This is an interesting article in the Dallas Morning News. Given how dicey it is these days to be an LGBT-welcoming Baptist church, expect continued struggles such as the one Broadway Baptist Church faces. The church according to the article, was known to be inclusive of gays and moderate in its views (including women in leadership roles), but it hit a wall of tolerance when it planned to publish its church directory for its 125th anniversary with photos of members and their families
There was discord and disagreement as to how to treat its gay parishioners and their families, since all people would be identified in the publication. What did church members decide constituted a compromise?
In a 294-182 vote, members approved a recommendation by the church’s board of deacons to publish a directory that would include member photos in “candid, small and large group pictures” but not include family portraits.This is incredibly sad, as it brings to the fore the underlying homophobia and heteronormativity in Broadway Baptist Church. Rather than confront their feelings about what constitutes a family, for some members, the answer is to get rid of the pastor who called for honesty in reconciling their beliefs with LGBT members in their midst.The 125th anniversary pictorial directories “will identify the people in them by name and every effort will be made to include all members in the directory,” the deacon board said in its recommendation.
The board said members recognize that there are differing opinions on what constitutes a family. The proposal, the board said, did not endanger the church’s Baptist affiliations.
More after the jump, including what occurred when Barack Obama addressed yet another predominantly black crowd last week and forced them to face their homophobia.
This kind of dialogue and struggle is going on in many churches as members who are committed to their faith come out of the closet. Those among the faithful who condemn homosexuality are forced to face their friends and neighbors, and it’s clear that many would rather shut LGBTs out at worst, or pretend gay families don’t matter.“This has been a difficult decision for our congregation,” deacon chair Kathy Madeja said, reading a statement after the vote. “We believe we have approached it in the best way possible. We did not rush to make a decision. We tried not only to listen to each other, but to understand each other’s opinions.
…Church members voted after a sermon by Pastor Brett Younger in which he asked parishioners to look people in the eye and question what they see and how they react.
“If we look into the eyes of a gay Christian, we may have to rethink some of our opinions,” Mr. Younger said.
…Some church members have sought to fire Mr. Younger. The board unanimously recommended that the congregation undergo “remediation and reconciliation” before voting on his future. Church members have not yet voted on that recommendation.
***
Obama challenges predominantly black crowd in Texas on LGBT equality
In a related matter, Barack Obama held a town hall in Beaumont, Texas on Thursday, and again he took time to strategically challenge an enthusiastic crowd (3/4 black, according to Ben Smith of The Politico) to remind them that civil rights issues don’s stop at race or gender.
An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes — race, gender, etc. — that shouldn’t trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.One of the strengths of Barack Obama, regardless of what you believe about his commitment to moving our rights forward (and the debacle of the McClurkin incident), is that he alone has walked the line in addressing homophobia in the black community in this election cycle. It’s sadly, a role you would not see Hillary Clinton taking any kind of lead on, because of the third rail of discussing race in this country.So he took a different tack:
“Now I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday,” he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.
“I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian,” he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.
Time and again we’ve discussed here on the Blend of the dilemma of addressing this topic, and how many whites feel that this is a matter that somehow can only be addressed by LGBT blacks, the reason being that whites are too uncomfortable about potential conflict and confrontation or appearing paternalistic on the matter.
I happen to disagree with this thinking, not because the fears of discomfort and racial conflict aren’t real, but because we need to all be able to point out bigotry where it exists, regardless of the color of the people hurling the charges. The real problem is not pointing out homophobia, but feeling so disconnected from people who are different socially or culturally to feel able to bridge the gap and make the connection without being hurt. There’s no doubt that this is hard work and requires thick skin, but I believe that the end result can make a difference that will benefit us all.
And that’s not unlike the hard work the members of Broadway Baptist Church have to do when confronting their fears about “the other” and can no longer hide their heads in the sand about reality. We exist. We aren’t monsters. We have families.
21 Responses to “Texas: Baptist church nixes family photos rather than include gay families; Obama addresses black homophobia again”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
It’s moments like what you describe here that make me think that despite some major screw-ups (McClurkin), the Obama campaign is ultimately a very good thing for LGBT rights - he’s out there calling for equality and actually trying to persuade skeptical audiences.
I wish he would come out in favor of full marriage equality, but it looks like no national level politician is going to until we at the grassroots level push the debate even more in that direction.
It may be a half-assed baby step, but at least they decided to treat everybody equally, and not gay families differently.
Kind of like the county in Oregon that suspended issuing all marriage licences - straight or gay - until the matter was legally cleared up. Fair is fair. (hears echo of screams of hetero privilege …)
“We exist. We aren’t monsters. We have families.”
But somehow, there are people in this country who seem to think LGBT people ARE monsters who are seeking to destroy the country, or some such rot.
In our society, a lot of people have received a shitload of programming that makes accepting LGBT people as difficult or more difficult than the still unresolved race problems we face.
In my own case, it took a long time to realize treating LGBT people differently was wrong. My epiphany was recognizing that many of my favorite music artists and TV/film actors were gay, and realizing that it was hypocritical to appreciate their art while thinking of them as something other than “normal”.
I don’t know how you get other people to overcome their cultural “programming”, but I have to believe that trying to hide the truth does not help.
In that respect, it seems to me that the popularity of TV shows featuring home redecorating or fashion makeovers, etc., is probably a good thing, given the large percentage of LGBT people (usually gay men) who are featured in those shows - as cliche as they might otherwise be.
I would hope that frequent (positive) exposure to LGBT people will help many to reduce their irrational fears…
I think the parishoners of that church need to to a little outside reading.
And maybe, just maybe, heterosexist churches aren’t places we should be hanging out.
MikeEss,
Agreed. Billy Crystal on Soap, man.
“Billy Crystal on Soap, man.”
That was a pretty early one, and very controversial at the time.
What I’m more fascinated by recently are the makeover shows, etc.
My wife and daughter were watching several episodes of Project Runway yesterday, and it was cool to see so many gay men involved, just doing their thing. They weren’t threatening, weren’t scary. To be fair, none were specifically identified as gay. But it wouldn’t have taken well-honed gaydar to see them.
Now, one can argue about the fashion industry, and its harm to women, and whether a show like Project Runway is just an effort to sell patriarchal standards of beauty, etc. And I wish there were more gay women featured. But still, I think those shows really do fill a need…
And I wish there were more gay women featured.
Top Chef has featured a few lesbian women, and 1st season finalist Tiffani Fasion identifies as bi (if I’m not mistaken).
The gay themes I see in mainstream media are pretty tame, even if they’re overwhelming in certain genres like fashion-/decor-based reality TV. As much as the uber consumerist and sexist messages of these shows sometimes get me down, I cut the (largely men) some slack because I know that even this cookie cutter format is still breaking new ground for them in the public eye. Project Runway I actually like a lot, because it’s really about the design process and how garments come together, rather than the body consciousness or buy-to-be-happy message I get on a lot of other gay-friendly shows. One show I do think is good is Trading Spaces though it long ago fell out of my limited TV rotation. I remember a few years ago watching it, being happily surprised they showed open gay couples switching houses with straight couples. It just seemed to me the message the show was putting out was We’re gay, we’re your neighbors, and we won’t let Hildy fuck up your living room.
Okay, so my point in writing the above: A friend of mine directs very edgy gay/tranny short films and also is part of an artist cooperative in East Boston. His work is compelling and sometimes a little shocking. It’s all very in-your-face and crass. Sometimes I like it and sometimes I don’t. But I definitely think it’s pushed me toward being more accepting and open-minded about how personal sexuality is, and to be more critical of what I see portrayed in the mainstream media regarding sexual identity. I’m hoping I see more diversity on TV with LGBT personalities or characters soon, but I understand that some people need baby steps. Still, the non-threatening effeminate gay male fashion expert thing is getting old. Really old.
As for white people having a dialog with the black community about LGBT issues, I’m happy to do it and wouldn’t feel too bad about offending hypocrites or people who think LGBT people need to hide so they don’t offend Christians. I am somewhat wary of trying it though, not because of the race issues but because of the frustration I have when I deal with circular-reasoning, which is what a lot of discussions with overtly religious people turn into when you’re trying to get them to acknowledge prejudice and where it comes from.
the reason being that whites are too uncomfortable about potential conflict and confrontation or appearing paternalistic on the matter.
This is totally, 100% the reason why I’m nervous about getting into discussions about black homophobia. There are a million ways it can go wrong. I’m afraid of sounding like I’m accusing the black community of harboring more homophobia than the white community, or generally not understanding the cultural issues in play, being a know-it-all white liberal who assumes that black people need white people to come in and fix things for them — exactly what you said, being paternalistic or patronizing. It’s not my role to arrogate any kind of leadership to myself, even if it’s just rhetorical leadership (by which I mean, pointing it out or bringing it up).
I have the same problem with calling out my black friends and neighbors on bigoted remarks about Latinos, remarks which have happened a fair few times at neighborhood meetings, gatherings, etc. (My neighborhood is mostly black, with a couple of Latino and a couple of white families.)
I have no idea what the correct course of action is. It feels like I can’t help but be an asshole in some way.
I am so, so happy about what Obama said, though. It needs to be said. I’m very happy with him lately because he’s calling out a lot of things that need to be said — that patriotism isn’t warmongering; that warmongering isn’t “protecting America”; that homophobia is un-Christian.
It is a tough issue, but to me it seems a bit like the rules for what makes a joke acceptable - anyone can tell a “we” joke, someone with sufficient cred and dues paid can tell a “you” joke, and nobody should get away with a “they” joke.
So a black politician can speak to a black audience and say “we” and be specific to black people. But a white politician can still address homophobia with any audience as “we” as long as the we includes white people too.
In other words, Obama can speak with authority directly to black Christians AS black Christians, but there is nothing preventing Clinton from speaking to the same people as Christians, as Americans, or as decent human beings. A sufficiently complelling white person could raise valid race-independent issues and at the same time have her audience, forced to think about the issues, realize ways in which they are more guilty of some things than the broader population.
Clinton (to pick someone, not remotely at random) would be wrong to focus specifically on the homophobia in black churches, but would not be wrong to focus on homophobia while speaking IN a black church - unless that were the only place she ever raised the issue. It’s also why she loses credibiltiy compared to Obama for only raising gay issues in front of gay groups. What she says may even be completely honest and truthful, but it clearly is not an integral part of her overall campaign.
Caroline: “I have the same problem with calling out my black friends and neighbors on bigoted remarks about Latinos, remarks which have happened a fair few times at neighborhood meetings, gatherings, etc.”
I’ve found that a simple “Hey, that’s kind of a fucked up thing to say” - adjusted for local profanity comfort levels and the formality of the reason for meeting - works wonders. Most people who use bigoted language do seem to know on one level that they shouldn’t, and the only thing that keeps it alive is social permissiveness in the group where it’s used. It’s fun to be naughty in groups.
I think the key is to present your objection as personal rather than cultural, which should be the case anyway. “That offends me” is far less presumptuous than “That’s offensive,” and more likely to open the door to constructive explanation of the offense.
Any ethnically homogenous group of people is probably going to ridicule someone from another, more privileged ethnicity who tells them how they should speak, and will resent the hell out of someone who tells them how they should speak as a group. Yeah, it’d be beyond the pale to launch into a monologue about “prejudice in the black community” on the basis of one person’s thoughtless comment, but I don’t think that’s what you’re considering, right?
And Peter OGRD, you’re spot on with the we/you/they distinction. Concise - I like it.
Ms Kate:
I’m less optimistic about the nature of the baby step. While the church was willing to be (sort of) open and accepting, by balking at the directory and discussing firing the pastor over the recognition that LGBT families exist, it seems to me that the inclusivity was more for the benefit of the consciences of straight Christians than it was for the welfare of queer ones.
The church seems to offer the same deal proponents of civil unions do: we’ll make things easier on LGBT folk so long as they don’t demand recognition as equals. The invidious opinions of inequality are preserved (the church is “inclusive” but they won’t publish the directory?), but by offering the baby step, the proponent feels less like a homophobe.
Gratuitous plug for atheism: No god, no church, no problem!
I have to say, at risk of telling a they joke, I just don’t get why LGBT folks would want to go to a Southern Baptist church.
That said, I think “baby steps” need to be put in context. These are Southern Baptists in Fort Worth, Texas. They appear to be going through a crisis of conscience, and to be struggling with the issue sincerely, although clearly many of them remain misguided. A couple of the parishioners quoted sounded decent and compassionate. Not all of them are, evidently.
The notion of firing the pastor was never officially entertained, merely voiced by a few church members. They reached the sort of bogus, watery compromise that resolves nothing, but they are Southern Baptists in Fort Worth.
It’s a baby step, no more but also no less. You’d never see auch an article 25 years ago — dateline Fort Worth. People, it’s a conservative, traditionally blue-collar town.
Godmonkey,
I understand that this is about Southern Baptists in Forth Worth. However, any group of which I was a member that refused to recognize my family as a family is quite simply not worthy of my membership. Baby steps and whatever, but life’s to short to spend it surrounded by bigots.
Hey Pam -
I’m not a regular reader, nor do we see eye to eye on many a political issue, but this post - particularly the bit about Obama’s political highwire work re: religious black voters and LGBT issues and the cowardice of white politicians on the subject - is sensibly put and important.
Usually the answer to this is “because they’re Southern Baptists.”
Bravo!! This paragraph might seem like an obvious point if you don’t really think about the fact that so many people are incredibly uncomfortable with challenging bigotry. The way you put it is so spot on, and so needs to be said to a lot of people, that I felt like standing up and cheering.
If you are a person who holds that what the Bible says is true, and what it contains is divinely inspired, then is it loving and compassionate to encourage someone who is making choices that will inhibit their relationship with God to continue making poor choices.
Discipleship is walking alongside of someone in a loving relationship that encourages in faith and knowledge of the character of God. Discipleship challenges to have a personal and developing relationship with Jesus. That relationship is about turning away from the world and focusing totally on Him.
The church will not be effective unless it is a group that shows extraordinary love and grace, but also directs people away from choices hinder a healthy relationship with Jesus. The truth of the Bible is going to offend some, the challenge is to let the truth divide those who want to receive it and those who don’t. The people of the church need to lovingly point each other to the truth and let God separate the wheat from the chaff.
The truth of the Bible is going to offend some
I’m still waiting for evidence such “Truth” exists.
MAjeff,
Precisely. That’s why I don’t go anywhere near Southern Baptist churches, and can’t comprehend why a gay person would want to. I mean, sure, “because they’re Southern Baptists” or whatever, but come on. Being Southern Baptist is a choice, not a race or a, well, sexual orientation. It’s a deliberate concurrence with their worldview, it would seem to me.
One factoid and I’ll shut up: Until 10 or 15 years ago, the Southern Baptist Church prohibited dancing, fercryinoutloud. Says it all.
Late to the party, but I’m actually technically still a member of Broadway Baptist, and I wanted to point out that Broadway is not affiliated in any way with the Southern Baptist Convention. Certain members would like it to be, but it’s affiliated with the more moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
I’ve gotta say, it’s kind of wild reading about the church in which i grew up on a blog that i’ve been reading for close to four years…
Wow, sorry to assume. Living in Texas, you learn two hard-and-fast rules: Barbecue sauce is served on the side as a condiment, and Baptist means Southern Baptist.
Not so hard-and-fast as I thought, apparently.