My Ally Road Trip has highlighted my effort to interact with local churches who have publicly expressed welcome to LGBTQ people.
I have a lot of friends in the Christian church and some of them are wondering, "Why wouldn't members of the LGBTQ community feel welcomed by the Christian church?"
For people who have never engaged this topic before, the question can be sincere. After all, many churches go out of their way to say, "All Are Welcome" or "Come as You Are." In fact, many Christians pride themselves on the warm and inviting atmosphere of their faith community.
So why would members of the LGBTQ community feel unwelcome at church?
(My LGBTQ friends who are reading this may need a moment to recover from the world's biggest facepalm after reading that question. But, remember, this blog is intended for people who are new to this concept! Baby steps, yo, baby steps.)
The Christian church has a long and well-documented history of doing harm to LGBTQ people. (I'd also argue that the Christian church has a long and well-documented history of radical love, reconciliation, and selfless service, but this does not erase the harm that has also been done.)
Instead of examining the depth and breadth of this history of harm, I intend to start very small. Let's provide a little context.
Let's narrow that question a little bit. Why would members of the LGBTQ community here in Springfield, OH feel unwelcome at church?
To answer that question, let's go back a few years to 2011.
The City of Springfield has an ordinance (a local law) which says it is illegal to discriminate against a person based on based on race, religion, ancestry, sex, national origin, age and disability.
You'll notice, this ordinance does not mention sexual orientation. In other words, if someone experiences discrimination because of their sexuality, this ordinance does not offer protection.
In order to broaden these discrimination protections, some citizens tried to add the words "sexual orientation" to the language of the ordinance.
When this change was suggested, a group of churches united to stand in opposition.
Twenty-one local churches joined together and wrote a letter, asking the City Commission to reject the addition of the words "sexual orientation" to the anti-discrimination ordinance. These twenty-one churches went on to claim that there had been no proven cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation in Springfield, thus rendering the change unnecessary.
Twenty-one churches! Think for a moment. When is the last time twenty-one churches in Springfield united to do anything?
If you are a majority culture Christian in Springfield, you might see the church as a place where all are welcome. But, if you are an LGBTQ person in Springfield, perhaps you see the church as the group who banded together to publicly stand against equal protection under the law for you and your family.
In 2011 and 2012, the proposed change was hotly debated in Springfield. Vocal opponents attended public meetings to speak out against the inclusion of the words "sexual orientation" in the anti-discrimination codes. Among these vocal opponents were pastors and religious leaders.
I'll admit with regret, I was not personally involved in the efforts to bring about anti-discrimination protection for LGBTQ people in 2011-2012. But, I do have a brief personal account which illustrates the level of volatility involved in the discussion.
At the time, I was not yet an active member of Equality Springfield. Despite my absence from the scene, I had been following this story with great interest. My schedule prevented me from attending the public meetings, but when I expressed my support for LGBT equality, my employer (at a Christian non-profit organization) attacked me on social media, questioned my faith, accused me of "not believing the Bible," and threatened to fire me on two separate occasions.
(Those of you who were Facebook friends with me at the time might remember some of these matters spilling onto my page.)
I do not share this to present myself as some kind of martyr. I'm not, by any means, a martyr. In fact, in my position of privilege, I was afforded the opportunity to tender my resignation from that organization face to face, under true "going out in a blaze of glory" conditions. The opportunity for me to do such was a privilege many others were never granted.
My personal persecution is non-existent, but this story illustrates some of the naked vitriol on display in our city during that time period.
Imagine what this must have been like for our LGBTQ neighbors.
Imagine you have gone to your city leaders, simply asking to be granted protection from housing and workplace discrimination. Who do you see expending the most time and energy to stand in opposition? The religious community.
In January 2012, Equality Springfield created a report, summarizing the process up until that point and citing examples of discrimination in our city. (Also, see this article from 2014, referring to the billboard project which followed.)
In February 2012, commissioners voted 3-2 against amending the city’s anti-discrimination codes. Commissioners Dan Martin, Joyce Chilton and Kevin O’Neill voted against the issue, while Mayor Warren Copeland and Commissioner Karen Duncan voted in favor of adding sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination codes.
This discussion was revisited in June 2016, when the Human Relations Board produced a report, documenting LGBT discrimination in the city.
To date, there has been no change to the ordinance.
Listen, church of Springfield, I'm not attacking you. Heck, I'm one of you, in a lot of ways. But if the Christian church is truly going to be loving to their LGBTQ neighbors in this city, they must first come to grips with their history of harmful actions. On a local level.
Context is key.
It's not enough to print All Are Welcome on your sign. After all, there are people in town who remember the time the churches of the city gathered together and opposed equal protection for an entire group of people.
A Footnote On Religious Freedom:
I won't outline the merits of the anti-discrimination ordinance in this post, that is for a later time (I am a strong supporter of adding "sexual orientation" to the ordinance). But because there are a few parallels with the current Ohio legislation called the Pastor Protection Act, I will mention one thing.
Some opponents to the anti-discrimination ordinance cited religious freedom as a concern. In short, they were worried they would face legal penalty if they refused to officiate the marriage of a same-sex couple. I'll point out that clergy already have the freedom to choose which weddings to officiate and which weddings to decline. Clergy already have these rights under the First Amendment of our United States Constitution and Article I of Ohio’s Constitution. For example, a pastor can choose not to legally marry a couple because they are not members of his congregation, or because they have not attended approved counseling, or because his religious convictions prohibit him from endorsing the union.
The proposed change to Springfield's city ordinance would not take away any of those freedoms, but would provide protection for LGBTQ people against workplace and housing discrimination. In relation to housing, there are some federal guidelines which can protect against housing discrimination, but there are no state or federal laws protecting the citizens of Springfield from discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
No comments:
Post a Comment