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.