I'd an interesting conversation with my mother a few years ago. On the television was some black minister preaching, and my mother turned to me and said that she was a little sad that my brother and I were not raised in the black church. I was a little surprised by this admission, because it came from out of the blue. I let her know that I was glad, actually, that she did not raise us in the black church, or any church.
The black church, as an institution, has been horrific with regard to the GLBT communities in its midst. While checking out Rod McCullom's blog, I saw this post about HIV/Aids in the black community as shown on the CNN special on Black America. Judge Penny Brown Reynolds makes excellent points about the way that the black church has beat down, with a stick of shame, its black gay parishioners. This, in my mind, most anti-Christian approach to HIV/Aids in the black gay male community, both early in the epidemic and currently, should be seen as one of the most shameful developments in the history of the black church, which for centuries was the one place to find succor in a world bent on denigrating black people.
In the 1980s, when one of the most vulnerable parts of the black community started suffering, most of the collective black church seemed either to sit in silence or pass judgment with impunity. Only when black women and children began to be afflicted with HIV/Aids did the black church seem to begin talking about the issue. See, these were the real "victims" of this disease; gay men cannot serve in that capacity within the black church.
Even in the clip I linked to, and as McCullom noted, Roland Martin discussed white gays, black women and black children in his question about the public policy debate surrounding the epidemic. Do you think black gay men crossed his brain? Or Ben Jealous' brain? It was Soledad O'Brien who re-inserted the issue of homosexuality into that discussion. This is all too typical a perspective for the black church (and the black community), and it is a tragedy. The responses to the Civil Rights Movement and the HIV/Aids crisis by the black church were like night and day (as Judge Reynolds suggested), and for those gays and lesbian within the black church right now, I wonder whether they truly feel the love that the church is supposed to provide. Stories like those about DC's own Pastor Rainey Cheeks reminds me that there are pockets within the black church that can indeed provide the support that the black church has been known for providing.
Overall, I am glad that I was not raised within an institution that people I know still have to make excuses for. I am glad that I was not raised within an institution that would have made my struggles with my sexual orientation even more painful than they were. In the end, I concluded that if one wants to have a sense of faith, then that should be something that is mostly private and individualized. Where some see the Bible as the inerrant word of God, I see a rich historical document that has been subjected to levels of reinterpretation that should make the head spin. For so many, organized religion has provided a wonderful sense of purpose. That is great, for them.
Meanwhile, I think my mother did just fine by me.
13 comments:
Jeffrey, what high standards you have! If I refused to associate with any organization that didn't agree with 100% of my views, I'd be pretty lonely. Aren't liberals suppose to be tolerant of those individuals/organizations that don't always agree with you?
@Anonymous (whom I think might be Paul, and correct me if I am wrong): Your point regarding me is not valid, and you know it. Besides, are many conservatives very clear about the idea of freedom of association, even to its extreme ends? I don't speak for liberals, but I am more than tolerant. And we all associate with organizations and institutions that don't agree with our views 100%. Hello, you work for the federal government (again, if this is Paul).
I can say that my take on things is certainly more tolerant and peaceable than some of the positions taken by islamists and christianists (in the U.S.), just to name two groups. I think those groups could actually attempt more tolerance.
There's nothing intolerant about saying, "I'm glad I wasn't raised in an organization that, for all its virtues, would have treated me as a second-class member."
Nothing at all.
Free I wasn't raised in the black church either. Of course the fact I'm white might be part of that...
But I was raised as a Catholic. I mean a for real, hadcore Catholic--Mass every Sunday, Catholic school with the sadistic nuns, I was even an alter boy.
Then turned 13 and began to realize two things. I was gay, and I was going to hell because of it.
God--my Heavenly Father Who Loves Me--was going to burn me forever. That struck me as a bit weird, y'know? So I thought about it a while and decided it was in fact weird to believe in a God who loves his children and then condemns his children for being who He made them.
So it ain't just the black church Free, it's any religion that substitutes dogma for reason.
And one final thought...
"Aren't liberals suppose to be tolerant of those individuals/organizations that don't always agree with you?"
Telling gay people that they are going to burn in the fires of hell goes a wee bit beyond being an "organization that doesn't always agree with you."
I see the bible as a wonderful allegorical tale... like Antigone, Beowulf, or Homer's Illiad.
The Black Church has outlived its usefulness and it's beginning to show.
Free, if you weren't raised in the black church, and apparently have huge areas of noninformation on the subject, then how do you consider yourself prepared to talk on the subject--much less make such an extreme and accross-the-board pronouncement on the subject? Is it at all possible that, if you HAD been raised in the black church, you might have gained anything of value for your life? (Apparently, your mother may think so.)
Homophobia in any church is DESPICABLE and merits your strong critique. Thanks for that. Amen. But let's not be so "gay-o-centric" because it's REDUCTIVIST. Don't you think black churchpeople do anything beside sit around condemning faggots? (But then again, if you've always been totally outside of the black church, then HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THIS?)
As for the person who said the black church has "outlived its usefulness," this also seems scarily un-nuanced. Fact is, although the church has its dismal negatives, it also continues to serve vital positive needs for millions of people. (And Free, don't even pretend you know anything about spiritual needs.)
Two weeks ago, as it happens, after MANY years away from church (I myself am not especially religious), I attended service at someone else's black Baptist church in NW DC. I admit that, at the beginning of the service I was prepared to be outraged. Based on all outward appearances (tiny building; old-time gospel music; senior-citizen pastor from Down Home, etc. etc.) I strongly suspected the church service would be conservative, bible-thumping, pie-in-the-sky, hell-fire-and-damnation at its worse. In the space of an hour, however, I was pleasantly surprised that topics such as homelessness, AIDS, hunger, suicide, and gang violence were ALL raised. Not only that, but I saw that this church, while tiny and impoversihed, actually had concrete WEEKLY PROGRAMS to help alleviate ALL of the above-mentioned problems. (Free, how many free dinners did YOU deliver to sick and elderly people last week?)
As long as myriad crisis-level problems of the black community still exist, and some earnest black churchpeople (whatever their motives) are doing something concrete to alleviate those problems, then maybe we shouldn't be so fast to condemn--much less shitcan--the black church.
Looking beyond this particular post: Where is the effing NUANCE at this website? Does everything always have to be either BLACK OR WHITE (so to speak)?
@Anon 2: I just have a quick question? Do we know one another? Some of the things you are saying suggests that we may, or you are being rather presumptive. If we don't know one another, I will be in a better position to formulate a response that is appropriate.
Formulate? Appropriate?
Don't second-guess or, worse, pander. Say what you mean; mean what you say.
@Anon 2: The focus of this issue was on the black church response to HIV/Aids. That is where I kept my post, on that issue. I also made it clear that on the Civil Rights Movement, the institution was dead on, and has a legacy that is incredible.
By moving my criticism from the response to a specific crisis, and a response that you agree was terrible, you have suggested that I am trashing the black church as a whole. Even in my comfort of not having been raised within the black church, I conceded that it provides people with the support they need.
Just because I wasn't raised in the black church doesn't mean that I never attended black churches. With three ministers in my family, and two close friends who are also ordained, it was sometimes difficult to avoid crossing the threshold (not being raised in the black church is not the same as never attending). And though there was no real reason to use the term "faggots" in your point, I found it funny that you would think that I thought that gays and lesbians were the focus of most Sunday sermons. That's reductive.
Regarding other points, unless we know one another personally, I think that it is more than presumption to suggest you know anything about my spiritual perspective. If you want to know my spiritual perspective, we can discuss that outside of this forum. With regard to helping feed the poor and the like, I am not interested in that at this point in my life. So no, I haven't delivered any dinners and such. I am glad for those who do. And I made it clear to point out the great work that Pastor Cheeks has been doing, particularly with regard to his parisioners.
Finally, can you provide me with an example of what you would consider a good and nuanced post, since so many of the others seem to lack that. And I would suggest that you take up blogging as well, and let me know what your blog is, if you decide to go that route.
[@Anon 2: The focus of this issue was on the black church response to HIV/Aids. That is where I kept my post, on that issue.]
The title you chose was: "Regarding the Black Church." The post's concluding sentence was, in effect, a wholesale personal rejection/dismissal of the black church.
[I also made it clear that on the Civil Rights Movement, the institution was dead on, and has a legacy that is incredible.]
Well, of course.
[By moving my criticism from the response to a specific crisis, and a response that you agree was terrible, you have suggested that I am trashing the black church as a whole. Even in my comfort of not having been raised within the black church, I conceded that it provides people with the support they need.]
But again, the post's ultimate line is a trashing.
[Just because I wasn't raised in the black church doesn't mean that I never attended black churches. With three ministers in my family, and two close friends who are also ordained, it was sometimes difficult to avoid crossing the threshold (not being raised in the black church is not the same as never attending).]
Interesting dialoguing possibilities with them, I would think, if you haven't already gone that route.
[And though there was no real reason to use the term "faggots" in your point,]
The term was pointedly being used in context. This is a common rhetorical device.
[I found it funny that you would think that I thought that gays and lesbians were the focus of most Sunday sermons. That's reductive.]
As if I thought that.... Again I was using a common rhetorical device. It was not be taken literally. The point is: they ain't talking about gays nearly as much as you seem to think.
[Regarding other points, unless we know one another personally, I think that it is more than presumption to suggest you know anything about my spiritual perspective. If you want to know my spiritual perspective, we can discuss that outside of this forum.]
You are correct. My apologies. I was frustrated by some of the facile and presumptuous thinking in your post--and introduced some facile and presumptuous thinking of my own. Disrespect is contagious.
[With regard to helping feed the poor and the like, I am not interested in that at this point in my life. So no, I haven't delivered any dinners and such. I am glad for those who do.]
Again, I thought it obvious that this was figurative, and being used to dramatize a larger point. The question is not whether you ACTUALLY delivered dinners last week--but whether you did anything concrete to help others, to 'put your money where your mouth is.' (For the record, I probably didn't do anything like that last week, either.)
[And I made it clear to point out the great work that Pastor Cheeks has been doing, particularly with regard to his parisioners]
Yes, you did, although somewhat perfunctorily and patronizingly, it seemed to me.
[Finally, can you provide me with an example of what you would consider a good and nuanced post, since so many of the others seem to lack that.]
Beware PRONOUNCEMENTS. Avoid binary opposition. Go deeper. Be more substantive. Part of this means simply not changing channels every couple of days. There's a pattern on WSN of regularly introducing HUGE topics--only to quickly drop them, either when the 'going gets rough,' or simply out of apparent boredom. Here's what's really confusing: You love lobbing rhetorical handgrenades--but somehow always appear surprised when folks throw them back. What's with that?
[And I would suggest that you take up blogging as well, and let me know what your blog is, if you decide to go that route.]
I will do that. Good luck with your website.
Organized religion is the rocket fuel of self-hate.
When people in traditional churches are discovered to be homosexuals are they embraced? RARELY! The truth is the church members simply know more about another church member, but that knowledge erases any ties, any prior contributions, and creates the mob frenzy mentality of casting such a person aside.
So, those in the crowd who are also homosexual, or bi-sexual, have fleeting sexual encounters with various others so as not to be seen or caught. Meanwhile the number of HIV cases is escalating in the black church, amongst Catholic priests, and other houses of worship where everyone speaks against homosexuality and the inherent evils of such behavior.
Where is the inclusiveness and love in any of that? Where is the talk about safe sex, and not just abstaining or refraining. Condoms save lives.
So as the churches continue down the chosen path of hateful ignorance, their memberships will become increasingly affected and infected.
The truth always comes homes to roost.
I'm just sayin'...
(Anonymous #3)
Jeffrey—I do know you to be a tolerant person, but I think that in this case you (like most lefties) might be stereotyping churches. I don't know much about the "black church," aside from what I saw of Rev. Wright (Obama's spiritual mentor). I'll grant you, he did look pretty intolerant and mean, but I have to believe that there are black churches (or churches generally) out there where you would feel comfortable, if you really wanted to find one—and that's the real issue. Many lefties wear their disdain for religion as a badge of honor, and like to think that they are bigger than any need for faith, or organized religion at any rate.
I can speak about the Catholic Church. Many folks look it as a monolithic church but the truth is that there is A LOT of variety among Catholic churches and priests. Diocesan priests can be very different from the various orders—Franciscans, Dominicans, and certainly Jesuits can hold a variety of views. Jesuits tend to be quite liberal, in the Catholic Church framework. Even the views of bishops vary from continent to continent. The church in Africa and Latin America and Asia often holds and practices very different views than the church in N. America and Europe. A Latin American priest in Florida just announced that he intends to marry and is pushing the church to address this issue. Married Episcopal priests that convert to Catholicism can stay married. My point is that even a church which is very traditional and largely hierarchal can contain a lot of variety.
I also have a devoted Jewish friend who is fiercely opposed to many of the policies of Israel. He sometimes wears a T-shirt to temple that says "end the occupation" and I went to hear him speak one day about how Israel as a country needs to live by their faith as they engage their neighbors. These are not traditional Jewish beliefs, but even as he has moved around the east coast, he has always found a temple where he feels comfortable.
My point is that there are a wide variety of opinions and practices in any religion, and if you really wanted to, you could find a home. The sense I got from your post was that there was no place in "the black church" for a gay guy like you, and therefore you didn't want anything to do with it or religion in general. I think that if you had a real hunger to live and practice a faith you could find a black church, or any other faith. You could look into Buddhism or Hinduism, or find a Christian church that was more open to gays (if that is your primary issue) but the truth is that I don’t think you really want to. That's certainly OK, but that's different than the sense I got from your post.
I also have to observe that I find the tone of the comments to be very harsh. There seems to be no curiosity about religion or faith—your friends are quite confident that they have all the answers.
Anonymous from above: Thanks for the nuance--something that's all too rare at this website.
Post a Comment