WTn GLBT 2: Can We Agree?

My last post mentioned a presentation by two priests to our clergy group about the GLBT Task Force and some of its findings. There had been a survey distributed amongst several groups in our diocese, one group was clergy and church staff. Several questions focused on counseling GLBT folk. The survey said roughly one-third to one-fourth had done so and were willing to do so. This was read as rejection of the people in the LGBT group by this task force. We were told that this was painful.  We were told that there were going to be resources made available to us to better prepare us to provide counsel.

When there was time for open discussion, the first comment offered an apologia for homosexual love. It was the "born that way, not a choice" argument coupled with the "loving God" argument. The second comment was the "gay people get beat over the head with the bible" observation. The former irritates me because I have addressed it logically several times. It is a fallacy to argue ethics based on inborn tendencies. The latter observation is no doubt true (mean, self righteous Christians do exist and Scripture is abused) but it is also too simplistic and ignores that a gentle use of Scripture still communicates a hard message to the GLBT community.

The third comment was mine. I intended to be analytical. I spoke calmly. My concern was around the issue of counseling and materials. So I pointed out that we needed some sort of comparative data about counseling. "How much counseling do we do period?" I asked. The assumption is that we are reluctant to counsel with GLBT folks, my genuine question is, are we reluctant to counsel everyone? Then I added that my son had asked why we were focused on GLBT issues? I explained that I told him that in our diocese we were concerned because young GLBT people were often bullied. I went on to say that my son's response to me was , "Dad, everyone is bullied and picked on." In light of that I asked, "What about fat people? There are many more people with weight problems than there are GLBT folks in our church. They are picked on and abused. They have serious problems coming from prejudice and unkindness. For ten years we have talked about GLBT issues incessantly but never a word about the pastoral needs of any number of groups, in our church, who are also human beings in pain." I concluded that we needed to look into broader questions about counseling period. I also mentioned that I am an MSSW and have done much counseling, including multiple members of the GLBT community and their families.

I was told that my argument was a red herring. I responded I was not arguing. I stated that if tomorrow I changed my mind and became the GLBT community's greatest advocate, I would still want to be thorough and accurate in the use of data.

The next day another priest asked me, "Do you ever feel like people do not listen to what you say?" She went on to complement me for staying calm in the face on this phenomena and for not giving up.

I appreciate her kindness greatly. I also appreciate her insight. There is no doubt that many years of debate, much of it passionate, has created some barriers to communication between the two sides of this debate. There is also no doubt that we perceive each other through a lense. There is a willingness to shut down discussion based on assumptions. I do not think we can agree. I also think it is a political discussion (power) not theological (truth) or pastoral (how do we care for). The Progressives wanted to change things so the use of political power inside the church is how they did it. Most of those who were unconvinced by the Progressive arguments (which are terribly weak and logically flawed, even if emotionally appealing and on the surface much nicer), well, most of those who disagreed are gone. They left the Episcopal Church and joined other churches or created a new group within the Anglican framework. The remnant can be effectively isolated, ignored and misrepresented with ease.

But there is hope. Some people recognize that the adherents of the traditional faith have value. Several priests told me I had asked important questions and had tossed no red herring. Another priest came to me later and said that I had opened his eyes to the real challenges and  needs of people who struggle with their weight. And even the priest who had dismissed what I said had gone on to recognize that there had been reconciliation and grace in conversations I had had with the GLBT community after the last Diocesan Convention.

We cannot agree. I believe they are wrong, they think I am. We can, however, be fair. We can be empathetic and try to understand each other. We can be agents of reconciliation. We can stop being silly and dismissing each other. As a vocal member of a small minority, it is easier for me to be humble and kind. I have no power. But in weakness I can witness to Truth in love. How can they hear if no one speaks in their midst? I am also able to unmask the Progressive assumption that they are "open, loving, propopents of diversity." As long as I am around they are constantly reminded that they also have prejudices, they are also oppressive, they are also self righteous,,,, in other words, they are also just like the Traditionalist whom they do not like.

I see no other way. Witness requires presence.  Faithful witness must also listen. Authentic dialgoue means listening and speaking. I believe God is in our midst. I believe our struggles living together are the context where we become more fully the Image of God and undergo theosis and become godly. I believe, so I do not quit. I believe, so I hope. Even if we never will agree on this. Ever.