitteredge, who is a newer member. I think he's been around for two-ish years? Also out, but much less politicized than Marian. I can't think of any young queer people or QPOC off the top of my head, unfortunately. All of the 20-somethings I know are het, and all of the queer people I know at St J's are in their 40s.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

Hm, that's a good point. Do you think that it's fundamentally different to have the HRC marriage equality symbol vs. the rainbow flag then?

I actually would read the rainbow flag as a political statement rather than just a "you are welcome here" statement, but I'm not sure why. I think it probably originally just meant "we welcome you" but maybe I've gotten my symbolism corrupted by the current partisan/political fighting over gay rights? Or something?

[lotusbiosm.livejournal.com]

If you see a rainbow flag flying at a shop or cafe in Greenwich Village or the Castro or Dupont Circle, do you assume that's political or a statement that the business is either owned by or welcoming to gays?

I mean, I think it is a political statement insofar as a rainbow flag at a church says "we hold gay people to be worthy of God's love just as they are, and they are welcome in our community without having to renounce their sexuality" and any sort of claim that homosexuals should have equal rights is political. In some communities, simply stating that "gays are people too" is a political statement.

[sovay]

That might be a problem, as I think that too much comfortability can be a drawback in a church (comfortability is good; too much is bad, IMO).

Explain?

[eredien]

I believe that a church can become a social club in additon to or instead of concentrating on God.

Religious organizations are inherently social organizations, as they are made of people, and people are social animals. I think that it is good for friends to see each other, whether in a religious space or elsewhere, but I think that if the main point of going to a religious space has become seeing friends who gather in that space, that it is easier to just throw a party instead.

Can religious people celebrate, and can they celebrate together? Certainly, and they should; that's one of the main fuctions of a religious venue and a religious congregation! (As far as I'm concerned, I think celebration during worship is Biblically condoned for Christians; Jesus' first miracle ended up with saving all the good wine for last at a party.)

I think it is problematic when as a self-labeled professor of a faith, time after time, the only reason you ever go to your place of worship is to see your friends, rather than professing said faith.

Now that I have said that, I am going to backtrack a little: I think that sometimes it is ok to start out with the idea that you are going to a religious space to see your friends. I know that sometimes having that rationale got me to a religious space--literally a building, as well as figuratively, inside my head--when I very much didn't feel like worshipping. The act of being surrounded by friends who also were there to worship, in a space designated for worship, started focusing me on worship once I got there. That, I found very valuable, even life-saving.

This may be different for people who do not profess a faith but come regularly to a place of worship to see friends of faith, or who profess a different faith from the one in any particular house of worship, but I won't presume to speak for those people, since I don't know the inside of their head and mind. (I know I have felt simulntaneously both welcome and unwelcome in spaces of worship--with a different Christian, or non-Christian, tradition than my own--but I wasn't going back every week to see friends while I was in those spaces).

[navrins]

I respect this.

One of the major factors that put me off from the "conservative Judaism" with which I was raised was the growing feeling that nobody in the "Jewish" community actually believed any of the religious things they were saying. That to them, being Jewish and going to services and using the symbols and reading the readings was *all* about a sense of community, and *nothing* about the words they were speaking, the meanings of the symbols, or the purposes of the services.

I have since realized that, to whatever extent that may have been true of *that* "religious community," it isn't true of all of them. And also that community is valuable.

I don't share your faith, but I very much respect your choice to treat it seriously at the times that are about it.

[lotusbiosm.livejournal.com]

that's interesting, because I assumed that you were talking about the importance of having a religious space that occasionally challenges you to think about and act on your faith, rather than simply patting you on the head for being in church.

[eredien]

I am. I was trying to explain that I didn't want a church that patted me on the head for being in church, and I didn't want a church that patted me on the head for being gay in church either. I was just trying to explain the concept of why there might be a church that would pat you on the head for attending, and how that can be welcoming to those traditionally outside the mainstream churched, but how that can rapidly become bad.

[badoingdoing.livejournal.com]

I can not believe something at home and be able to sleep in. Why bother showing up if I don't have to believe anything?

I don't know if you want a serious answer to this thing, but I found it an interesting enough rhetorical question that I kind of want to answer it as if it were not rhetorical. Again, I'm answering from the perspective of a liberal Jew, not a Christian, so keep that in mind -- Judaism is, in general, a lot less concerned with belief than many forms of Christianity, and very concerned with action.

* Maybe you want to believe something, and going to church can strengthen your nascent belief
* Maybe you can believe (or not-believe) just as well at home, but being in a community of faith is useful in bringing out that belief and turning it towards good
* Maybe the community is just good for you as a community
* Maybe the experience of religious services is spiritual, without needing any specific thing that everyone there believes

[lotusbiosm.livejournal.com]

The Social Justice minister at All Souls was ordained UCC, she jokes that UCC stands for "Unitarians Considering Christ".

What non-creedal means, generally, is there is no test of faith. There is no catechism, there is no run down of "I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth..." that ticks off what you believe as a member of that church. The church community exists to create a defined space and time for you to connect with whatever spiritual forces call to you and to be surrounded by people who support you on your spiritual journey. It is a place to be uplifted and inspired as well as challenged (which, you know, all churches should be). But you can be a full member without accepting Christ as your savior or believing in transubstantiation or that the Sabbath should be on Saturday or the authority of Scripture or whatever other point of theology is a sticking point in another church.
Which also means that you can go in believing X today, and then when something happens in your life that makes you believe in Y instead, you don't necessarily have to go looking for a new faith community.
I'm obviously biased as I'm a UU (and the UUA and the UUC have a very close relationship). But going to church can still be an opportunity to connect with the divine and recenter yourself spiritually even without a creed.

[postrodent.livejournal.com]

It was good seeing you and meeting your friends last night -- I apologize if I was a little graceless at times.

The issue you're struggling with is very foreign to me, but you very much have my sympathy; you're actually the second friend of mine who has basically had a running battle with their faith and their attempts to find a community of faith. Finding balance between individual conscience, the articles of faith of a church and its community, and, realistically, the baggage of history is a tough tattle. Even figuring out which is which is a tough tattle.

I've been to Unitarian services and left wondering if I'd been to church or not (or, being second-gen agnostic, whether I cared). That seemed to be a community but whether it was a community of faith was less clear to me -- not that I'm sure I'd know one if I saw it. It seemed closer to a bunch of people asking questions, which is not a bad thing, but perhaps not the same thing. On the other hand, I was also at a UCC service recently and it did seem like a community of faith, if a very liberal one. They had made that very political decision to hang the rainbow flags. Their literature said that everyone was welcome, regardless of belief, but they also seemed to feel that if you were really a part of what they were, then you definitely believed certain things. God and Jesus were very present in the language being used; there was a baptism and the litany contained the phrase "...declaring with one voice our faith in God and God's son Jesus." (I'm quoting verbatim from the handout, which I left in a pile of junk on my desk and just now rediscovered.) So... maybe "non-creedal" means different things to different churches?

As a tangent, I wonder if part of what "a community of faith" might mean to you is "a sacred space that you can feel you belong in'. The sacred is not an easy thing to find under any conditions these days,I suppose. It would be easy to say that people have to just create what is sacred for them out of whatever is around, but I don't feel that's entirely adequate. It was interesting to me that the UCC handout I got had the legend "creating sacred space together" on the front. A few decades back, a church describing itself as sacred space would be like a swimming pool advertising itself as wet.

Anyway, I have no real business sticking my nose in here, I guess this basically amounts to a long winded invitation to tell me more about this when I see you, if you're so moved. See you Saturday. :)

Saints

[copperwolf.livejournal.com]

When you say you "don't believe in saints," what do you mean?

I also don't care for prayers to saints (or to Mary, which I encounter more frequently), but I can accept the idea of asking people both living and dead to pray for us. I just prefer to pray directly to God, myself.

Re: Saints

[eredien]

I suppose that other people can pray to saints if they like, but I don't understand how the idea of intercessory prayer, and especially intercessory prayer to certain saints associated with certain things--animals, lost objects, etc.--is going to be somehow more effective than just directly addressing prayers to God, and I don't see the conception of intercessory prayer actually coming up anywhere in the Bible or in the teaching of Jesus or in the prayers of his disciples. I just don't see why there needs to be a middleman, so to speak, when you can talk to the boss. :)

That may just be my dyed-in-the-wool Protestant upbringing talking.

[kaypendragon.livejournal.com]

Just my comment from watching the churchy debates from the dads (You do know that both my dad and my father-in-law are methodist pastors, right?)
I seriously don't think that you're going to find a pro-gay church that isn't political. It's the BIG THING right now. Being an openly gay christian is going to make you the political poster child in virtually any church.

And Blue says "Pet the kitty. It will make you feel better." But that's what Blue always says.

[eredien]

I didn't know that about either your father or father-in-law until last week, when you mentioned it on your blog. :)

I seriously don't think that you're going to find a pro-gay church that isn't political. It's the BIG THING right now. Being an openly gay christian is going to make you the political poster child in virtually any church.

I agree with that--I don't think I could find an anti-gay church or an apathetic-to-gays church that wasn't political; it's a political stance. However, I'm not *in* church to be a political poster child. I'm in church to worship God.

Do I have to be a political poster child in order to worship God? Do I even have to join a faith community to worship God? No, but I would very much like to join a faith community--and I worry that in any faith community I join, I will wind up being asked to play that poster child role by default by politics and organization and people, rather than being able to view it as an aspect of my worship, and a facet of the love and justice of God.

I am not interested in being forced into being a political poster child by others, even for a cause that I believe in, and one which does much good. I've done that before, and literally have the tshirt. It damaged my faith via damaging my understanding of myself--and it wasn't even for a cause directly connected with faith, as this one would be.

[kaypendragon.livejournal.com]

I would suggest practicing saying no then. Remember that you always have that option - "I'm here to worship, not to engage in politics".

I'm just pointing out that you're likely to be asked to join in the politics and depending on the church, may be used to support someone else's politics. If it were me, I'd lean toward the UCC - they're more likely to accept your "no" simply because they have other options.

[jadia.livejournal.com]

and I worry that in any faith community I join, I will wind up being asked to play that poster child role by default by politics and organization and people, rather than being able to view it as an aspect of my worship, and a facet of the love and justice of God.

Ah, I totally understand this. I think maybe this issue can be ameliorated by being part of a church which actually already has a decent queer community? Part of the reason that you might feel pressured to be the poster child is because you're the only one, or one of three or whatever. But if there are 10 of your it's a little easier? Or 30?

[lotusbiosm.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on how many other queer people are in the church. At All Souls (which I admit I haven't been to in a while), no one was really a "poster child", because we had lots of gay members. Including our entire ministry staff.

[csbermack.livejournal.com]

The things I can usefully say are small. I've been around another friend who did this kind of search, but she had totally different issues and requirements.

My takeaway from that was that it's hard, that it'll probably be good for you, and if you want to try another church, there's a methodist church in arlington you might try. I think it's the Calvary church? It's right on mass ave. They seem very family-oriented, which may not be what you're into.

[capsicumanuum.livejournal.com]

Is that the church Richard & Aletta go to? I think they have similar desires in a church community to eredien's.

[shadow.livejournal.com]

The Tibbettses go to First Baptist in Newton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Baptist_Church_in_Newton_(Massachusetts)), if I recall correctly.

[zdenka]

Re: major life changes: *offers hug*

What kind of cake do you like? I'm vaguely thinking that my next cake should be vegan, and this time I can leave off the sugar sprinkles with bugs in.

Er, cake or death?

[capsicumanuum.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm on the vestry at St J's, and I would of course be happy to answer any questions you have about St J in particular, or the Episcopal church in general, either here, or over coffee.