I was obviously -- and happily -- wrong in worrying about Charlotte. Despite some troubling rhetoric from religious leaders, the gay pride event there went off without a hitch. About 500 believers prayed peacefully, even mingled with the crowd of about 10,000. This shows how people of contrasting beliefs should be able to interact. The Christians, in their red shirts, believe God has "A Better Way" for us, and just like anyone else who is trying to sell us something, whether it's a car, a life insurance policy or a religious way of life, we should respond to their pitch with some measure of the politeness in which it is offered, and any credibility we think is warranted. If and when we give them a clear signal of No Sale, everyone should be able to continue on their way.
Which led me to thinking about a customer they were able to close the deal with: Alan Chambers. He's just published a book called Leaving Homosexuality, about his struggle with unwanted homosexual attraction. An interview with him at CitizenLink fascinated me because, even more pointedly than the protesters in Charlotte, he seems to be able to draw a line between his religious beliefs and the civil society. He seems quite candid in admitting he finds other men sexually appealing. But in his view, acting on that attraction is sinful:
The key thought here is the opposite of homosexuality isn't heterosexuality. It's holiness. There are people who are conflicted with their sexuality, involved with homosexuality, and there is a way out for those who want it. But it doesn't say that they're going into heterosexuality, because that's not the point. The point is that people can leave whatever it is that God calls less than His best and move into something that is His best, becoming more like He is.
That strikes me as getting it just about right. If you hold his religious belief (which interestingly implies that God is heterosexual, something I don't think I've heard before), then you should probably avoid that particular sin. Plenty of religions are questioning that premise right now, but not the one Chambers belongs to.
An awful lot of us, though, are accepting of our homosexual orientation. And Chambers acknowledges that his path is only "for those who want it." The rest of us live in the secular world, governed by secular laws and (in part) by our human desires and affections. Chambers and the Charlotte protesters can try to talk us out of those, but they can't force us to believe something we don't. That's something the First Amendment -- both in the religion clauses and in the free speech clause -- got exactly right. Neither religion nor government can demand belief. Yet that is the knot at the heart of the religious opposition to homosexuality. Because they cannot enforce belief, they are trying to use the law to corral acceptance, but acceptance is, itself, a belief -- and one that is growing.
As we learn every day from the rest of the world, living with people who hold contrasting or inconsistent beliefs is the only alternative to civil unrest and even violence. The Charlotte protest and the Chambers interview show a civility -- and a clear separation of religion from the law -- that I think is admirable. I thought someone should say that.
6 Comments for “Render Unto Caesar. . .”
posted by Brian on
Were it only so cut and dry. Senior Exodus International officials, if not the organization itself, oppose almost all (if not all) LGBT-affirming civil legislation. From hate crimes to civil marriage equality to adoption access. It’s certainly civil language, but is it more than posturing? His path may only be for “those who want it” but is he attempting to make other paths more difficult? That’s not so civil. When the ink hits the legislation, what does he advocate? From what I’ve seen in the past, the line isn’t as clear.
posted by David Link on
Excellent point, Brian. And since I haven’t read Chambers’ book (and, to be honest, probably won’t) I can’t say what all is in there which might further emphasize your argument. But when he, or anyone else from the religious side, does express such a clear distinction between their religious beliefs and the civil world they and we inhabit (even if, at other times they don’t, or flatly contradict themselves, as is far too common), we should take the time to express something positive about what we do agree on, even if it’s only part of the whole. This is the kind of thing IGF contributor John Corvino does regularly, and he’s definitely convinced me of its value. It’s easier to recite that we should disagree without being disagreeable than it is to actually pull it off, and I’m easily as guilty as the next person. But I’m committed to trying, as often as I can.
posted by Tim on
David, I am concerned when you identify “religious leaders,” “believers” and “Christians” exclusively with anti-gay protesters and people like Alan Chambers. I believe you understand that many Christians and other people of faith are gay or have gay-positive religious beliefs. But your rhetoric reinforces an invalid “gay=secular, antigay=religious” dichotomy. You write, “the rest of us live in the secular world.” Well, I am a gay man, I embrace my sexual orientation as a blessing, and I live in the religious world.
posted by Tim on
Two more beefs, and these are with Chambers. I’m not surprised he refers to God as “he,” but you are right, the assertion that God is a male heterosexual is, if not new, usually not stated so baldly. Equally maddening is Chambers’ embrace of heterosexism — his misread of Scripture to assert that heterosexuality is “God’s ideal.” BS.
Second, what also needs to be said is how dangerous “reparative therapies” can be. Fine if a gay man or lesbian want to “find a way out,” but reparative therapy can be emotionally and spiritually damaging. They are not a benign alternative for the “conflicted” homosexual.
posted by David Link on
Tim, we’re definitely on the same page about religious support for homosexuality. When I lived in Pasadena, I attended All Saints Episcopal church, and still have very good friends down there, including one who was on the church vestry. I can’t think of a mainline church that has a longer or stronger reputation in leading the fight for inclusion of gays in all aspects of the church, up to and including marriage (I’m happy to consider all contenders for the crown, and certainly would include the Friends and UCC as fellow supporters in this struggle). I tried to be clear that Chambers and the Charlotte protesters are expressing a particular religious belief that is not universally shared today, but I’m happy to be unambiguous on that point. The nation is full of gay people who are religious believers and practitioners, and anyone who presents religion, as a whole, as anti-gay is simply wrong.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm, I think the price of social activism and trying to pass legislation is competition.
Everyone knows the religious right really needs to find new ways to communicate its message–if not new messages, period. What fewer people know is that they know it, too, and they are trying their best to improve their product.
This means we must also engage in self-reflection. The fact is that the ex-gay movement is still around. In fact, it seems to be doing a little better than at the beginning of this decade. This means that we need to understand it and respond to it. The same old criticisms will not have any effect.
I wonder what an ex-gay advocate says to a Down Low person?