What should churches do if the fight against gay rights is lost?
This is one social movement that most Christian churches oppose, but Americans are getting on board anyway (Source: Pew)
A few days ago, I heard a fascinating interview on one of NPR’s news programs with a liberal Christian pastor. (I’d link to it, but after a long search I can’t find the conversation.)
During the exchange, the minister made a powerful assertion. He argued that no meaningful social transformation has occurred in American society without the direct and passionate engagement of churches.
The obvious example, which he cited, is the civil rights movement.
Black churches in the South were a catalyst for change, a beacon of courage. If I’m not mistaken, Martin Luther King Jr. is the one religious figure who enjoys a Federal holiday in America.
It goes without saying that Christians have been front and center in a dozen other major movements, from abolitionism in the 1800s to the fight against deep poverty in the 1930s to the anti-war protests of the 1960s and 70s.
Christians also energized the anti-abortion movement that began in the 1980s, a movement that many believers view as a fight for the rights of unborn children.
Which may be why the battle over civil rights and equality for gays and lesbians looks and feels so starkly different.
This time around, American society is changing with remarkable speed, and the vast majority of Christian organizations are in a very different role.
Rather than leading the fight for change, they stand adamant in opposition, throwing vast amounts of political, cultural and economic weight into efforts to block issues like marriage equality, same-sex adoption, and full labor equality for gays.
Last week, as Rhode Island was emerging as the tenth US state to legalize same-sex marriage, that state’s Bishop Thomas Tobin drew yet another line in the sand.
“At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,’ and always sinful,” Bishop Tobin argued.
He went on to call same-sex marriage “objectively sinful” and urged Catholics to avoid attending marriages involving friends, family and co-workers who are gay. “[T]o do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others,” he noted.
Most Americans would take deep umbrage at a clergyman’s suggestion that their adult relationships are “disordered” or “sinful” or that having a family-member at their wedding would harm anyone’s relationship with God.
But in the context of Christian activism on this issue, Bishop Tobin’s language is fairly temperate. While driving this week in the Midwest, I listened carefully to Christian radio, where opposition to gay rights is a key issue for discussion and debate.
On program after program, I heard homosexuality described as “unclean” and an “abomination.”
To be clear, there are progressive churches that have embraced and worked to advance homosexual rights. The issue has divided the Episcopal church in the US, for example, which went so far as to ordain a gay bishop.
But in the US, the vast, overwhelming opposition to this movement grows out of Protest, Mormon and Roman Catholic churches.
Leaders of those faith-groups point confidently to passages in the Christian Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality in blunt terms.
The problem, of course, is that a majority of Americans now reject those views; and even many rank-and-file Christians no longer believe or acknowledge the primacy of those passages of Scripture.
“A historic realignment is happening all around us, as Americans from all walks of life realize that [legalizing same sex marriage] is the right thing to do,” said Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee, a long-time Republican who now identifies himself as an independent.
“It is occurring both inside and outside of politics, through conversations at the office and over kitchen tables, and at different speeds in different parts of the country,” Gov. Chaffee wrote in a commentary for the New York Times.
As recently as 2009, support for gay marriage stood at just 41 percent. Now, some 53 percent of Americans support the idea of same-sex marriage, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
Two-thirds of Americans think the Federal government should recognize same same-sex marriages performed in the states where they are already legal.
Support for gay rights is even stronger among young people. A separate poll by Washington Post/ABC found that 73% of Americans age 18-49 support gay marriage; and that includes 52% support among Republicans in that age group.
One final statistic is worth pointing to here. Americans tend to think of themselves as highly polarized, entrenched, partisans in a take-no-prisoners culture war.
But a Pew study released this spring found that a whopping 16 percent of us have changed our minds about gay marriage — almost all of them, 14 percent, moving in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.
“There’s no putting this genie back in the bottle,” Florida-based Republican strategist Ana Navarro said in an interview on CNN. “This is now undeniable. The shift is here. We’re not going back.”
Writing in the Washington Post, political writer Chris Cillizza put it even bluntly: “The political debate over gay marriage is over.”
The question for people of faith — and their leaders — is What do you do if the train is leaving the station and you’re not on board? What if society is changing (or has changed) fundamentally and you’re not part of it?
In the past, Christian groups have sometimes capitulated in circumstances like these Most religious groups now tacitly (if grudgingly) accept marital divorce, for example, which is condemned in stark terms in the Bible.
Other faiths have adopted a kind of de facto don’t-ask-don’t-tell approach, such as the Roman Catholic posture toward contraception, which is widely condemned by the Vatican and widely practiced by the faithful.
The rhetoric on gay rights and same-sex marriage strikes me as more intractable, however, and less open to that kind of massaging or tweaking.
So let me end with a series of questions: Do you think it’s too late for Christian groups who want to contain the spread of gay right in the US? Or can developments like same-sex marriage be contained and rolled back?
And what do you think happens if the gay rights movement ultimately prevails — winning the kind of widespread acceptance that racial tolerance enjoys today — but the churches are left behind?
And what does this mean for the future of social change in America? Will churches continue to be pivotal institutions? Or will we see more movements growing without, or in spite of, Christian activism?
Your comments welcome.
“He argued that no meaningful social transformation has occurred in American society without the direct and passionate engagement of churches.”
There seems to be a bit of a correlation/causation problem with this.
The church was jumping on the bandwagon of social change, decades and sometimes centuries late, after vehemently and violently opposing it in some cases, and only when it was clear society was changing and they would be left behind.
It was a survival mechanism, at worst. A slow, inefficient, reluctant release of their opposition to these changes, at best.
They were absolutely NOT “leading the fight for change” in any of the examples stated here.
I think it is important to realize that while Dr. King was a social activist who happened to be a clergyman, he was not marching for civil rights because he was clergy. In fact, he battled and struggled against churches all the way across the South.
Churches will get on board eventually, with marginalized holdouts. Pragmatism will overwhelm bias, however entrenched.
Religion is losing. It will probably continue to lose. For Christians the losing began with Galileo, the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment, all of which took place in the mid 1600’s and helped pave the way for the American Revolution.
Why is this so and why does it continue to happen?
The short answer is that all religions are more concerned with an afterlife than they are with current life. They promote belief at the expense of logic and reason.
You need to really frighten people to get them to be more concerned about what might happen after they die than be concerned about their here and now life.
The problem for religions with reference to all things gay is that fewer and fewer people are frightened by gays. More and more they see them as just people trying to have a life. They know them as family, friends and co-workers. To try to equate gays and lesbians as evil people deserving of being condemned to hell for all eternity seems in itself evil at worst and just plain stupid and silly at best.
I think there are two aspects to this issue, a political/legal one and a religious one. We should be careful to understand that they are two distinct questions that, in reality, are not connected.
Any further politcal or legal debate is pointless and should be discontinued. The Constitution (14th Amendment) guarantees all Americans equal protection under the law. End of story. Sadly, not everyone acknowledges that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it is. You can’t cherry-pick only the parts you like.
On the religious side, everyone is entitled to the free, peaceful and lawful practice of their religion. What they believe, preach and practice is their business and they are entitled to their beliefs. To paraphrase a popular saying, what happens in church should stay in church. Any religious institution that takes tax-payer money for any reason (running hospitals, schools, etc.) must respect all laws, without exception. Whether or not different religions maintain their relevance is solely up to their members.
Will churches continue to be pivotal institutions?
To the extent that they follow after God and not political winds, yes, they will.
Do you think it’s too late for Christian groups who want to contain the spread of gay right in the US?
I think Christians groups who “want to contain the spread of gay rights” are misguided. That’s something for government to do or not to do.
Here’s a question not asked.
Will gays who desire marriage be satisfied to seek a pastor who is willing to do so, or will they make a big deal about the one who wishes not to do so?
I think that if its the latter, the intent is other than what it says it is.
People have been walking away from God for a long time. People don’t like being told they are wrong and because they tend to already know they are wrong have their radar out any time they expect to hear opposition. Divorce is as wrong as beating a spouse or murder or a whole laundry list of stuff. Wrong is wrong.
Pete says all religions are more concerned with the afterlife than with current life. I disagree with that. It doesn’t fit with what I have read. Man is to align himself with God in Christianity and that can’t be done afer death. In our society most people want to fit God into whatever spot they reserve for Him for their own convenience.
I don’t know if churches will be pivotal. They will be less relevant if they declare what they based their beliefs on is no longer fundamental. When clear instruction is dismissed there is a problem If their “transformed” doctrine is their new normal they will be worthless to God. Their incremental changes will make them no different than society and thus as valuable as the Rotary or Elks (not to fault those organizations).
The church of television and movies seems to be prevailing at this time. And that church seems to be grasping at straws to attract an audience given the abberations it offers such as child beauty pagent participants, survivors, moonshiners, junk dealers, hoarders, amish mafia, jersey shore and overbearing men such as Admen, Sopranos, boardwalk empire, or Donald Trump.
#this question: “Will gays who desire marriage be satisfied to seek a pastor who is willing to do so, or will they make a big deal about the one who wishes not to do so?” Hmm…
Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t want any religious officiant performing my wedding ceremony under protest. Would you? Snarky caterers are bad enough.
And yes, there may indeed be a couple who want to make their big day even more attention-grabbing than usual — but Bridezillas are found in all sexual orientations. I hope you won’t form your conclusions about all same-sex couples by the actions of that one couple, anymore than you should form your conclusions about heterosexual marriage by the 50% divorce rate.
If you’re thinking of the few town and village clerks in New York who don’t want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, that’s an entirely different issue. It’s the law, and the clerk’s job is to uphold it.
As for Brian’s original question: How should the churches respond as the train leaves the station? I imagine some denominations will just stick their heads in the sand, while others will shrug and carry on as best they can. After all, there’s a whole laundry list of other pressing sins to campaign against: environmental crime, exploitation of workers, hatred, gossip… You name it.
PS (Confidential to the Most Revered Bishop Tobin): We hereby uninvite you from our fabulous same-sex nuptials this summer in Gouverneur. Your Excellency may, of course, send gifts in lieu of his attendance. Too bad for you, really, as we’ll be throwing a great barbecue.
“…worthless to God.”
And who, exactly, besides God gets to make that judgement?
One of the callings of the Christian Church in the world is to follow the Gospel regardless of the consequences.
The Bishop is correct on how Christians have traditionally viewed any sex outside of marriage between a man and a women, it is sinful and wrong in the eyes of God. That is what I personally believe and it is what the Church truthfully teaches. But as CS Lewis pointed out; the teachings on the virtue of chastity (which is not abstinence) and sexual purity are by far the least popular virtues in all of our teachings.
But we also believe divorce is wrong as is fornication, as is lying or coveting and of course the issues surrounding taking innocent human life through abortion etc. We all fall short on a variety of issues, sexual purity included.
Some Christian issues will be accepted by our culture and some will not; we will be left behind on some issues (which is a good thing, the last thing we should want is to simply be part of this culture which according to scripture is passing away), and on others we will be part of change. I don’t see it as a one way or another issue.
I would be very worried about the health of the Church if we were just another civil or political club going along with our culture. Our culture needs to be challenged even when it is unpopular.
In this particular case I think we can make our views known but I don’t think it is wise to get politically involved in the gay marriage debate, it will happen I think that is certain to me it is not about being left behind so much as it is about spending far too much time on this issue; particularly when it is not homosexuals who have hurt marriage. I mean we need to look no farther than South Carolina to see the full acceptance of many in the Evangelical community at least of fornication and adultery.
Has anyone considered how much of traditional religious thought and teaching about sex comes from legal, social and economic imperatives that have little relevance in modern times?
Take for example the role of children and family in ancient economics. Children provided essential labor and generational continuity in the struggle to survive in pre-industrial societies. Any sexual activity, i.e., homosexuality, that did not produce children would be seen as disruptive and damaging because it added nothing to a family’s survival effort. Sexual behavior needed to be (and was) channeled into appropriate (marital) relationships as soon as physically practical, to help ensure survival, prevent disruptive illegitimate births and secure inheritances. Any sexual activity that was not directed towards the orderly survival of the species was proscribed.
Biology hasn’t changed, but society’s needs have. I think society has changed so rapidly that religious belief and societal norms haven’t had a chance to evolve as quickly as they should have. They will, however, catch up eventually. The changes we are seeing now are part of that process.
what larry said, both times.
oh, sorry, counting problems. i meant his 10:49 and 3:12 coments.
If you like comedy (with lots of profanity) you should check out Lewis Black’s take on this topic. He talks about how some paranoid types worried about the loss of “traditional family values” think that there must be some kind of “gay banditos” are out there prowling in the suburbs trying to destroy the American family. It is hilarious.
People (even those in the church) have got to just get over it. Look when I was a kid a girl alter “boy” was probably considered a “sin”. Not anymore. So adapt or get out of the way.
Pete Klein: First off, the line through your name is cool.
Secondly, don’t count on this: ” For Christians the losing began with Galileo”
There’s a famous cartoon quip:
“God is dead” Neitzke
“Neitze is dead” God
If Christianity is simply some sort of “evolving” social construct than it should be disbanded, the fact is we really believe this is true, we believe that the Apostles were not making this up, that they did in fact witness what they claimed to witness, Christ fully God and fully man rising from the dead for our sakes, taking away all of our sins, including all of mine and all of every single person who may be gay. It is the most important thing in my life, more important than my career or money or anything in the world, including any sort of politics. We are called to suffer and die for this faith.
I think the disconnect for those of us who really do have faith is when people start talking about the Body of Christ as some sort of evolving social institution. The basics of what we believe contained in scripture, our creeds and tradition has not changed in 2000 years and won’t change or evolve, ever.
Mervel,
I think it is beyond doubt that all religions are evolving (however slowly) social institutions. There’s even evolution in the Catholic Church. That said, if you believe your religion can remain relevant even though it hasn’t changed in 2000 years, OK, I have no problem with that.
Arguing that God is not dead is meaningless, especially when you consider there is no agreement among the world’s religions on exactly what they are talking about when they talk about God.
All of the world’s religions have differing opinions on the nature of God.
What most do agree upon is the belief that there is a god. But that’s about it.
Where all religions run smack dab up against the secular world and against each other is the insistence of each is that they alone posses the truth.
OL the belief, the faith itself has not changed in 2000 years, however, Christians and the Church have changed a lot. I probably was not clear.
If you look at the Creeds for example we still believe these as literally true, what we believe about Jesus who He is today as a living God and man and who He was when He walked the earth, these beliefs are the same today as in ad 150. The basic truth’s have not changed.
However, all of the things that go with the human side, things like how to build a church building, how to administer things, how we address society at large, should we be involved in politics at all and how much, our stands on various social issues; sure these evolve to some degree with society, but those things are simply not that important. Particularly when compared to the Truth of Christ and the change in the entire universe that occurred when He took all of our sins upon Himself at Calvary.
Yes things like sexual purity are a teaching and it is doubtful that they will change, but if teaching that God wants us to have a life long loving marriage between a man and a women and their children; is somehow not relevant, well then count me in as not being relevant or wanting to be relevant.
In fact a good portion of debate within the Church is about should we want to be relevant? What would it have meant for the Church in the time of Nero to seek to be relevant? Where would we be today if we had curried favor with that society? Do monks leading the monastic life want to be relevant, do the Amish want to be relevant? For me the best part of our Church is its irrelevance and the worst part of the Church is when we try to be relevant and win power and money and act like the world.
Interesting thoughts. Here’s my take. I disagree with Dave that religious faith has been incidental to social activism in America.
I think Martin Luther King and the black churches were deeply motivated by their Christian worldview.
Similarly, I think many leaders of the Roman Catholic church have pushed hard for social and economic justice because those ideas are at the core of their reading of Christian Scripture.
And I do think there are serious ramifications for America if mainstream religious institutions are, in some way, fundamentally ‘discredited’ with average citizens.
I’m not sure this is happening…
But IF a significant percentage of Americans were to associate Christianity on some level with bigotry, it would likely make it much harder for church leaders to influence future conversations.
I’m convinced that that influence has been important, on-going, and for the most part of great value to American society.
–Brian, NCPR
“I think Martin Luther King and the black churches were deeply motivated by their Christian worldview.”
You really think it was their christian worldview that “deeply” motivated them to fight for civil rights?
It wasn’t the fact that they were black and their civil rights were being denied??
And what about the parallel civil rights movements that had absolutely nothing to do with christianity. Malcom X, being the most obvious.
What did everyone involved in the civil rights movement have in common? A christian worldview? No. Not at all. What they ALL had in common is that they were individuals who were either having their civil rights denied, or they were individuals who found it appalling that others were having their civil rights denied. THAT is what deeply motivated people in the civil rights movement.
I have no disagreement with the statement that “no meaningful social transformation has occurred in American society without the direct and passionate engagement of churches.” Churches have been critical in organizing thought and action on most social issues going back to the beginnings of our colonies and before.
Of course opinion within churches and clergies isn’t monolithic as the debate over gay leadership in the Episcopal church shows, or Liberation Theology in the Catholic church.
But on many issues today churches are becoming less and less relevant. When most people were barely literate and churches were the main social safety net, and when priests and ministers were the only people with the time, education and instruction on dealing with parishioners’ spiritual, emotional, and physical needs things were a lot different.
I think the number of people reporting that they have changed their minds on gay marriage is probably far too low. My guess is that many people’s opinions have evolved so slowly over many years that they don’t even realize that they used to oppose what they now favor.
Perhaps young people haven’t changed their minds but I doubt very many people in the 50’s, or 60’s, or 70’s or even 80’s thought they would see legalized gay marriage as soon as it happened. Even civil unions for that matter.
I think those are valid observations knuckle.
If we as Christians define ourselves as being all about two or three modern current social issues mainly involving sexual morality, then we have not really shown the Gospel at all. The Gospel is good News, it tells us that we are loved by a personal God, who humbled Himself to love us when He did not have to do that, but for the sake of love and our weakness did so. We all must admit that we all are sinners regardless if it is sexual purity issues ( a very minor part of scripture) or larger things like pride and self seeking, greed, etc. I have not doubt that many people will find salvation in Christ who don’t believe what Christian teaching attests about sexual purity, they will be wrong and they will realize they were wrong, but I will be wrong on my pride and the things that I think are just fine but indeed are very offensive to Christ.
Civil rights was largely defined by a common Christian belief. However it is not about who gets “credit”, that in itself is not a Christian view, some important atheists were involved, some Muslims were involved and so forth. But the very question about “credit” for this very wonderful thing, is prideful, which is the anti-Christian state of mind.
So we go back to relevance and winning or losing. I don’t think it matters, I am not a Christian or a Catholic because I think it has relevance or because it is critical to the country, like most believers I am one because I believe in Jesus and His teachings as Truth and my only hope.
My main concern I guess about the issue would be if the social safety net that is currently provided by Christian Charities is disbanded per your post knuckle. Today the three largest Charities serving the poor in the US are all Christian, Catholic Charities the largest in the nation, the Salvation Army and Lutheran Social Services.
If you throw in the 25-35% of all health care in the US provided by Catholic hospitals, once again the single largest provider of health care in the US, you have a real issue just on the ground if these institutions die.
Dave, Martin Luther King was definitely deeply influenced by his religious beliefs, you only have to listen to his words to know that, and the black churches were a major force behind the Civil Rights movement. That’s why the Klan bombed the 16th Street church in Birmingham. Obviously black people in America at that time had other things to motivate them and there were other influences, but the churches and the strength people drew from their faith were a huge factor in the Civil Rights struggle. You can’t deny the role of that. Even Malcolm X was motivated to as great a degree as King by his own religious beliefs, he was a thug until he converted to Islam and became part of a more militant but equally spiritual movement.
Before we get too carried away about the Christian influence on the Civil Rights movement let’s not forget the enormous contribution made by Jews to the struggle for black Civil Rights. Many don’t know of the integral role Jews had in the founding of the NAACP. Many of the “Freedom Riders”, including some who gave their lives, were Jewish. By no means was it only a “Christian worldview” that drove the Civil Rights movement.
If you go to church these days and look at the average age of the people there, you will see your answer with respect to relevance. It may not have anything to do with gay marriage, but not many young people do not go to chuch around here. It may well be different in other regions but to be relevant, first you need to have a congregation with some energy.
@Mervel…well put!
Mervel,
Do Catholic Charities and other Catholic charitable institutions still refuse to provide contraceptive services as part of their employees’ group insurance? Do they still terminate employees whose lifestyle or sexual orientation doesn’t conform to their teachings? I know this was an issue recently and I wonder if it has been resolved.
Dave,
In order to be relevant a church must first practice what it preaches. I grew up in the Catholic Church but I am no longer a practicing member. Enough said, I think.
Dave and OL make good points about relevance and “practicing what is preached.” From the Bible there is a lot of instruction for life improvement. in the book of James chapter 1 verse 27 says: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
When the boob tube and movies are a large problem as I mentioned above, Those who do not object are helping to degrade our society. Two days ago a young teen girl was observed in our town lifting her shirt at an oncoming pickup truck then turning to check on reaction.
Changing just to gain an audience is as bad as not practicing what is preached. To be pivotal there needs to be welcome but not acquiescence. Look at the description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 verses 4-7 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Using that text as a gauge for evaluating TV or movie programming one could ask “Is there anything worth my time in this piece of fiction? Is there any reinforcement of these points in this piece of reality TV?”
Hold the text against attempts to stop abortion, feed homeless, protect orphans, help others in general, operate a charitable hospital and the answer as to whether something is relevant will surface. Christianity doesn’t hold a lock on the ability or responsibility to bless others.
OL, I am not sure on all of those details? I know for certain that Catholic Charities serves all people regardless, and of course does not even delve into those sorts of things for those they serve, the vast majority of whom are not Catholic.
As far as paying for abortion or contraceptive health coverage for their employees as a Catholic institution they simply cannot do that, however they recently lost a court case in NYS and have been forced to accept some sort of compromise situation. I remember it was kind of a convoluted sort of reasoning, if they do it it is under protest.
They do not worry about employee’s private lives unless that employee actively and publically opposes the Church itself or the Bishop. If you want to be out there on cutting aid to the poor for example or being very vocally opposed to the churches support for health care for the poor or food stamps etc, you will likely have a problem working or them along with of course the life issues. But as far as what the employee does in their private life, no. Many employees are not even Catholic.
Its a balance, it is a Catholic agency tied to and founded by the Church, I think there probably is a major disconnect to want to work for them and not agree with the Church? Life is too short and the pay is not enough to spend time doing that sort of thing.