Open Hands Vol 2 No 3 - Standing Up to Fear: Homophobia and the Church

Open Hands Vol 2 No 3 - Standing Up to Fear: Homophobia and the Church

2

3

1987

Winter

t~N;:r¥~: YjN ~ ~~*~.,., ~, ~
,~ , FORMERLY
::;F~ .',. " c "'''M~nna fC?~ the ~ourney"
1t!]IIyourljearf Irue
-10 my "earl €II nu-ne II-I 0 yOUrJI__ __ _
';Jf il il, give me your"and:' ~infer 1{}87 : ';}(ingl 10:15 1Jo/_2, 'J\[o_ J
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
"Heterosexism: A Systemic and Personal Evil" ....... ... 4 By Virginia Ramey Mollenkott
"On Closets and Coming Out" ....................... . 10 By Patricia Broughton
"Confronting Homophobia: An Educational Model" ...............16 By Mary Jo Osterman
The Reconciling Congregation Program is a network of United Methodist local churches who publicly affirm their ministry with the whole family of God and who welcome lesbians and gay men into their community. In this network, Reconciling Congregations find strength and support as they strive to overcome the divisions caused by prejudice and homophobia in our church and in our society. These congregations strive to offer the hope that the church can be a reconciled community.
To enable local churches to engage in these ministries, the program provides resource materials, including Open Hands. Enablers are available locally to assist a congregation which is seeking to become a Reconciling Congregation.
Information about the program can be obtained by writing:
Reconciling Congregation
Program
P.O. Box 24213
Nashville, TN 37202
Open Hands (formerly Manna for the Journey) is published by Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian/Gay Concerns, Inc., as a resource for the Reconciling Congregation Program. It seeks to address concerns of lesbians and gay men as they relate to the ministry of the church.
Contributing to this issue:
Jeanne Barnett Paula E. Murphy Mark Bowman Mary Jo Patricia
Osterman
Broughton Rebecca Parker Joanne Brown Suzanne Pharr Kristan Burkert Beth Richardson Mary E. Hunt Bradley Rymph Scott Mierding Lois Seifert Virginia Ramey Graphic artist:
Mollenkott Brenda Roth
Open Hands (formerly Manna tor the Journey) is published four times a year. SubSCription is $10 for four issues. Single copies are available for $3 each. Permission to reprint is granted upon request. Reprints of certain articles are available as indicated in the issue. Subscriptions and correspondence should be sent to:
Open Hands
P.O. Box 23636
Washington, D.C. 20026
Copyright 1987 by Affirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian/Gay Concerns, Inc.
ISSN 0888-8833
2/0pen Hands
II'JIJ ':Jour ljearf frue
-fa m':J "earf al
min e il to ':Jounl....
';l.1if ii, give
me ':Jour"and:'
Z';](ingl JC:J5
I 01 t"e~concilingCongregation ~ogtam
Contents
Homophobia. The fear of gay/lesbian people and issues is rampant in our church, our society, our families, and ourselves. It can be found not only among heterosexual persons but also among gay men and lesbians. Antilesbian/gay hysteria appears to be growing. This is seen in statements and action by church bodies, acts of violence against lesbians/gay men, court cases, and inflammatory statements by religious and secular leaders.
In the midst of this maelstrom of fear, we hope to bring a bit of calm and a great deal of energy to enable each of us to stand up to this fear. After Mary Jo Osterman briefly defines homophobia (HUnderstanding Homophobia, "p.3), Virginia Ramey Mollenkott provides a foundation for dealing with the issues in "Heterosexism: A Systemic and Personal Evil" (p. 4).
Mary E. Hunt introduces the personal struggles that confront gay men and lesbians because of homophobia in "Another Pain, Another Promise" (p. 7). Jeanne Barnett, Patricia Broughton, and Scott Mierding each share their own experiences: "Just Be Invisible" (p. 8), "On Closets and Coming Out" (p. 10), and '~lone in the Crowd" (p. 11).
Broughton's "coming out" has received wide coverage in the United Methodist press because of her position with the denomination's General Commission on the Status and Role of Women. That commission undertook a study of homophobia and sexism last spring, and Kristan Burkert reports on that work in "First Steps on a Journey" (p. 18). Lois Seifert and Paula E. Murphy also relate how "Churches Take the Initiative," reporting from the California-Pacific and Rocky Mountain annual conferences (pp. 20-21). Mary Jo Osterman discusses a workshop model she developed for challenging homophobia ("Confronting Homophobia: An Educational Model, " p. 16).
Homophobia's effects are felt throughout society, not just in the church. In "The Connection Between Homophobia and Violence Against Women" (p. 12), Suzanne Pharr explains how homophobia relates to her work in domestic violence. Bradley Rymph discusses the relationship between "AIDS and Homophobia" (p. 14).
We once again offer our regular features SUSTAINING THE SPIRIT (p. 15), written by Rebecca Parker, a clergywoman in the Pacific Northwest Conference who serves on the UMC General Board of Discipleship; RESOURCES (p. 22); and RCP REPORT (p. 23).
We hope that this issue will give increased courage to all of us as we work, speak, and live for justice for all people.
NEXT ISSUE'S THEME: Minorities within a Minority
o
p H o B
H o I A
y y
B M A R J o o s T E R M A N
Irrational fear of homosexuality and of homosexual
persons is a basic characteristic of our
society. In the early 1970s, Dr. George Weinberg
coined the term homophobia to describe this phenomenon. Since then, many social scientists, therapists, and others have used homophobia or its related term heterosexism to refer to this widespread problem.l
All people are to some extent homophobic, just as all people in this society are to some degree sexist, racist, and ageist. People who have worked through their personal homophobia are still caught in the more systemic levels. Gay men and lesbians, no less than straight men and women, are homophobic on both personal and systemic levels. However, even though all people are homophobic, not all people are homophobic for the same reason. In fact, people's homophobia comes from different sources and serves different functions.2
A person's attitude toward homosexuality may be based on a first experience with a gay man or lesbian. If that experience was traumatic, fearful, or insulting, that experience may feed the person's homophobia. Such homophobia may have an experientialfunction, designed to help that person "make sense" of specific past experience. The fear is built on a perceived need to protect oneself from further intrusion or assault.
Some persons are homophobic because of their own inner conflict about sexuality. They may have had a homosexual experience. They may have homosexual fantasies or may feel some attraction to persons oftheir own gender. Because they lack an explanation of human sexuality adequate to deal with these conflicts, they may use rigid categories. They box off people into "me" and "them," "good" and "bad." For these people, homophobia has a defensive junction, designed to help them cope with their personal conflict. The fear here is based on a need to keep one's own shaky identity together.
Still other persons are homophobic for a symbolic reason. That is, some persons need to acknowledge their identity by expressing a stance taken by a group that is important to them. Thus, a person closely tied to a group or institution that is homophobic (e.g., the church, the Moral Majority, one's family) will tend also to be homophobic out of loyalty to and identification with that group or institution.
For a fourth group of people, homophobia has a
political function. These people need to predict and control the actions of other persons and groups so they are kept from important decision-making roles. This function of homophobia operates on an assumption that power is limited and to be closely hoarded by those already in power. This function can be seen at work in persons concerned about keeping gay men and lesbians invisible and out of leadership positions. Sometimes, this form of homophobia is camouflaged by theological and biblical issues. The fear here is that a "different" group of people will take over, change the nature of "our" group or institution, and influence people in different directions than "we" want them to go.
Finally, homophobia can serve an economic junction. Operating out of a model of scarcity and privilege, our society offers jobs, goods, and services as rewards for certain behaviors and lifestyles and withholds them as punishment when persons do not conform to acceptable lifestyles and behaviors. The effects ofthis function of homophobia are apparent. Witness the continuous loss of careers, the tremendous drop in income, and the scarcity of services for gay men and lesbians who have "come out." The fear here appears to be that "approving" of gay men and lesbians will give them access to houses in "our" neighborhoods, to jobs "we" might otherwise get, and to services that are already scarce.
With all these functions that homophobia serves, one might easily assume that overcoming homophobia in oneself, the church, or society is impossible. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. Through committed, deliberate efforts, homophobia can be successfully confronted. Later in the issue (see page 16), I discuss one model that has proved successful at challenging homophobia-the use of carefully designed and facilitated workshops .•
1.
For further discussion, see my monograph, Homophobia Is a Social Disease (Evanston, Ill.: Kinheart, Inc,. 1987).
2.
The first three ofthese functions (experiential, defensive, symbolic) are adapted from Gregory M. Herek, "Beyond 'Homophobia': A Social Psychological Perspective onAttitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men"; in John P. De Cecco, ed., Bashers. Baiters. and Bigots: Homophobia in American Society (New York: Harrington Park Press, 1985), pp. 1-21. I have added the broader systemic functions.
Mary 10 Osterman is a cofounder and codirector of Kinhean. Inc.. in Evanston. flUnois. A former assistant professor of Christian education at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. she is a member of Wheadon UMC, a Reconciling Congregation.
Open Hands/3
H E
R
o
As Christian churches attempt to become more inclusive, one of their most difficult challenges is the task of overcoming internal heterosexism so they can help society to do the same. Although discussion around this issue usually centers on the term homophobia, I have come to prefer the term heterosexism.
Homophobia sounds like a private, clinical problema morbid, hysterical abnormality that other people have. There is nothing private about heterosexism, however. The asssumptions underlying heterosexism-like those underlying racism, sexism, handicapism, ageism, classism, nationalism, and militarism-are so pervasive in
"Heterosexism ... is a system ofcoercion that demands heterosexuality in return for jirstclass citizenship. "
their effects on each of us that we do not question them; they seem as if they are forces of nature. And the more they remain unconscious, the more power they wield over our behavior.
But heterosexism is not just a personal problem we all share. It is also systemic, that is to say it is institutionalized throughout our society. Heterosexism is a political institution-a set ofassumptions that empower heterosexuals, especially heterosexual white males, and exclude open lesbians and gay men from social, religious, and political power. It is a system of coercion that demands heterosexuality in return for first-class citizenship. It is a system that forces homosexual persons into silence concerning the majority of their lives.
When we teach, write, or preach as if heterosexuality were everybody's orientation, we automatically exclude gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, or anyone who does not fit narrow definitions of appropriate sexuality. Furthermore, if we support compulsory heterosexuality, we strongly support the oppression of women, because women have been the subordinated and exploited sex during all the centuries of patriarchy. Society trains women to place themselves below men. One result is "male-identified" women who vehemently and vocally oppose inclusive language, ordination ofwomen, the Equal Rights Amendment, and anything else that might give women a status equal to men's.
Heterosexism also encourages mother-son relationships between adult women and men. In the words of Adrienne Rich. it encourages a false consciousness in which women are supposed to provide "maternal solace, nonjudgmental nurturing, and compassion" for men in general -even for "harassers, rapists, and batterers,"1 as well as for those "brothers" who merely feed on female energy while relegating women to secondary, powerless roles (for example, in the church). Such maternal solace tends to alTest both male and female emotional development; it is not good for anybody. Even gay males are sometimes shocked and upset when their lesbian sisters withdraw their mothering and begin to use their energy on their own behalf; in this area as in several others, the gay community itself is plagued by heterosexism.
Although heterosexism hampers the development of all women and men and excludes self-affirming gay males and lesbians from positions of authority, I suspect that, ultimately, it is more harmful to women than to men. Teaching women that heterosexuality is compulsory is absolutely vital to maintaining the power men in general hold over women in general. This is certainly the case with economic power. Economic inequities alone are enough to keep many women from daring to live authentically, and those inequities are a function of heterosexism. [This argument is further developed by Suzanne Pharr on page 12.]
Much "Christian heterosexism" is based on what the church understands to be the clear teaching of Scripture. As an evangelical Christian, I do not believe that we can take that fact lightly. We need to think together about the facts of the Bible and the historical relationship between the church, the Bible, and homosexual persons.
To be sure, many English translations ofthe Bible contain the word homosexual in extremely negative contexts. But the fact is that these passages are flagrant mistranslations. No word equivalent to our understanding of the term homosexual occurs anywhere in the original biblical texts-not in any extant text in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic. The term was not developed in any language until the late 19th century, when first the awareness began to develop that some people have a lifelong, constitutional orientation toward their own sex. The inaccurate use of the term homosexual in English Bible translations helps fuel the heterosexist prejudice that endangers the civil rights and even the lives of homosexual persons. For example, two Greek words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (one of which is repeated in 1 Timothy 1:10) are sometimes taken to mean that homosexuals will be excluded from God's realm and therefore do not merit protection in the human realm. But, until well into the 20th century, the first of these words, malakos, was unanimously understood by
y
B v I R G I N I A R A
4/0pen Hands
s ••
religious leaders to mean not homosexual acts but masturbation. Thus, 1 Corinthians 6:9 was understood to say that no one who masturbated would enter God's realm without first being washed, sanctified, and justified. There is no
HTeaching women that heterosexuality is compulsory is absolutely vital to maintaining the power men in general have over women in general. "
textual reason why the understanding of malakos should recently have been changed from masturbation to homosexuality.
Whatever malakos means, I believe that 1 Corinthians 6:9's real meaning is that nobody will enter God's realm without being washed, sanctified, and justified. The specific sins listed there-including greediness, slander, and swindling-are illustrative only; they certainly do not limit the forms ofsin from which we human beings need to be redeemed!
The second word, arsenokoites, was taken during the first four Christian centuries to mean "male prostitute." As they are now, male prostitutes then were available for hire by women as well as men. That this word should now be translated homosexual, negating its context of criticizing a specific sexual practice that was both opposite-sex and same-sex, is typical of heterosexist misuses of biblical passages.
Furthermore, Paul wrote about homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons. He gave no indication that he was aware of a lifelong homosexual orientation that is discovered rather than chosen.
Yale historian John Boswell has pointed out that in the early Christian church almost nobody appealed to the Bible as authority to condemn homosexual acts. On the contrary, throughout the Middle Ages, ecclesiastical as well as popular literature often celebrated the love relationships between same-sex pairs like David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, sometimes using distinctly erotic overtones.2
The first ecumenical (or general) church council to rule against homosexual acts was Lateran III, meeting in 1179
A.D. That same council also imposed sanctions against moneylenders, heretics, Jews, and Muslims. The fact that for nearly l3 centuries the Christian church took no official action to oppose homosexual behavior should tell us that contemporary Christian hostility against lesbians and gay men stems not from the Bible, not from early Christian tradition, but from contemporary heterosexism. And the fact that the sanction against homosexual acts was flanked by sanctions against moneylenders, heretics, Jews, and Muslims should warn us that discrimination against anyone group endangers other groups as well. Nobody's human rights are safe until everybody's human rights are safe. 3
Jesus himself pronounced no condemnations against sex among unmarried people and said nothing that bore any relationship to homosexuality. Though he was apparently celibate, Jesus had a very close relationship with John, who repeatedly described himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."
Jesus also was very insistent on the absolute importance of loving our neighbor as we love ourselves and of treating other people as we ourselves would like to be treated-a point that many clergy and laypersons would do well to consider. Presumably, those persons would not like to lose any of their rights as citizens, including the rights to hold jobs for which they qualify and to live where they please. Far from violating the intentions of the Bible and the practices of early church tradition, such acts as supporting anti-discrimination laws and same-sex covenantal unions actually constitute the extension to gay men and lesbians of the same protective support that heterosexual Christians covet for themselves. Supporting the equal inclusion of gay men and lesbians in the church and society thus helps fulfill Christ's law of love.
Thomas Aquinas wrote, "Because ofthe diverse condition of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to
H
contemporary Christian hostility against lesbians and gay men stems not from the Bible, notfrom early Christian tradition, but from contemporary heterosexism. "
some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral to others, as inappropriate to them." The Christian churches are being called on to affirm the human dignity of those persons for whom homosexual love is appropriate, suitable, and virtuous. Nobody is requesting special privileges for gay men and lesbians. No church and no business is being asked to seek out and try to hire gay/lesbian people as part of an affirmative action program. But we should ask insistently
(continued on next page)
y
E M o L L E N K o T T
Open Hands/5
H E T E R o s E x I s M:
that gay men and lesbians be granted the same protections and respect that other minority groups already receive in both church and society.
Most of the homosexual people in the church are understandably unwilling or afraid to come forward to speak on their own behalf. To do so likely would jeopardize their personal ministries. Openness could also jeopardize their jobs and housing and perhaps even their lives.
Fortunately, the church could still fulfill its promise by leading the way as we seek to overcome the systemic evil called heterosexism. The tasks before us as we work to redeem the church are several:
1.
We should urge the church to repent of allowing any of its members to defame the highest and holiest love feelings of people whose orientation is toward the same sex. We must recognize that people are dehumanized when someone compares their tender and holy affections to alcoholism, bestiality, or other sicknesses or behaviors that do not involve the consent and loving affirmation of two adult human beings.
2.
We should urge the church to extend ordination to those gay men and lesbians who are gifted, responsible, and called to the ministry. Human beings should always be dealt with on an individual basis; the moment categories are utilized, our common humanity is denied. No sexual orientation is either good or bad as an abstraction; it is how an individual makes use of his or her sexuality that makes that person either responsible or irresponsible.
3.
We must point out to churches that condemn all sex outside of marriage (whether heterosexual or homosexual) as unbiblical that they are not being equitable unless they provide a way for homosexual relationships to achieve recognition in an equivalent of marriage. An unmarried heterosexual person always has the option to marry. Unless an unmarried gay man or lesbian has an equivalent option available within his or her own orientation, the congregation's sexual ethic remains distorted by heterosexist injustice.
4.
We must provide active support for existing homosexual relationships to help them achieve stability, just as the church attempts to support heterosexual marriages.
5.
We must give all young people, including gay/lesbian young people, assistance in learning how to love. Mutual respect and mutual servanthood should be taught to men as well as women, gay/lesbian people as well as heterosexuals. The emphasis should be on the quality of relationship, rather than on external, quantitative standards such as whether one has a legal certificate or whether one "does it" with a man or a woman.
6.
We should provide all young people with a healthy environment in which to meet a life partner, taking care that that environment includes rather than excludes gay/lesbian persons. What is appropriate or tasteful for gay men and lesbians should be no different from what is appropriate or tasteful for heterosexuals. To create social events that assume by their very format that everyone is heterosexual is heterosexism in action. It forces gay young people to turn to bars and baths, significantly reducing their chances of
meeting "suitable" partners and significantly increasing the possibility of contracting AIDS.
7.
We should urge clergy to work actively to overcome heterosexism at the grass roots, mentioning the oppression of lesbians and gay men from the pulpit along with other oppressions and arranging times when people can ventilate their fears and engage in dialogue with people whom they know to be gay or lesbian.
8.
We should ask gay/ lesbian Christian organizations for help in developing a healthy Christian sexual ethic. Homosexual Christians have had to think a lot more about sexuality than most heterosexual Christians have, simply because society has not provided road maps and guidelines for homosexual dating and covenantal union. In my opinion, many Christian churches are operating out of a truly hypocritical, superficial stance regarding human sexuality, scapegoating gay men and lesbians because the churches do not wish to face the pervasive problems of evolving sexual standards.
9.
We should commit ourselves to preaching a consistent gospel of grace rather than backsliding into a message of works where homosexuality is concerned. When any church implies that gay men and lesbians must be celibate to be first-class Christians, that church is adding to John 3: 16 by asking that those persons both believe in Jesus and also sacrifice sexual relationship. Worse yet: when any church teaches that homosexual persons must repent of their orientation, that church is actually defaming God's good creation, God's good gift of sexuality!
Until the church accepts and rejoices in diversity, until it affirms God's unconditional love for all persons, all people in the church will be denying to themselves the full experience of God's unconditional love. What we give is what we get. What we see is what we are. Itis time for the church to overcome its heterosexism and learn to see in gay men and lesbians the very holy and beloved sons and daughters of the living God.•
1. Adrienne Rich, Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience (Denver: Antelope Publications, 1980), p. 19.
2. John Boswell, Christianity. Social Tolerance. and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning ofthe Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
3. I admire Willard Swartley's book, Slavery. Sabbath. War, and Women: Case Studies in Biblical Interpretation (Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1983). He demonstrates in a scholarly and dispassionate way exactly how the Bible was used to support such institutions as slavery, war, and the subjugation of women. He has also shown how through perfectly scholarly hermeneutical alternatives the Bible can be understood instead to support human liberty, pacifism, and racial and sexual equality-through-mutuality.
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Ph.D .• is professor ofEnglish at William Paterson College ofNew Jersey and co-author with Letha Dawson Scanzoni. of Is the Homosexual My Neighbor: Another Christian View. She is president of the Advisory Board ofEvangelicals Concerned and a member ofthe Steering Committee of Women ofFaith in the 80s.
6/0pen Hands
B y M A E. H u N T
Y ars have passed since
the first courageous souls
stood up to homophobia
and "came out" in their
local churches, church bureaucracies,
and religious orders. Some
have long since left, either of their
own volition or by force. Others are
continuing to minister with an unexpected
measure of tolerance. Still
others have limited their "good
news" to a few trusted friends and
colleagues so that they are able to
be both in the church and selectively
out of the closet.
All who have come out in
churches have experienced some
measure of pain and alienation,
fear, and uncertainty in the process.
There is, it seems to me, no prescription
for how to do this, no
theo-politically correct route. Rather,
each person's decision is different,
taking into account the parameters
of one's ministry and the state of
one's church.
Meanwhile, some denominations-
notably the United Methodist,
parts of the Anglican, and, of
course, the Roman Catholic -have
made increasingly clear their opposition
to lesbian/gay ministries,
whether ordained or not. It pains
me to realize the impact that this is
having on the Christian community.
Some of "the best and the brightest"
are rethinking their vocations.
Some are moving toward specializations
that will take them out of
parish work. Others are contemplating
career moves that will allow
them to love fully without looking
over their shoulders. I applaud their
integrity. But I am also fascinated
and edified by those who choose to
remain in ministry.
We all know horror stories of
ministers, priests, or religious who
come out as sexually active gay/
lesbian Christians (many in stable,
long-term relationships) only to lose
their pastoral assignment, their ordination,
and sometimes even their
church membership. These cases
make headlines, as well they might,
when Christian churches act in
ways that mock Gospel values of
inclusiveness and mutuality.
What does not make headlines,
but needs to be articulated, is the fact that many people have had paradoxical experiences. By being open and affirming of their sexual preference as a reflection of Divine love, they have found that their ministries have increased tenfold. These stories deserve to be told as well.
Three examples, the tip of a big iceberg, give me hope that others might have similar experiences.
Beth is a white, Protestant minister in an urban area. Her liberal denomination ordains lesbians and gay men but cannot guarantee that its local churches will call them to pastoral assignments. Beth's father is a retired clergyman, but not even his loving acceptance and celebration of her has moved his colleagues to push for her candidacy. Beth has taken secular jobs to support hersel( She has been active in her denomination's lesbian/gay group. She has been instrumental in starting a new local church that welcomes lesbians and gay men. Without romanticizing her struggle, it is safe to say that her contribution to the life of the church is significant. Those who have ears have heard.
Betty is a black Protestant for whom the oppression of being black, a woman, and a lesbian has been difficult. Betty has been "out" selectively; her position in her church makes it hard for her to do more at this time. But the little crack in the closet door has sent many women and men flocking to her for pastoral care and counseling. She has discovered that her ministry is even more widespread, that her presence as a sign of freedom is more powerful than ever. At times she is overwhelmed by the responsibilities, but she is ever more affirmed in her vocation.
George is a white Catholic whose choice not to be a priest was rooted in his self-awareness as a gay man who chose to be sexually active. He is a theologically trained psychologist whose practice has grown by leaps and bounds since news of his sexual orientation has become known. Some people shy away, of course, for fear of being labeled. But many others, especially gay men from a range of religious persuasions, throng to his practice. They know that their religious beliefs will be taken seriously while they deal with interwoven psychological issues. George says that he never imagined how much of a priest he could be. His work soothes not just psyches but souls.
The pain that each of these has felt, my own pain, and maybe yours as a lesbian or gay man, is not to be trivialized Many cannot see beyond it to the promise. Many consider the promise a joke because of their pain. But some ministries are finding the promise of the Christian faith renewed and the meaning of the Christian community rekindled, paradoxically, through their openness. It bodes well for the church .•
Mary E. H unt is a Catholic feminist theologian
and the co-director of Women sAlliance f or
Theology, Ethics, and Ritual (WA.T.E.R) in Silver Spring, Maryland. She is also VISiting Assistant Professor ofReligion at Colgate University.
Open Hands/7
hen I was 50 years
old, I finally said to
myself, "I am homosexual
and that is
absolutely right, correct, and beautiful to me." I had been working through that awareness for two or three years. I then had the decisions to make of telling others: who, when, and how. I learned that telling others about my homosexuality, being out to others, is continuousforever.
• About nine months after I came out to myself, I shared this with a couple who are dear friends of mine. They are both United Methodist pastors, appointed to ted freely about our lives and relationships. Then I asked her about telling our senior pastor. She immediately responded, "No!" She explained that the senior pastor was not in agreement with her stands on homosexuality and that he had objected to a commitment ceremony she had conducted for a lesbian couple.
Months later I was ready to come out to church friends and associates. At our annual conference session, she urged me not to tell others in the church, including the senior pastor. She stated that she did not want to see me hurt. She also told me, "You are strong; I knowyou are strong enough to handle the hurt." But she still did not want me to tell other folks.
church. I was extremely nervous. So nervous, I was forcing myself to talk. It took a lot of effort. I already knew that he was not accepting of lesbians and gay men. I was simply very scared. I had made some notes of what I wanted to say ahead of time, but I had a terrible time starting. We had a variety of idle chitchat.
Finally I said, "I haven't discovered any good way to get into this subject except to say it. I am a lesbian. I wanted to tell you now, because I'm telling this to a number of folks in the church. I felt I should tell you before you hear it from someone else." I can't remember all that was said thereafter. I can only remember some of his comments and questions were unexpected. I
another
local church. We talked freanswered them the best I could.
B y J E A N N E B A R N E T T
quently, in person when we could, but most often by phone. They were good to talk to and realized that I was still in the process of learning about myself. I indicated that I had decided not to come out in my local church. They both quickly agreed.
In hindsight, I know my friends were concerned for me. They believed that I needed time to understand myself, to gain strength in that understanding and not to be visible until I was ready. But I had also received a negative message, "Be invisible." They may not have intended to send a deny-your-person message, but that's what I had to consider.
• My local church associate minister, a clergywoman, was very understanding, wholly accepting of gay men and lesbians. We met for lunch. I told her, "I am a lesbian." Her personal response to me was very accepting and supportive. We chat-
In spite of her support and her warm, even protective, feelings towards me, I received a negative message-that I should conceal this very important part of my personhood from others who would hurt me. Since I did not know who would hurt me, I must withdraw and remain closeted from others. To avoid pain, I should be invisible.
• As 1 did come out to various folks in my local church and annual conference, I knew I had to tell the senior pastor. I was in my second year as lay leader in our church, which is fairly large, nearly one thousand members. My relationship with this pastor when dealing with the program and leadership of the church was cordial, but it was not a strong personal relationship.
I asked to meet because I had <'r'\mething I wanted to share with aim. We met, as we had several times before, for a bag lunch at the With more experience I'd like to answer them again. I'm sure I would do a better job of it now.
He indicated that he didn't understand why I needed to tell him. He didn't consider it anyone's business what went on between him and his wife, so he didn't understand why I needed to tell anyone about my private life. Hadn't he guessed or wondered if I was a lesbian? No, he had assumed I was heterosexual. I told him that at my work many people assumed I was homosexual.
The last question he asked me was "Are you going to a be homosexual first?" I was startled by the question. It didn't make sense. How can an orientation or direction be first? I answered the question he was really asking me, "How visible a lesbian was I going to be?" I expected to be about the same, still involved in a variety of areas of the church and getting more active in the lesbian/gay community. This seemed to satisfy him and the conversation ended.
8/0pen Hands
I reflected on what he didn't ask, such as, how were you dealing with homosexuality, with your family and friends, and how was it at work? Nothing was asked or discussed in any of the key personal areas. He really was uncomfortable discussing it at all. And I was just as uncomfortable trying to talk with him. During the next year, the subject came up between us about three times. One each occasion he stuttered over the word homosexual. He never was able to say lesbian.
This pastor's direct message to me was "Don't tell: I don't want to know, and if you are homosexual, don't be visible."
• My family partner, Ellie, and I had our picture taken together for our local church directory. When we went in for our appointment to select our proof, the young woman working for the photo company asked Ellie, "Did you bring a friend to help you choose your picture?" Ellie replied, "No, we're family." The woman continued, "Are you sisters?" "No." "Are you mother and daughter?" (That was ridiculous!) "No." "Cousins?" Finally, Ellie replied, "No, we're a lesbian couple." "Oh!" and then silence.
Ellie and I opened a joint bank account not long ago. Ellie went to the bank, got signature cards, arranged for each of us to have our own separate checks, two automatic teller cards, etc. Mter some time into the arrangements, the bank clerk asked, "Are you sisters?" Ellie answered, "No, we're a lesbian couple." "Oh!" the clerk exclaimed, paused awhile, then proceeded with the arrangements.
The public and businesses do not want to see homosexuals, certainly not as couples going about everyday living. "We'll do business with you, but be invisible."
• My younger sister, Carolyn, and I are all that is left ofour immediate family. With our parents gone, we have drawn closer as we have gotten older. We share our personal thoughts, plans, and trials of life.
When I identified my sexual orientation and ran into my first problem at age 50, the first person I called was my sister. I needed to talk and she is a good listener. She didn't understand and at first thought it was a phase that would pass. Because she felt homosexuality was not God's plan, she knew I wouldn't get involved with a woman. When I did get serious about a woman, Carolyn could not handle it. In our phone conversations and in her letters to me, sometimes she would ask, "How is your friend?" and "Do you still see her?"
I knew very well that, if my friend had been a man, my sister would have wanted to know all about him, all about our dates, and all about how the relationship was progressing. I became very offended that she couldn't treat my female relationship the same. She could not. She could not even use the woman's name to me. I felt that was her way of keeping me as a lesbian invisible.
• Ellie and I were invited to participate in an intergenerational education event on human sexuality. Ellie, who is very knowledgeable in the subject, became a small group leader and was assigned to the senior high group. I decided to be part of the enterprise as an adult participant.
We went with such high hopes. We had been invited by the leaders ofthe event, who knew we were a lesbian couple. We thought we would have an opportunity to be a visible lesbian couple at the event, a positive image. That never happened. We were separated as leader and participant, in senior high and adult groups. We thought homosexuality as well as heterosexuality would be discussed. Members of the adult group submitted several questions for discussion on homosexuality; however, the leaders never directly addressed homosexuality in the group discussion.
We went with hopes of positive visibility. However, the program format and the manner in which the leaders handled the questions did not permit that to happen even when there were opportunities. The message received was "we want you to come, participate, provide leadership, but do not be a visible lesbian couple."
As I write this article now about
these incidents and many others, I
wonder-Did lover-react? Did I
misread the hidden message? I
cannot tell. I do know how I reacted
and how I felt.
Just be invisible. I can't. To ask
me, directly or indirectly, to be
invisible is to ask me to live a lie-to
ask me not to be myself-to ask me
to deny myself-to ask me to endure
the continuous personal pain of
hiding me. Not a single person
mentioned in this story would make
that request directly. But some
would feel better or would have felt
better in the past, if I were invisible.
To be invisible is to deny my personhood.
It is to deny who I am.
In Hamlet, Shakespeare has Polonius advise his son Laertes: This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.
In the musical "La Cage Aux FolIes," Albin sings:
Life's not worth a damn,
'Til you can say:
"Hey world, I am what I am."
Jesus said to his disciples: I give you a new commandment: Love one another; as I have loved you, So are you to love one another. Ifthere is this love among you, Then all will know that you are my disciples.
I am me. I am a lesbian. I am here. I AM NOT INVISIBLE.•
Jeanne Barnett is chair of the Administrative Board and lay member to annual conference at St. Mark's UMC in Sacramento, California. She is a career administrator with the state of California.
Open Hands/ 9
A ting in one body, and one of
some point for each of
them is a liar.2
us, 1 suppose, the horror
of remaining silent beThe
truth is that I am no longer
comes more compelling
content to be a liar. I want tothan the risk of speaking out.
stand flat-footed on the earth. 1 wantI could feel my anxiety mountto be one person, whole and coming as the discussion progressed, not plete. I want to tell the truth-about so much from a conscious fear of my life and about the heritage, culcoming out, as from fear of being ture, and reality that 1 share with my censured for speaking out ofturn as lesbian sisters and my gay brothers.
the editor of the agency's newsletter.
And 1want to know how it is thatIt was September 21, 1985, at the the worst sin in the church is for a annual meeting of the General woman to love a woman, or a man Commission on the Status and Role to love a man? The church is asking of Women (GCSRW) of the United gay men and lesbians to do whatMethodist Church. Members of the cannot be done-to separate ourGCSRW were debating whether to sexuality from the rest of our being.
undertake, as one oftheir projects, a To deny one's sexuality (whether study of the linkages between sexexpressed genitally or not) is to be ism and homophobia [see article by cut offfrom one's spirituality. These Kristan Burkert, page 18.].
energies are integrally connected.
The clergywoman from Florida As Beverly Harrison writes:kept repeating: "I just don't see what nor the support 1 wished for.
Our energy-literally, the gift of
this has to do with this commislife-
is body-mediated energy .... sion." I kept hearing silence in reA
colleague's first response to
Our sexuality represents our most
my coming out was a hug and "I
intense interaction with the world.
sponse. Finally, when 1 could bear
love you." And then she said: "It's
Because this is so, it is also a key to
the void no longer, I stepped into it.
too bad you came out. You do such
the quality and integrity of our "The connections," I said, turnoverall
spirituality.3
ing toward her, "are really clear to
good work. Now others can disHow
incredible that a church
me." And then I named myself count your work."
that professes a faith grounded in "lesbian."
Her comment seemed to me an
the triumph of life over death
Do not think that my decision to
invitation, an invitation to go back
should require sexual-and spiricome
out as a lesbian in the employinto
the closet, to name sexual
tual-death of certain of its memment
of the UMC was made in that
orientation as irrelevant or unimbers.
What an ingenious way to
moment. No, I had been making
portant, unrelated to my creativity
destroy a peoples' spirituality-to
that decision in tiny steps along the
or vocation. I wanted to say, ""I have
require them to deny their sexuality.
way. That particular coming out was
had too many ofthese invitations in
As for me, 1 can no longer parsimply
a part of my growing resolve
my days. I am at the point now of
ticipate in the illusion that women
that to continue to hide and lie refusing most of them."
do not love women and men do not
about my sexuality was to make a
I did say to her: ""My work is as
love men. I can no longer let stand
mockery of my values, my faith, and
good as it is, and getting better,
the apparent lie. To continue to lie
my community. Clearly, I felt, it was
precisely because of moments like
about my sexuality is to give life to
time. In some place, buried deep, I
these. 1 am becoming whole, intethe
oppressive illusion that all perwas
ready to claim my wholeness
grating my private and public selves.
sons are heterosexuals. To name
more publicly, ready to accept the
That wholeness is reflected in my
myself aloud as lesbian is to refuse
consequences of this step in my
writing. When I shut off pieces of
to bolster the illusion. It is to refuse
process of integration.
myself, 1 do not have access to my
to add one more brick to the walls of Judy Grahn writes about the
own material."
the closet or one more moment to
the centuries of oppression suffered
need for this public/private integraby my sisters and brothers.
M y fear, having come out, was
tion in Another Mother Tongue:
The gay closet has many points of
not so much the negative response
ofstrangers who, consequentdiscomfort.
One is the sheer shame
ly, wrote letters naming homoTo name myself aloud as lesbian
that life must be so secret, that
sexuality as "sin" and challenging
is to challenge the homophobia the GCSRWs right to employ a "selfone's
citizenship is always dependent
on how camouflaged as a
so rampant in the church and heterosexual one appears. The
avowed" lesbian. No, my fear lay in society. The silence that surrounds
necessary double life means that
the possible betrayal by friends and our presence is evidence of the
the Gay person can never simply
colleagues. As it turned out, I experihomophobia.
It is homophobia that enced neither the feared betrayal-
stand flat-footed on the earth;
there are always two people opera-
is responsible for the fact that gay
y p
B A T R I c I A B R o u G H T o N
JO/Open Hands
B Y S COT T MIERDING
CWSETS(continued)
men and lesbians were conspicuously absent from the litany of oppressed persons in the Sunday morning liturgy following the GCSRWs one-day study on homophobia last February.
To name myself aloud as lesbian is to challenge the power of the patriarchy to prevent women from bonding with one another. This fear ofbeing labeled lesbian has kept me invisible, divided within myself, estranged from my sisters (both lesbian and straight), and confined within prescribed notions ofwhat is appropriately "female." I continue to be angered and horrified when I think of the damage we as women do to ourselves and our sisters to avoid being labeled lesbian (whether we are or not).
What I hear the UMC (and other parts of Christianity) saying to me and to my lesbian sisters and gay brothers is "Choose. Choose sexuality or spirituality." What I know is that to choose is to accept the false dualism upon which the church is built. To choose is to gird up the illusion of either/or.
What I am beginning to realize is that for years, faced with this choice, I chose neither the fullness of my sexuality nor the fullness of my spirituality. Now I am learning to choose both.
I believe that my personal healing, the healing ofus as a people, and the healing ofour planet depend on each ofus telling the truth about our lives. And one of the places I begin to tell the truth is by naming myself lesbian .•
1.
Judy Grahn, Another Mother Tongue: Gay Words. Gay Worlds (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), p.26.
2.
Ibid, p.27.
3.
Beverly Wildung Harrison, Making the Connections (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985),
p.149.
Patricia Broughton is a free-lance writer who works on a contract basis with the General Commission on the Status and Role ofWomen ofthe UMC in Evanston. Rlinois.
A L o N E
From the time of my earliest memories, I have felt apart from the church. I was raised as an active Methodist in Nebraska-active, but excluded nonetheless.
The exclusions were never blatant. Plans were made to hold church dances where boys and girls could date in a controlled environment. I felt excluded because there were no plans for an event where I could date.
Anita Bryant's Dade County referendum on gay/lesbian rights occurred during my high school years. As sexuality began to be discussed in adult and senior high school, I was excluded. Once I heard the discussions of homosexuality, I froze.
The hatred, judgment, and misconceptions that Christians had for "those people" amazed me. Perhaps the most painful realization was that I was being talked about behind my back in front of my face. I had many questions I could never ask and many social skills I could never develop because I knew what the response would be if I said anything.
I drifted away from the church after college. I found society at large much more willing than the church to accept me as I was. As I watched the people involved in the "Good News" movement (the conservative, evangelical caucus in the UMC) spread the false word that not even God could love me, I hurt. I grew bitter at the church for its lost promise.
Recently I returned to the United Methodist Church. I did as I had been taught and said nothing of my personal life. I tried to be a full participant, but I could not. During this time, my partner terminated our relationship of two years.
Still I had to keep silent. I needed comfort and encouragement, just like any divorced person, but none was available. After three weeks of growing more and more depressed, isolated, and withdrawn, I approached the church pastor with the problem.
We talked of the isolation and the deliberate blind side of the church. We talked about the LaRouche initiative, about AIDS, and about the church's response to and isolation of minorities. In the end, he felt that the political pressure kept him from leading the congregation towards dealing with those issues. I was advised to come out discreetly to those whose acceptance I thought possible.
My bitterness at the church for its lost promise is not just disappointment. I want to cry when I realize that those persons see us sick, hurting, and hungry and just don't care. I still feel isolated, but at least I have the calm and strong assurance that God does love me .•
Scott Mierding is a lawyer in San Francisco. California.
Open Hands/}}
T H E c
I Male violence against women comes from an imbalance and misuse of power, from dominance and control. It is based on a-system of inequity in
• which there is a belief in gender-based superiority /inferiority.
Through our work in the battered women's movement we have developed an analysis of male violence against women that goes beyond some of the simpler explanations of violence. We do not view it as being caused by undue stress, by the influence ofalcohol or drugs; we don't still see young boys encouraged to be directive, selfview it as the result of childhood violence or mental illasserting, and career-oriented, and young girls taught to
ness. What we have seen in our work is that violence against women is directly related to the condition of women in a society that refuses them equal pay, equal access to resources, equal treatment in history books or literature, and equal status with males. From this condition comes the confirmation of the male sense of ownership of women, their power over women, and their right to control women for their own means. The violence of men is fed, then, by their sense of superiority over a group of people who because of gender are supposedly inferior to them.
Those ofuse who believe this to be a battered women's movement (and not just a collection of service-providing agencies) have known for a decade or more that, if our goal is to end violence against women, then we have to provide more than safe space and service. We have to work for women's rights and equality on all fronts. We understand the relationship of pay inequity to violence, of unpaid household work to violence, of single gender (male) history and literature to violence, of the entire system ofunequal treatment to violence: this lack of equality supports male dominance and control. We know that, until women find fair and equal treatment under the law, men will continue to consider it their right to dominate and control.
Given women's economic dependence upon men and male systems, we find it frightening and difficult to step out of line to seek freedom and equality, to change all of society's institutions that keep us from gaining our rights and our power. For our safety, we are encouraged to curtail activities that could possibly threaten the protection and acceptance some women get from males and male institutions. Hence, many women feel too much at risk to speak and work in their own behalf and are consequently easily threatened by male disapproval, i.e., society's disapproval. Inequality thrives on the oppressed group's intimida tion.
Inequality between the sexes is fed by sex role stereotyping which begins at birth and continues through life. From the time we are very young, we are
taught that there are different proper behaviors expected from each sex, and though the women's movement has worked hard to raise consciousness about these differences, these behaviors are still enforced in a child's life. We be accommodating, pleasing, indirect, and familyoriented (with perhaps a career thrown in on the side).
Women are taught that to be directive, self-assertive, career-oriented is to be not womanly, feminine, acceptable to men-and therefore they might lose what little power and privilege has been granted them. The myth is that for a woman to maintain roles-to be a pleaser, a giver, a nurturer, a supporter who demands little for herself-is to be repaid with a man to provide authority over her life, financial security, decision making, and direction. To eschew roles is to be cut adrift, to be without order, to be out of proper boundaries, to be someone who gets in the way of the flow of society and the acceptable, routinized order of relationships. The woman who thinks that she should be able to accomplish whatever she is capable of instead of what is expected of her is a threat to society: she has stepped out of line. To know no artifical sense of boundaries gives a heady sense of freedom, a sense of release, of joy; and once she knows it, she has to be intimidated if she's to get back in line again: she must be controlled. She must be taught that she will suffer significant losses if she strays out there in those free open spaces.
Two primary enforcers of sex role stereotyping are homophobia (irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals) and heterosexism (the use of sexual identity
for dominance and privilege).
It is not by chance that, when children approach puberty and increased sexual awareness, they begin to taunt each other by calling these names: "queer," "faggot," "pervert." Children know what we have taught them, as we have given clear messages that those who deviate from standard expectations are to be made to get back in line. The best controlling tactic at puberty is to be treated as an outsider, to be ostracized at a time when it feels most vital to conform. Those who are different must be made to suffer loss. It is also at puberty that misogyny begins to be more apparent, and girls are pressured to conform to societal norms that do not permit them to realize their full potential.
There was a time when the two most condemning accusations against a woman to ostracize her were "whore" and "lesbian." The sexual revolution and changing attitudes about heterosexual behavior may have led to a lessening of the power of the word whore. However, the
12/ 0pen Hands
I
E
N
word lesbian is still fully charged and carries with it the full threat ofloss ofpower and privilege, the threat ofbeing cut asunder, abandoned, and left outside society's protection.
To be a lesbian is to be perceived as someone who has stepped out of line, who has moved out of sexual! economic dependence on men, who is woman-identified. A lesbian is perceived as someone who can live without men, who is therefore (however illogically) against men. A lesbian is perceived as being outside the acceptable, routinized order of things. A lesbian is perceived as someone who has no societal institutions to protect her and who is not privileged to receive protection of individual males. A lesbian is perceived as someone who stands in contradicijon of the sacrifices heterosexual women have made. A lesbian is perceived as a threat.
Lesbian-baiting is an attempt to control women by calling them lesbians because their behavior is not acceptable: when they are being independent, going their own way, fighting for their rights, demanding equal pay, saying no to violence, being self-assertive, bonding and loving the company of women, assuming the right to their bodies, insisting upon their own authority, making changes that include them in society's decision making. Lesbianbaiting occurs when women are called lesbians because they have stepped out of line.
How many of us have heard battered women's stories about their abusers calling them lesbians or calling the battered women's shelter a lesbian place? The abuser is not so much labeling her a lesbian as he is warning her that she is choosing to be outside society's protection (of male institutions), and she therefore should choose to be with him, with what is "right." He recognizes the power in woman-bonding and fears loss of her servitude and loyalty: the potential loss ofhis control. The concern is not affectional!sexual identity; the concern is disloyalty. The labeling is a threat.
And the threat is a real one, for women observe the penalties sOGiety places on lesbians when possible; loss of community, loss of job and economic security, loss of children, loss of family, loss ofchurch, and sometimes loss of life. Such is the cost of stepping out of line, out of role, and seeking one's own empowerment. Women fear these losses. To avoid them, many women not only refuse to recognize and support lesbians but they do self-negating things to maintain approval and protection. Lesbianbaiting is successful when women, in their fear, jump back in line, dance whatever dance is necessary for acceptability.
T w E E N
The dance women dance to keep the privilege offered conditionally by males is that of maintaining proper role, of behaving in a way that does not threaten the status of men; and the conditions for privilege can change at any time. They tone down, reduce their work or activities in order to be safe. Entire industries are built around women's needs to stay within approved, dictated roles. Observe the fashion industry and the cosmetic industry, for two examples. Consider whatever motivated women to put on a pair of pointed-toe shoes with three-inch spiked heels. Was it comfort?
Freedom to be who we are (and all of who we are), to control our own lives, is the issue. At issue here is not whether women can
wear makeup and high fashion and still be independent and free. At issue is whether women make choices against their best interests of independence and freedom in order to gain approval and protection at a high cost. At issue here is not that all women should be lesbians in order to be independent and free, but that, through the strategy of lesbian-baiting, qualities of independence, freedom, and self-empowerment are made threatening rather than strengthening. All of us as women need to look at what blocks our empowerment; in particular, we need to examine our response to lesbian-baiting. At issue is not our sexual identity but our freedom.
We need to examine our failure to assert ourselves, to demand our equality. Women working in shelters sometimes agree out of fear to provide services only and not to talk about and work for lasting social change. Sometimes they agree to serve only acceptable women; lesbians, differently abled women, women of color, older women, prostitutes need not apply. These women would cause disturbances within the shelter and the community, and we would lose approval, funding, etc. Other women fear organizations that advocate change for women; they accept the male notion that to work for the empowerment ofwomen is to present oneself as a man-hater. From fear, women lose. And what do we lose? We lose the freedom to be who we are, and therefore we lose some of our essential humanness.
Our concern with homophobia, then, is not just that it damages lesbians but that it damages all women. We recognize homophobia as one means of controlling women, and we recognize the connection between control and violence. Homophobia keeps us from stepping out of line and getting into the movement for freedom. If not a single lesbian worked in a shelter or came to a shelter for services, we still would have to eliminate homophobia because we know how it is used to disempower women and to keep us vulnerable to violence and abuse. To work against homophobia is to work against violence against all women . •
Suzanne Pharr is the staffofthe Women sProject in Arkansas.
Open Hands/13
Until a few years ago,
public opinion polls indicated
that Americans
might slowly be dealing with their fears of homosexuality and seeing the falsehood of antigay/lesbian stereotypes. With AIDS, however, a new irrational fear has come forth to reinforce many persons' phobic attitudes toward gay men in particular. The signs are readily apparent.
•
The outcome ofvoting on Proposition 64 in California last November was uncertain until shortly before Election Day. This initiative would have allowed the quarantining of anyone who tested positive for the AIDS antibody. Opinion polls consistently showed a high number of undecided voters, despite the proposition's sponsorship by extremist Lyndon LaRouche and its denunciation by health-care professionals and Democratic and Republican politicians.
•
In response to a lawsuit filed by the parents of a 29-year-old man killed in a 1985 plane crash, Delta Air Lines argued that the damages it paid should be reduced because the man was gay. Delta claimed that the value of the victim's life was reduced since he might have contracted AIDS if he had lived.I
•
The U.S. Defense and State Departments, long known for their anti-gayllesbian prejudices, have begun requiring Military and Foreign Service personnel to take the AIDS antibody test. Potential
recruits who test positive can be rejected by the military. Foreign Service officers can be denied assignment to diplomatic posts if they test positive.
• News stories have abounded of people refusing to be served by waiters they think might be gay, of insurance companies attempting to deny new policies to anyone living in areas with large gay male populations, and of increased anti-gay violence accompanied by taunts about AIDS.2
AIDS is, of course, a terrifying disease, so these fears-though irrational-are in a limited sense understandable. Most Americans probably are mentally aware that AIDS is spread not through casual contact but only through sexual contact involving the exchange of body fluids or through blood contamination. But phobias, after all, are based on emotion, not thought.
Nevertheless, it is one thing to be afraid of a fatal disease; it is a totally different matter for people to believe it is acceptable not to deal with their fears or for them to transfer those fears to an entire group of people. Such association is no more valid than the more historical falsehoods about gay men and lesbians.
Fortunately, the news about AIDS and homophobia is not all bad. Proposition 64 lost overwhelmingly. A federal court jury rejected Delta's argument. Local and state governments have acted to protect the human rights of persons who test AIDS-antibody positive or who have AIDS. More and more churches are responding to the disease out of Christian love for those in need.
One of the most promising signs that people can successfully deal with their fears both ofAIDS and of homosexuality may be Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's recent report on AIDS. Koop, who prior to AIDS had made negative statements concerning homosexuality, turned around and called for massive public education about AIDS and sexuality, free of anti-gayllesbian value judgments.
Thus, AIDS is a bit like Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll in its relationship to homophobia. For some persons, the disease is reinforcement for irrational fears. For others, it is a stimulus to confront personal and societal homophobia and to view people with love, not fear.
As we pray and work for an end to AIDS, let us also pray and work that this second persona of the disease continues to grow in church and all society .•
1. The Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1986.
2. Dennis Altman, AIDS in the Mind of America (Garden City, NY.: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986), pp. 58-81, provides a detailed description of AIDSrelated fears and violence.
Bradley Rymph is an editor in Washington, D.C., and a member ofthe national coordinating committee ofAffirmation: United Methodists for Lesbian/Gay Concerns.
HOMOPHOBIA
B y B R A D L E y R y M p H
14/0pen Hands
[3UJlaining
flje [3pirif Song of Solomon 2: 14'0 my dove, in the clefts ofthe rock, in the covert ofthe cliff, let me see yourface, let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet, and yourface is comely. " (RSV) with joy. AMEN.
Lamentation for Homophobia
L: Dear God, we pray to you in sorrow for the pain and isolation of every gay man and lesbian woman who has been rejected from the church because of fear or false judgment.
P: We mourn for the anguish ofthose who believed God was love and found the Christian community turned on them in hate.
L: We grieve for all human beings who heard the message that they were an abomination to God and tried to destroy themselves.
P: For everyone who, believing it was the way to God, denied their heartfelt desires, repressed feelings, hopes, love, and passion, we cry out in lamentation.
SILENCE
L: Heal, restore, renew each one who has been injured by the homophobia of the church.
P: Judge the church for making grace into law, and love into violence.
L: Transform the Christian community into a sanctuary for those who are denied fullness oflife,
P: Those who are rejected by society,
L: Those who are falsely judged,
P: Those who have been disowned by their families.
L: Bring us all together into the New Community for which we long,
P: Whose law is love, and whose religion is justice. AMEN.
Prayer
presence? Your heart is hidden from us, your Being invisible, your purpose difficult to discern. We pray to you today for all those who live in hiding, unknown, not cared for, whose joys and sorrows are lived out in forced solitude, and who cannot be present in the world as themselves without harsh rejection.
H
oly One, when have we seen or felt your elusive
o hidden, unknown, misunderstood God, whom the world denies and whose presence many seek to banish -comfort those who share your fate. Do not be hidden to those who must hide, but in the clefts of the rock and the covert of the cliff abide with them. You are their companion in unasked for isolation.
Empower us, 0 God, to make the world a place where all people are welcomed, where silenced voices are heard, and the true beauty of hidden faces is seen
y y
B M A R J o o s T E R M A N
CON FRONTING
o
P H
o
•
A gay Christian man preparing to lead a workshop for a church group thinks: "This is my chance to tell them all about the gay life; and of course they need to have their myths debunked; and then there's the Bible controversy; and for sure I need to do a piece on AIDS; and ..."
•
A lesbian feminist Christian thinks: "What I'd really like to tell them is, 'Patriarchy is oppressive and the church is an oppressive patriarchal place that erroneously condemns gays and lesbians. The goddess religion has much to offer if only you would look at it!' ...But they wouldn't hear me."
Both of these fledgling educators make mistakes common to untrained activists in the gay/lesbian movement in the church. The man assumes that, since he has one shot at his audience, he should hit them with everything he knows and believes. The woman mistakenly thinks her audience wouldn't hear her. In fact, both workshop audiences would "hear" their leaders loud and clear-and immediately brand them as non-Christian radicals, not worthy of being listened to seriously.
Untrained workshop leaders, whether lesbian/gay or not, commonly make several errors. They try to change someone's position from anti-to pro-gay/lesbian in one workshop (failing to recognize the way change really occurs). They too quickly share too many personal details about the lesbian/gay life. They use games, role plays, questionnaires, or other educational methods without providing a focused debriefing process that calls forth such elements as dissonance and resistance, as well as sympathy and alliance-building, thereby allowing conscious learning to occur. Gay men and lesbians sometimes assume, incorrectly, that they are automatically experts who can lead a workshop on homophobia, while non-gay/lesbian leaders often assume that they cannot bring in gay men or lesbians until their people have more thoroughly studied the subject.
It is possible to conduct a workshop that confronts homophobia successfully. However, it is not possible in two pages to teach one how to do such a workshop; that would take much more space and a training workshop. I only hope to share the bare bones of a model that I have developed and used at Kinheart, Inc., for its Program on Sexuality and Homophobia (see box). I share it as a vehicle to discuss two crucial decisions that must be made by anyone who seeks to confront homophobia in educational settings. These two decisions involve a) basic assumptions and b) goals and methods.
Over the past four years, I have led variations of this workshop model approximately 120 times in universities, churches, seminaries, and social service agencies in Illinois and Michigan. In most cases, this workshop was a group's first formal educational experience with homophobia and homosexuality issues. In developing the model I have drawn on my Christian education theory and practice, my group process background, my study of homophobia, and my experience as an oppressed lesbian in the United Methodist Church.
The Model
The workshop model includes four essential components that are used in every workshop without fail: (a) examination of current assumptions about human sexuality; (b) exploration of myths and stereotypes about homosexuality and offering of factual information; (c) personal stories by gay men and/or lesbians and possibly by a parent; and (d) question and discussion time. These components occur in a two-hour period. If more time is available, one or more of three other components are added: (a) biblical study, including a overview of stances on the nature and authority of the Bible; (b) theological stances and issues related to homosexuality; and (c) systemic connections among forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and ageism.
For each of these components, we have developed a process and rationale relating to a particular part of our overall workshop goals. For example, personal stories are placed late in the workshop schedule, after the storytellers have established their leadership abilities and made some personal contact with the audience. The stories are prepared and told in a dramatic and educational way (based on individual and group work in a three-hour story-preparation training session).
16/0pen Hands
Assumptions of the Model
Numerous theoretical assumptions undergird this workshop model. One set of those assumptionsabout the functions of homophobia-is discussed elsewhere in this issue (see page 3). A second set of assumptions concerns the nature of education and change. Our assumptions about homophobia and about educational change provide the ingredients for the primary shape and content of a Kinheart workshop on confronting homophobia. Education is a process leading to change, a process of exploring something that is unknown and that for some reason intrigues or disturbs us. Education includes gaining new information and perhaps new skills. And it includes a very basic, almost indescribable, process that challenges our ideas, feelings, and attitudes. This process is not a straightforward movement from point A to point B. Rather, change occurs only when our current explanation for something no longer fits the reality we know. Before we make that change, we hang on rigidly to our old and familiar explanation. We try to make minor modifications. We ignore the most blatant of contradictions created by our minor changes. We make still more changes or perhaps revert to our original explanation. Finally-maybe-we have a major "a-ha" experience that somehow causes our whole existing explanation to crumble and shift into a new configuration. What causes the change? Who can tell which new bit of information, which minor change of attitude, which sudden new perception, goes into a change? My assumption is that it is a delightful mix of many ideas, experiences, interactions, contradictions-plus a strong sense of disease and a strong dose of the Spirit moving among us as it wills and in its own time.
Goals and Methods of the Model
Given the diversity of sources and functions of homophobia in persons who participate in workshops, it is necessary to develop a model and process that confronts homophobia in a variety of ways. The four essential components of our workshop model are designed to do just that. What challenges, intrigues, or disturbs one person may not touch another person's fear and need. However, the end result (from our workshop evaluation forms) is that most persons' homophobia gets addressed at one point or another in the workshop. The most consistent response we get to our workshop is that we have made homosexuality real, we have helped participants see that gays and lesbians are real people, we have "put a face on homosexuality." That is our number one objective.
A variety of educational goals might be chosen for
workshops focused on confronting homophobia. With the
Kinheart model, we focus on three:
1) to "put" a face 0I'l homosexuality, causing persons to
interact with and be led by "out" gay men, lesbians and
What Is Kinheart?
Kinheart, Inc., is a feminist, liberation-oriented
agency committed to providing safe space for
women and education for sexual justice. Kinheart
operates three major programs:
1.
A Women's Center, which offers educational programs and support groups on a variety of issues, as well as social activities and a telephone referral service.
2.
A Counseling Program, which offers therapy and education/support services to individuals, couples, and families. Kinheart therapy blends aspects of feminist, pastoral, brief, and social change approaches. The education/support services focus on coming-out issues and relationship skill development for women.
3.
The Program on Sexuality and Homophobia, which educates for social change around issues of homosexuality in society. The program designs workshops and consultation processes for academic, religious, and social services groups and trains volunteers in its model. It also publishes educational resources related to sexuality and homophobia issues. In 1987, Kinheart plans to expand this program from the Illinois area to a midwest regional audience and also to begin offering nationwide training workshops on the workshop model described here.
Further information can be obtained by writing Kinheart, Inc., 2214 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201,312/491-1103.
family members; 2) to challenge myths and stereotypes about homosexuality
and provide accurate information about gay
men, lesbians, and family members; and 3) to stimulate dialogue and further searching and learning beyond the workshop itself.
The model addresses the first two goals in a fairly direct way. Gay men and lesbians lead the workshops and share their stories, focusing especially on myths and stereotypes.
The third goal is met more indirectly through a particular kind of leadership style rather than by anyone component of the workshop. Because I believe people change when their own explanation for something no longer makes sense, Kinheart workshop leaders offer several options to an issue, show people the range of thinking that is being done on homophobia, point out the various theological stances that religious denominations have taken, etc. Our leaders offer opinions and experience and questions, not absolute answers.
Learning to use a personal style and educational process that is dialogical and open-ended, rather than didactic and closed, is probably the hardest part of a training program for potential workshop leaders. It involves understanding that what you sow, others may reap. We must trust the process in order to gather the harvest..
Open Hands/17
F I R S T S T E Ps
A its fall 1985 annual meeting, the General Commission
on the Status and
Role of Women (GCSR W) ofthe United Methodist Church, acting in accord with the recommendation of its Issue Development, Education and Advocacy (IDEA) work unit, adopted as one of its quadrennial goals 'to understand the ways in which homophobia, through its linkages with sexism, hurts the whole church.'" The paper documenting our work began with these calm, factual words. The tone of the paper was in sharp contrast to the tone of the discussion which came before it!
As chair of the IDEA work unit
and the design team that put together
GCSRWs study, I know that
adoption of that goal was not an
easy matter. In fact, working on
homophobia issues within GCSRW
has been one of the hardest things I
have done. Facing personal prejudice
and systemic discrimination
is always difficult, but when I
entered the struggle in the fall of
1984, I naively assumed that we were
all feminists and that feminists
would understand. Today, I am no
longer so naive, but am still optimistic.
We began with only an intuitive
feeling by some commission members
that homophobia and sexism
were related. Our reading had not
told us that. We had not even heard
the term heterosexism. The first step
was to study-to make that connection
clearer to ourselves. Great
as this seemed at first, it may have
been one of our smaller hurdles.
Paragraph 906.12 of the Book of
Discipline (which prohibits use of
general church funds "to promote
the acceptance of homosexuality")
was a barrier. Trying to be faithful to
our mandate as a commission, also
from the Discipline, was difficult
under the limitations of Para. 906.12.
Our mandate, in part, is to "function
as an advocate with and on behalf
of women," seeking "full and equal
responsibility and participation of women in the total life and mission of the church." Our fierce debate over choosing the wording of our goal-"to understand how homophobia ... hurts the whole church"reflected that bind. We were in the awkward position of asking to study homophobia. only because it might place limitations on "straight" women. The parallel example ofworking against racism only because it hurts white people made many ofus question the ethics of this, but it seemed the most the Discipline would allow. (Even so, a chorus of letters objected to our work by quoting Para. 906.12.)
The major barrier was trying to persuade 48 united Methodists with no common background in the dynamics of sexism, homophobia, or even the nature ofhomosexuality to agree, before doing any study, that there was sufficient evidence of linkages between sexism and homophobia to warrant studying such a controversial issue. Despite extensive use of conditional phrases (if consensus is reached, then ...), only the first step, an "inhouse" study, was approved. All subsequent plans were tabled. Even this first step brought forth strong and emotional discussion. [See article by Patricia Broughton, page 10.] In the end, two members felt obliged to stand "outside the consensus," firm in the conviction that homophobia was not an issue affecting women in the United Methodist Church and that the matter should not be pursued further.
As the study began, the commission gave no clues as to what the outcome might be, since members held widely divergent views. This was not a political strategy to defend against charges that our conclusions were made before we began. My background and study gave me a strong feeling that the links between
sexism and homophobia were present and important to women. I am grateful to those who joined in on faith alone.
We received mail regarding our study and these letters, too, were a resource. Some confirmed for me that homophobia and sexism are indeed linked. One commented that our study would confirm the idea that single feminists are lesbian; another stated that there must be many gay people in the United Methodist Church's national offices for this issue to be surfacing again. Some protested our hiring ofa "selfavowed" lesbian by calling this an unbiblical double standard. Some people said the issue was controversial in their region and spoke of their concern that opponents of women's issues would capitalize on any negative response. Not all ofthe letters opposed the study idea; several commended the commission's decision and expressed their appreciation for our concern.
~ t the spring 1986 meeting, one ~day was devoted to the study of homophobia and its linkages with sexism. Little of the prior controversy was evident. I felt a spirit of openness among the commission members.
The study included a variety of experiences: advance reading, lectures, group discussion, mime, worship, keeping a journal, and meeting a panel including lesbians, parents of gay children, and a gay man. The presence of gay and lesbian guests and the stories they shared were rated as the most helpful parts of the study.
Phyllis Athey and Mary Jo Osterman, directors of the Kinheart Program on Sexuality and Homophobia, were present and members of the panel. They led the commisy
B K R I s T A N B u R K E R T
18/0pen Hands
sion in examining commonly held stereotypes and feeling about gay men and lesbians, using an attitude survey they had designed. [See article by Mary Jo Osterman, page 16.]
Stephen Reid, associate professor of Old Testament at Pacific School of Religion, addressed the commission on "Reinterpreting the Creation Tradition." He focused on Old Testament passages dealing with homosexuality and the abuse of women, calling us to remember the social system out of which an ethic grows. For a man to be a homosexual in ancient Israel was to be "like a woman." Homophobia and heterosexism were tools to keep men (people with power and status) from identifying with women (people without power and status). Further, Reid said that "homophobia and heterosexism were vehicles to coerce a particular type of sexual behavior that was deemed the way to build a sufficient economic base for social justice." In an agrarian society where children were economic capital, compulsory heterosexuality was a central key to achieving prosperity. He concluded that this sexual ethic is unnecessary and outdated in a modern post-industrial society.
Mary Gaddis, a spokesperson for Mfirmation and a consultant on the design team, gave a powerful portrayal through mime of being "in the closet." One person responded, "The pain became real for me for the first time." After this presentation (and after Stephen Reid's address), we gathered to share responses in small groups designed to be safe and press-free.
One evening we listened to our guests tell their stories. Howard and Mildred Eychaner, parents of two gay men (and two non -gay children) gave witness to the importance of parental acceptance. Mr. Eychaner urged other parents to "come out" and to be links between non-gay persons and lesbians and gay men. "I can't understand the rejection and hate of some parents," he said. Mrs. Eychaner spoke of her hope "for the church to get to the place when a person's genital activity does not determine his (or her) worth." She added, "Love is love no matter where you find it. We support civil rights and we say to the United Methodist Church: this minority includes our brothers, sisters, and children, and as such we want them in the church for worship and fellowship."
Mary Gaddis told of"overwhelming" sexism and heterosexism she experiences in her predominately male profession and of having to come to terms with her androgynous appearance. Some people, calling her "sir" by mistake, tell her that they thought it would be less insulting to make that mistake than to address a man with a female term.
Warren Spare, a relatively new member of the United Methodist Church, remembered being told that "all the feminine parts of me were wrong" and learning to hide those parts. Now he says, "These roles are so superficial. We need to get around that and just be simply human."
Mary Jo Osterman and Phyllis Athey each spoke of conflict in trying to answer a call to Christian service and to be who they are-lesbians. Osterman lost her job as a Christian educator at Garrett-Evangelical Seminary when she came out. Athey was denied deacon's orders in the United Methodist Church by a 4-3 vote of her District Committee on Ordained Ministry. They asked her why she couldn't have stayed "in the closet" for a while longer, when the church might be more open. She explained to us, "I knew ifI went into the closet for 10 years I wouldn't be any good. I'd spend more energy hiding than preaching or pastoring." She stressed that "the church is being drained of gifts and graces because of homophobia."
The next morning, after reflecting on the power of naming, the commission listened to a taped lecture by Virginia Mollenkott. [See article by Mollenkott, page 4.] This was followed by "fishbowls," groups sharing their reflections on the study. Some spoke of how their thoughts and feelings had changed. Others voiced concerns about ordaining lesbians/gay men. Some felt that heterosexism is a social justice issue. Some spoke of the political dangers to GCSRW if we were to advocate change in the policies of the United Methodist Church. And some shared their desire for action. The study closed with a time of worship. No decisions were expected at this meeting, giving participants opportunity to reflect on their experience.
When the commission gathered again in late September 1986, we continued to articulate these linkages, as well as to decide our next steps. Work on both continues. GCSRW will share its study model with other general boards of the United Methodist Church. The IDEA work unit will write a paper drawing together the learnings from the study. We will work from that paper in the spring.
For some, these steps are not so very big; for others they were new and brave steps. Some spoke offears that work on this issue would undermine other concerns ofGCSRW, fear that we would be identified by this one issue. In that fear, I saw a dynamic of sexism and heterosexism-defining a person or group by only one attribute (a sexual one)operating to marginalize and trivialize not only women and gay and lesbian persons, but, potentially, the commission itself.
I had hopes for great activism to come out of our work, but it will not happen in this quadrennium. I have seen people change, and I respect the size of the task before us. GCSRW has been the only general agency of the United Methodist Church to address heterosexism since the 1984 General Conference. That, in itself, is an accomplishment. The General Commission on the Status and Role of Women has made a beginning: looking for linkages between sexism and heterosexism. I invite you all to join in wherever you can.•
Kristan Burkert serves on the General Commission on the Status and Role of Women of the United Methodist Church as the clergywoman from the W~tem Jurisdiction.
Open Handsl 19
The discussion in legislative secmen,
lesbians, parents of gay/
CALIFORNIAtions
and on the floor of the conlesbian
persons, and pastors involved ference has been as important as
in ministry with lesbians and gay
PACIFIC
men. Copies of all the workshop mation and allowing persons to exthe
resolutions in providing informaterials, including opening and
CONFERENCE
closing worship services, were made available to the district teams press concerns.
BY LOIS SIEFERT
as resources for their own events. The conference committee kept in
Conference Committee
touch with these trained leaders as they made plans for district events
Formed
The California-Pacific Anon homosexuality and homophobia.
nualConference of the
In response to the 1982 resoluAs
a team, they were to develop a United Methodist Church
tion, the Conference Council on
plan for involving pastors and key first began considering
Ministries (CCOM) named a study/
laypersons in the study. By conissues relating to homosexuality
design committee of 10 persons,
ference time two years later, over and homophobia five years ago.
both lay and clergy, from differing
400 persons from over 100 churchesSince 1982 the following resolutheological
perspectives and expehad
participated in these events.
tions have passed at Annual Conrience.
One member was gay. ferences sessions primarily through
The committee listened to widethe efforts of the Conference Board
ly divergent viewpoints during an of Church and Society and other
open hearing and read widely, using individuals, including members of
'The Process Continued
such basic resources as Is the Affirmation:
Homosexual My Neighbor? by
In the meantime, a design for a Letha Scanzoni and Virginia
four-session study for use by local • 1982-To set up a task force to
Ramey Mollencott, Homosexuality:
churches was being developed and "design and implement a study
In Search ofa Christian Understandtested.
Several churches held semiof Homophobia and Homosexing
by Leon Smith, and the United
nars on homosexuality and homouality."
Methodist Guide to the Study
phobia with speakers, panels, op• 1983-To petition the 1984 GenDocument
on Human Sexuality.
portunities for questions, and diseral Conference to develop such
cussion. Progress reports were a study.
made at each CCOM meeting, in • 1984-To urge the church to the conference newspaper, and to work for laws that prohibit disthe Annual Conference in 1983
Training Event Is
crimination in employment, housand 1984. The committee felt it was
Developed
ing, and public accommodations important to educate about the based on sexual orientation.
As the group progressed, a subconcerns
of the church, provide
committee was named to design an
• 1985-To affirm the personal opportunities for conversation, and worth and dignity of gay men
event for use at district or cluster
promote the local church studyand lesbians and to call on local
levels. This event was first held at
that would soon be available.
churches to affirm their parthe
conference level as training for
ticipation in local churches.
those present to lead similar events
in their own districts. The district
ministry to persons with AIDS
• 1986-To affirm and implement
superintendents, in addition to
Other Opportunities
or ARC, their families, friends,
being invited to attend this event,
for Dialogue
and those who care for them;
were involved in the selection of
and to call for participation in
Other opportunities were prothe network of religious and
those to participate.
The seven-hour event included
vided throughout the conference community organizations propresentations
on "Facts, Untruths,
for study and dialogue on the
viding an effective response to
and Stereotypes," "Scriptural and
issues of homosexuality and homothe AIDS crisis, including deTheological
Perspectives," "The
phobia during these years. These velopment and funding of eduNature
and Causes of Homosexincluded:
cational programs that overcome
uality," and "Homophobia." "Per•
workshops at the conference misinformation, fear, and bigotry.
sonal Glimpses" were given by gay
School of Christian Mission;
20/0pen Hands
•
Forums are beginning points for exploration, not events of exhaustive examination.
•
Forums are occasions for dialogue, not debate.
•
Forums are openings for transformation, not simply opportunities
for exchange of information. Transformation implies the possibility that deeper understanding
• workshops at conference youth can lead to changed lives. InforROCKY
events; mation, while critical, may dead•
a workshop at Claremont School end with an accumulation of
MOUNTAIN
of Theology's Laity Day; facts that fall short of remolding
• a one-day convocation held by faith.
CONFERENCE
the Conf~rence Commission on Forums included speakers who the Status and Role of Women; presented different understandings
BY PAULA E. MURPHY
and of biblical teachings on homosex•
various study programs and semuality and the psychosocial theories
inars in local churches.
The exorcism of homoof
sexual orientation. By far of
phobia in the church
greatest impact were gay/lesbian
is one of the calls and
Christians witnessing to their life challenges ofgay/lesbian and faith journeys. Parents of lesChristians,
their families and friends.
What Has Been
bians and gay men spoke poiThe
task is formidable. Undoubtgnantly
of their struggle toward
Learned
edly the ingredient most helpful in
understanding a daughter's or son'sThrough their participation in
rooting out homophobia is the
orientation. Most parents also share these various activities, committee
willing personal confrontation of
the anguish they experienced whenmembers have learned several lessister
and fellow church members,
clergy and laity in their local consons about homophobia and how
by lesbian/gay Christians, who
gregations so frequently respondedto study it:
themselves are victims of homowith
judgments rather than underphobia.
Real renewal of the church
standing or acceptance.
is not likely to occur without the
tive on all issues.
• Present more than one perspecpersistent
exercise of responsible
ministry within the church. In the
all meetings.
• Allow full and free discussion in
Rocky Mountain Conference of the
Special Ministries of
• Make available a great diversity
United Methodist Church, we have
Presence
of literature and resources.
begun a special ministry of the
As "special ministries of the
• Provide opportunities for pargay/
lesbian presence to help the
gay/lesbian presence," these forums ticipants to listen carefully to the
United Methodist Church authenenabled
breakthroughs where prealienation and separation felt by tically become the church.
viously there had been blindspots.
gay/lesbian persons and to the Heterosexual church members, once pain and grief that parents excomfortable with their dismissal ofperience.
Forums Initiated
gay menlIesbians as impersonal
• Make attempts to help persons
Following a 1982 Annual Concategories
for disdain, had to enget in touch with their own
ference resolution urging the study
counter, in face-to-face conversaalienation and separation.
of homosexuality, the Adult Sextion,
self-assured lesbian/gay per•
Make study goals oflearning
uality Committee of the Rocky
sons who were unavoidably presentrather than reaching agreement.
Mountain Conference Council on
and undeniably Christian. This The packet for the four-session
Ministries initiated and coordinated
courageous and graceful presence local church study, "Other Persome
62 different forums in which
of gay and lesbian Christians may spectives: Christian Views of
2,500 persons participated. The
indeed be making headway inHomosexuality," may be ordered
forums, "In Search of Christian
exorcising the pernicious plague offor $5 plus postage from:
Understanding of Homosexuality,"
homophobia from within the
Adult and Family Ministries Office,
varied in approach from evening
church.•
472 E. Colorado Blvd., Box 6066
sessions held in local churches to
Pasadena, CA 91102.
day-long events hosted by District
Councils on Ministries.
Integral to each forum were cerPaula
E. Murphy, Ed.D. is a psychotherapist in Lois Siefert is a diaconal minister, now a
private practice who is family life coordinator of
tain basic understandings:
the Denver North District and cochairperson offreelance consultant in Christian education
• The church must celebrate its
and church program ministries. She chaired
the Rocky Mountain Conference Committee on the task force that designed the four-session
extraordinary diversity in order
Sexuality Ministries of the United Methodist studyfor local church use.
to claim its intended inclusiveness.
Church.
Open Hands/2}
Homophobia Education
Sexism and Homophobia Osterman, Mary Jo. Homophobia Is a
(These are excerptsfrom the reading list used
1985.
Social Disease. Kinheart, Inc. 1987.
by the UM General Commission on the
Quintales, Mirtha. "I Paid Very Hard for A monograph that can be ordered
My Immigrant Ignorance." In This for $6.95 from Kinheart, 2214 Ridge
Status and Role ofWomen in its 1986 study
on the linkage between sexism and homoBridge
Called My Back.
Avenue, Evanston, IL 60201, 312/
phobia.)
Segrest, Mab. "I Lead Two Lives: Con491-1103.
Clarke, Cheryl. "Lesbianism: An Act of
fessions of a Closet Baptist." In LesPresbyterian Church (U.S.A). Breaking
Resistance." In This Bridge Called
bian Studies.
the Silence, Overcoming the Fear:
My Back: Writings by Radical WomSiegel,
Paul. "Homophobia: Types, OriHomophobia Education. Backen
of Color. Edited by Cherrie
gins, Remedies." Christianity and ground articles on homophobia and
Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua. WaterCrisis
(November 12, 1978). theological/biblical perspectives with
town, Mass.: Persephone Press, 1981.
Steinem, Gloria. "The Politics of Supseveral models for homophobia
Doughty, Frances. "Lesbian Biography,
porting Lesbianism." In Our Right to education; includes a bibliography.
Biography of Lesbians." In Lesbian
Love. Edited by Ginny Vida. New Order for $3.50 from Church EducaYork:
Prentice-Hall, 1978.
tion Services, Presbyterian Church
Studies. Edited by Margaret CruikDialogue.
5 (December 1982):3 Newslet(U.S.A), 475 Riverside Drive, Room
shank. Old Westbury, NY: The
ter of Brethren/Mennonite Council 1101, New York, NY 10115.
Feminist Press, 1982. for Gay Concerns, Box 24060, WashScanzoni,
Letha, and Virginia Ramey
Harrison, Beverly. "Misogyny and Homoington,
DC 20024.
Mollenkott. Is the Homosexual My
phobia." In Making the Connections.
The Flyer. 8 (March-ApriI1986):1. NewsNeighbor? San Francisco: Harper
Boston: Beacon Press, 1985.
Manahan, Nancy. "Homophobia in the
letter of General Commission on and Row, 1978. One of the best
the Status and Role ofWomen, 1200 books on homophobia and homoClassroom."
In Lesbian Studies.
Davis Street, Evanston, IL 60201. sexuality for the religious comMoraga,
Cherrie. "La Guera." In This
Reports on their homophobia study. munity to read. Illustrates the need
Bridge Called My Back.
The Journal of Homosexuality. 10 (Fall to be more accepting and less fearful
Mudflower Collective. "Our Use of the
1984):1/2. Haworth Press, 28 E. 22nd of gay men and lesbians.
Term Feminist." In God's Fierce
Street, New York, NY 10010.
Whimsy. New York: Pilgrim Press,
Other Homophobia
Reconciling CongregationsJournal Issues on
Washington Square UMC Wheadon UMC
Resources
Homophobia
c/o Don Himpel c/o Carol Larson
135 W. 4th Street 2212 Ridge Avenue
Bulletin: Interracial Books for Children. Babuscio, John. We Speak for Ourselves:
New York, NY 10012 Evanston, IL 60201
14 (1983):3/4. A special double issue
Experiences in Homosexual CounselPark
Slope UMC Albany Park UMC
on "Homophobia and Education,"
ing. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
c/o A. Finley Schaef c/o Ted Luis, Sr.
includes excellent articles on recom1977.
Case histories written specif6th
Avenue & 8th Street 3100 W. Wilson Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11215 Chicago, IL 60625
mended books on gay/lesbian themes,
ically for counselors by lesbian and
a critical look at lesbian and gay
gay counselors. Includes homophoCaivaryUMC
Irving Park UMC
c/o Chip Coffman c/o Phil Sheets 815 S. 48th Street 3801 N. Keeler Avenue
characters in children's literature,
bia issues, internalized oppression,
and homophobia in sex education family relationships.
Philadelphia, PA 19143 Chicago, IL 60641
materials. Order for $3.50 each from
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social TolerChristUMC
Sl Paur. UMC
Interracial Books for Children, 1841
ance, and Homosexuality. Chicago:
c/o John Hannay c/o George Christie
Broadway, New York, NY 10023.
University of Chicago Press, 1980. A
4th & Eye Streets, SW 1615 Ogden Street
Washington, D.C. 20024 Denver, CO 80218
Church and Society. 73 (Novemberchallenging study of the history of
December 1982):2. Presbyterian
attitudes towards homosexuality in
Sl John'. UMC Wesley UMC
c/o Howard Nash c/o Patty Orlando 2705 St. Paul Street 1343 E. Barstow Avenue
Church (U.S.A). Title: "Homophothe
Christian West, from the beginbia:
The Overlooked Sin."
ning of the Christian era to the
Baltimore, MD 21218 Fresno, CA 93710
Kalven, Janet, and Mary Buckley, eds.
14th century.
Edgehill UMC Bethany UMC
Gould, Meredith. "Statutory Oppression:
Women's Spirit Bonding. New York:
c/o Hoyt Hickman c/o Kim Smith
An Overview of Legalized HomoPilgrim
Press, 1984. Contains a sec1502
Edgehill Avenue 1268 Sanchez Street Nashville, TN 37212 San FranCisco, CA 94114
tion on "Lesbianism and Homophobia."
In Gay Men: The Sociology
phobia" which argues that homoof
Male Homosexuality. Edited by
Central UMC Sunnyhills UMC
c/o Howard Abts c/o Cliveden Chew Haas 701 West Central at 335 Dixon Road
phobia and heterosexism are barMartin
P. Levine. NewYork: Harper
riers to women's bonding.
and Row, 1979.
Scottwood Milpitas, CA 95035
Malyon, Alan K "Psychotherapeutic
Heyward, Carter. Our Passion for Justice.
Toledo, OH 43610 Wallingford UMC
Implications of Internalized HomoNew
York: Pilgrim Press, 1984. A
University UMC c/o Chuck Richards
phobia in Gay Men." In Homosexcollection
ofessays and lectures that
c/o Steven Webster 2115 N. 42nd Street
1127 University Avenue Seattle, WA 98103 Madison, WI 53715
uality and Psychotherapy: A Practishows
the critical links between
white supremacy, male gender superitioner's
Handbook of Affirmative
Capitol Hill UMC
Wesley UMC c/o Pat Dougherty c/o Dennis Alexander 128 16th Street East
ority, capitalist exploitation, homoModels.
Edited by John C. Gonsioerk.
New York: Haworth Press,
phobia, anti-Semitism, and cultural
Marquette at Grant Streets Seattle, WA 98112
1982.
im perialism.
Minneapolis, MN 55403
22/0pen Hands
Three New Reconciling Congregatlons
TheF~t Natlonal RCPCon~tlon
~efirst convocation of all Rectries and its connection with the • onciling Congregations will be Reconciling Congregation Program
~ree local UM churches have held March 27-29, 1987, in Chicago. and the institutional church. Work•
recently joined the Reconciling Attending the event, entitled "Emshops will include: "Human SexCongregation
Program (RCP). We powering Reconciling Ministries: A uality / Homophobia Education,"
welcome them to the fellowship and National Convocation of Recon"Ministries to Family and Friends of
ministry of the RCP. Following are ciling Congregations," will be repreLesbians/Gay Men, "AIDS and the
brief descriptions of each of these sentatives of all 18 Reconciling Ministry ofthe Church," "Promoting
congrega tions.
the Reconciling Congregation Proseveral United Methodist boards
Congregations, representatives from
gram," "Developing Reconciling
The Wesley Church (Minneapolis) and agencies, members of congreMinistries,"
and "Impacting the GenWesley
UMC is one of the oldest gations interested in becoming
eral Church."
congregations in Minneapolis. It was Reconciling Congregations, and other
The convocation will close Sunfounded
in 1852 and moved to its interested persons.
day morning with a special worship
current location in 1891.
Leaders for the event will include
celebration that symbolically joins
The history of Wesley includes Morris Floyd, Mary Gaddis, Melvin
all the Reconciling Congregations as
such facts as: Wesley was among the Wheatley, and Beverly Jackson in a
they worship in their own churches
first local churches to pioneer radio panel discussion on "Lesbian/Gay
broadcasting (1944); J. Paul Getty Issues in the UMC: Past and Future."
on that Sunday morning.
Registration for persons not reprewent
to Sunday School there; another Tex Sample, from St. Paul's School
senting Reconciling Congregations
famous former member was raceof Theology, will address "Images of
will be limited. Registration cost is
horse Dan Patch. a Reconciling People."
$100. For more information, contact
Wesley has a membership of Workshops for the three-day
the Reconciling Congregation Proabout
250. The neighborhood surevent have been designed to focus on
gram, P.O. Box 24213, Nashville,
rounding the church has a large gay both a congregation's local minis-
TN 37202.
and lesbian population.
Wesley began the process of becoming a Reconciling Congregation in 1981, when the congregation was approached with a request
Upcoming Workshops/Gatherings
to host the local Mfirmation group. A unanimous vote opened the February 7 -Chicago, Illinois church's doors to M firmation. Training workshop on involving a
Wesley is involved in AIDS
local church in the Reconciling
G'. education at the local church level. It
Congregation Program.
CONTACT: Affirmation Chicago ~
has hosted AIDS memorial services
P.O. Box 705 March 14 -Kansas City, Missouri
and public forums on a rash of gay Chicago, IL 60204 Lh ~Workshop on ministry with lesmurders.
Wesley is seeking to raise
or call: Annette Oliver pW ~ bians and gay men. Sponsored by
the consciousness of the spirituality
312-539-3626 ~ Affirmation and the Methodist
1\ W(\. Federation for Social Action.
ofthe gay/lesbian community and is March 5-7 -Seattle, Washington " ~ CONTACT: Susan Vogel
working on integrating its memberNine-hour workshop on lesbian/ tf) Q P.O. Box 10116
ship to be one people who work gay concerns and the Reconciling Kansas City, MO
together as the Body of Christ.
Congregation Program at the 64118
Pacific Northwest Conference School
of Discipleship. March 27-29 -Chicago, Illinois
Albany Park UM C (Chicago) CONTACT: Chuck Richards "Empowering Reconciling MinisThe
United Methodist Church of
P.O. Box 31602 tries: A National Convocation of
Albany Park, a small congregation
Wallingford Station Reconciling Congregations." (See
of approximately 150 members, is
Seattle, WA 98103 article above.)
located in a racially and economMarch 14 -Portland, Oregon April 24-26 -Nashville, Tennessee
ically diverse area on the northwest Training workshop on a local Semiannual national meeting of
side of Chicago. The congregation
church becoming a Reconciling Affirmation: United Methodists for
has an active Sunday School proCongregation.
Lesbian/Gay Concerns.
gram, sponsors a weekly Just-forCONTACT:
Terry Voss CONTACT: Affirmation
3786 N. Melrose P.O. Box 1021
Kids program for neighborhood Portland, OR 97227 Evanston, IL 60204
children, and participates in the
(continued)
Open Hands/23
Albany Park Food Pantry and the Rainbow Convenant.
Albany Park tries to reach out to its community in a variety of ways. During the week, the building is open and used for General Equivalency Diploma classes, Alcohol Anonymous meetings, Boy Scouts, and neighborhood organizations. The congregation shares a bilingual pastor, Rev. Finees Flores, and its facilities with a Hispanic congregation. A Korean congregation also meets weekly in the building.
The process to become a Reconciling Congregation began in October 1985 with a two-week adult Sunday School class. Though the congregation just recently became a Reconciling Congregation, several of its members have already shown their support by writing letters to their aldermen supporting the Chicago "'Gay/Lesbian Rights Ordinance." The pastor of the church participated in a press conference of religious leaders who supported the ordinance. Members of the congregation are actively praying for persons with AIDS and their families and friends.
Irving Park UMC (Chicago)
Irving Park UMC is a congregation that will be 100 years old in 1988. The membership ofthe church is approximately 145.
The congregation, though primarily Caucasian, has a few Filipino members. The church describes itself as "'A Servant Community of God's People." In other words, Irving Park is in ministry to the community outside, as well as inside the church.
The congregation's mInIstries include a food pantry that is based in the building and feeds 800 people a month. The church is involved in distributing cancer pads. Among the community organizations which use the church facilities are Divorced Anonymous and a day~are program.
Irving Park has had gay and lesbian members for several years. This summer the congregation was involved in working for the Chicago "Gay/Lesbian Rights Ordinance."
24/ 0pen Hands
UM
Newspaper Ignores Lesbian/GayMinistries ~e United Methodist Reporter, the ..I. unofficial United Methodist newspaper, has continued its practice of disregarding UM ministries with lesbians and gay men in its coverage. Two Reconciling Congregations, Wesley UMC (Minneapolis) and Calvary UMC (Philadelphia), received extensive coverage last fall in The Reporter. The stories ofthese two congregations, which appeared sep-· arately in national editions of the newspaper, related the extensive ministries each congregation is undertaking in its community. The stories, while presenting each congregation as a model of Christian ministry, did not mention either that Calvary was a Reconciling Congregation or that Wesley was in the process of becoming one. There was only minimal mention of Wesley's ministry to the lesbian/gay community. Last November The United Methodist Reporter refused to carry a paid advertisement for Open Hands. Citing the "UM Social Principles" as grounds for refusal, Spurgeon Dunham, the newspaper's editor wrote: . . . the views expressed in this publication have the effect, without exception, of "promoting the acceptance of homosexuality," the practice of which our General Conference has declared "incompatible with Christian teaching" ... We do not like feeling alienated from, or being cast in the role of inflicting alienation upon, any group in the church. But we see no responsible alternative in this decision. The Reporter is an independennt newspaper whose editorial policy is determined by its Board of Governors.
Protests Against
Vatican Statement
R oman Catholic individuals and organizations in the U.S. have made strong statements in opposition to the Vatican Letter on Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons released last fall. This letter reaffirms the official Catholic teaching that denies gay men and lesbians acceptance within the church, and it calls homosexual orientation "disordered". The intent of the letter is perceived to be to terminate ministries with lesbians and gay men, which have developed in several U.S. dioceses.
One protest against the letter was a press conference called by Dignity, Inc. (national organization of lesbian/gay Catholics), at the Vatican embassy in Washington, D.C., on November 1, 1986. One statement read at the press conference was from the New Ways Ministry in Mt. Ranier, Maryland. This statement cites the theological and pastoral developments of the past ten years with regard to lesbians and gay men. The statement lifts up ministries in the archdioceses of San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Baltimore as examples ofpositive models. The statement closes with:
Any attempt to undo or halt the developments in the U.S. Catholic community ... will cause serious pastoral harm and only serve to further alienate homosexual people. It is not sufficient to decry physical violence when the Vatican itself is responsible for causing psychological violence by derogating the human sexual identity of millions of people by describing their orientation as "disordered."
The harshness of the statement is powerful testimony of how much out of touch the Vatican is with Catholic thought in the U.S. and elsewhere. The letter is evidence that the efforts of such groups as Dignity and New Ways Ministry is being taken seriously in Vatican circles. The Vatican's response will only serve to increase support for such ministries in the same way that the 1976 statement on women's ordination increased support for ordination ofwomen. This might be its most important contribution.•