7 Reasons Why LGBTQ+ People Don't Want to Go to Your LGBTQ+ Inclusive Church

[Heddi]

7 Reasons Why LGBTQ+ People Don’t Want to Go to Your LGBTQ+ Inclusive Church

https://bookishbearblog.com/2018/06/11/7-reasons-why-lgbtq-people-dont-want-to-go-to-your-lgbtq-inclusive-church/

So your church is LGBTQ affirming. Congratulations, your denomination has most likely endured years of internal strife and division, and come out on the side of inclusivity. This isn’t something to be taken for granted – entire denominations have split over this question, and still others seem not at all willing to budge on their centuries-worth of LGBTQ intolerance. Yet, as you go to church week after week, you ask your gay or trans friends to join you and you receive a bewildering response. They’re just not interested.
...
So let’s start with listing the reasons why LGBTQ+ individuals might not want to go to church at all. This isn’t to tell you in every case what to do about it, but to get you to understand and think a little deeper about the perspective of queer people in the face of religion, Christianity in particular. The more you understand that position, the more dialogue you can foster with us.
....
1. In general, people aren’t going to church anymore
...
2. As inclusive as yours may be, churches are overwhelmingly cisgender, heterosexual spaces
..
3. Many LGBTQ+ persons have experienced religious trauma, some of it profound
...
4. Religious belief in general fundamentally disrupts the ways that many LGBTQ+ persons have learned to find meaning in their lives
...
5. Church institutions tend to submit everything and everybody to the “pastoral gaze”
...
6. Churches tend to micromanage even healthy sexual expressions
...
7. Your church isn’t as LGBTQ+ inclusive as it thinks it is
--------

THere is much more at the link than is allowed to be posted here, and I think it touches on issues that I personally have never seen discussed here in either the religion group or on DU.

As someone who is a member of the LGBT community, many of the issues the author points out are spot on, and while I am an Atheist and would not go to a church for many reasons, there are instances where friends or family have encouraged me to tag along for one reason or another, and used the 'but they're gay friendly" as a hook to get me to go. I feel that the author verbalized so much better what I never could beyond the "yabbut I'm an atheist and I don't believe in God" because it's much more than that. I can sit through a prayer, or a bible verse as well as anyone. It's more than that. Just because you hang a rainbow flag doesn't mean the chapel behind that space is welcoming and inclusive to the community. Many times, it feels like we're being thrown piecemeal offerings of "take this, we tolerate you, now shut up and be happy we're not calling you dirty sinners and throwing stones at you. What more do you want? You already have a seat at the table."

[msongs]

1. I attend a UU church but not for religion, rather for social justice n friends nt

[blur256]

3. Thank you for that friend

My wife is a UFC minister and we need all the allies we can get.

[safeinOhio]

8. The first gay minister to come out in this country

is a UU minister in Columbus Ohio. Seems every UU Church I’ve been to includes gays and atheists as well as about every other religion and culture.
I’m drawn there because of the many college profs and old hippies. My kind of people.

[blur256]

11. I love the UUs. If I wasn't UCC I would be one.

But there were a large part of my wife's seminary that were UU. Which we loved and we are all friends now. Her seminary was very inclusive. It also accepted American Baptists as well as they had dual classes with the Jewish college next door who was also very receptive of the lgbtq community.

[3catwoman3]

5. I participate with a UU congregation, too.

(Can't bring myself to call it "going to church.&quot

Genuinely inclusive, and people who definitely walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. some of the most enlightened and committed people I have ever known. I'm 67, so I've known a lot of people.

[blur256]

2. So my wife is a UCC minister

Hopefully getting ordained soon. She has lived in New England for about 8 or 9 years now and I have lived here almost 3. Anyway, her first church she was at said they were ona but when we got married they were shocked. To be fair, she was married to a man prior to our relationship and we started dating while they were still married (with his consent).
They threw a huge fit when another member who had a lesbian mother bought a gay flag to put outside the church. There were several meetings where people said they were supportive of lgbtq causes but didn't feel like the church needed to advertise it. Although I never joined that church, I attended one of those meetings and stated that I had not been to church in years prior to this because I did not feel like I belonged there, but the flag made me feel welcome.
When I first started talking to my wife again (we went to college together) I told her I was willing to try church out. We were living on opposite sides of the country at that point but I told her I would go that Sunday. The first church I found was UNC and they had a rainbow flag outside. Many of the members of that church were lgbtq. It was the first time in a long time that I felt welcomed at church.
Long story short I moved to the east coast to marry my wife. She is now working at another ona church. Although we are only one of maybe three lgbtq couples there we feel so welcome. A lot of church members wear rainbow flag lapel pins every Sunday to let guests know they support our cause.
I get it. I get how exclusive religion can be but it doesn't have to be that way. For my wife's second masters she went to a school where at least 25% of the population was lgbtq. I am hoping that the more the community gets involved that we will see a trend toward inclusion. I get why people don't come. But there are people trying to make it better.

[Voltaire2]

4. Great post.

Never applied in my family as we just aren't religious. My daughter has enough on her plate dealing with gender bigotry without religion in the mix.

[TygrBright]

6. I would add this one:

"Faith" isn't the same as "religion."

Neither is "spirituality" the same as "religion."

Many LGBTQ+ folk have profound spirituality in their lives, and some even have faith orientations that superficially resemble religions that share the name.

But religions tend to be about promoting group cohesion via adherence to specific rituals based in theological interpretations. It's not always a bad thing- religious groups can have positive influence in promoting social justice, in supporting members during significant life experiences, in providing a sense of social belonging.

All of that can be excellent, but it isn't always satisfying in terms of spiritual sustenance or the nurture of individual faith. And for people whose identity as LGBTQ+ is an essential element of "self", spirituality and faith may have a different kind of importance and a different relationship to who they are than a "church" experience can provide.

speculatively,
Bright

[Cartoonist]

7. More #4

I went to the article but it didn't really elaborate on that.

[left-of-center2012]

9. There's always the "Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC)"

The "gay church".

https://www.mccchurch.org

[Major Nikon]

10. Most, if not all of those reasons could apply to everyone

There’s a growing demographic that just has little tolerance for intolerance. This is particularly true with younger people.

[trotsky]

13. Accurate.

And rather than look inward, the churchy folks attack.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=285485

[progressoid]

12. And then there is the patriarchy inherent in most religions.

No matter how hard they try to be "inclusive", they can't escape from the sexism, misogyny, and patriarchy written into their sacred texts.

[trotsky]

14. Look at what the largest Christian sect does.

The RCC claims tolerance, but only if you deny who you are and abide by their rules. And bigots will defend that bullshit all day long with ridiculous false comparisons like "well the RCC is consistent, they don't want anyone to have sex outside of marriage." Totally glossing over the fact that non-straights CAN'T GET MARRIED.

But you pretty much nailed it with this:

Many times, it feels like we're being thrown piecemeal offerings of "take this, we tolerate you, now shut up and be happy we're not calling you dirty sinners and throwing stones at you. What more do you want? You already have a seat at the table."

[kwassa]

15. Most of the gay people I currently know are clergy.

The Episcopal Church.

Our current assistant rector is gay, and married to another Episcopal same-gender priest.

The previous rector, now deceased due to cancer, was a married lesbian whose partner was an active member of the congregation. This is before marriage was legalized.

And the assistant rector of our previous church was married at National Cathedral in DC by the Bishop of Washington to her same-sex partner soon after it first became legal to do so.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Most of the gay people you know are from among your immediate peers?

Truly shocking. Alert the presses.

[trotsky]

18. Fallacy of anecdotal evidence.

"Hey I know these gay people in my church"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Not to mention selection bias...

...because I think it is safe to assume many of the gay people you encounter in a church might be, you know, religious.

[kwassa]

23. The author of this piece provides no evidence whatsoever.

It is his opinion piece. It is actually pretty good, and thoughtful, but not in the highly edited version of the OP. It is a long, discursive piece that requires the length to make the points. I think the author has a very limited experience of different churches, and some of his ideas, such as the pastoral gaze, are just plain strange. This seems like the author's personal reaction to priests. As I have said, we have many women and gay priests. There is no judgmental aspect in our church about sexuality.

That, and micromanaging sex lives. I've never been in a church that tries to manage anyone's sex life. Some of the points about inclusivity are very valid.

I've known lots of gay people over the course of my life. I have friendships going back decades. Most of the ones I currently encounter, as I said, are in church. I do have gay co-workers who I have no idea whether they are religious or not.

My sole point is this: there are gays that are very, very comfortable in church.

Here is a photo from the article.

[Mariana]

25. "...there are gays that are very, very comfortable in church."

The author never said or implied otherwise.

[kwassa]

29. Of course he did.

That is what his article was about.

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. The article was about LGBTQ+ individuals who do not feel comfortable in church.

In no way, shape, or form did the author suggest this encompasses all LGBTQ+ identifying people. In fact, he used the qualifier "many".

[kwassa]

49. This is an opinion piece, not an article.

Unsupported by anything but his opinion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

53. If you're going to be pedantic, you should at least try to be right.

An article is defined as a piece of non-fiction prose included in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication... which, incidentally, accurately describes the OP source.

Also, not to criticize or anything, but if you want to expose a specious claim, the usual tactic is to fire back with facts, figures, and statistics... not more unsubstantiated or anecdotal claims. For example, I would suggest linking to this Pew Survey that shows nearly half (48%) of polled LGBTQ+ respondants having no religion... oh wait.

[kwassa]

55. So what? They are welcome in our church

Whether you like it or not.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

56. This article tries to shed light on why they might not actually feel that way.

You being dismissive of those feelings doesn't make them go away.

But, yeah, I'm sure your church is the one place where these feelings don't apply.

[Voltaire2]

21. Wasn't there a schism in 2010 over equality?

[kwassa]

22. Some dioceses attempted to leave the church over gay marriage.

All of them ended up in various state supreme courts, as they attempted to take church property with them.

The schismatics lost everywhere but in Texas, their only victory. They even lost in South Carolina.

[Voltaire2]

24. So that would be Yes.

Perhaps this history of your sect might illuminate what the article is talking about.

[kwassa]

28. no, because ....

those schismatics never pretended to be inclusive. This article is about those that claim inclusivity, but LBQGT are not interested.

They won't even ordain women, which is pretty retro in the Episcopal Church, because we have been doing that since the 70s.

[Voltaire2]

30. Your sect schisms over equality but you have

no idea why LGBTQ people might not want to get involved with religion.

[Lordquinton]

31. Thatthe immediate argumentis to discredit anything that challanges their view

is very telling. It's equivalent to the typical "Not all men" argument that gets tossed out. the "Not all religions" argument is very popular to discredit any criticism of any religion ever "The RCC is extremely homophobic" "Well actually, many catholics are accepting of gays" and other popular deflections.

[kwassa]

33. I have no problem with criticism of religion.

If it is informed.

Saying that many Catholics are accepting of gays is not deflection, it is an accurate observation. The RCC as an institution is not, though Pope Francis is edging that way.

In the Episcopal church, on a national level, the church is accepting of gays in every role in the church.

[Lordquinton]

36. That is a deflection though

It's changing the topic from the baseline teachings of the church to individuals.

And no, Francis is doing more harm than good, he's actually traveling the world fighting marrige equality, he just wants to seem like he's doing a better job than before, and it's working. The church isn't changing the way they want people to think, they just have better PR.

Just remember that when you respond to a post that talks about issues that have to be solved with "My church isn't like that" you're doing a "Not all men" kind of reply. So no, you don't get a cookie and a pat on the head for belonging to a church that isn't acting like a monster.

[kwassa]

37. No deflection.

There is nothing in the OP that talks about baseline teachings vs. individuals.

There is nothing in the Episcopal church anywhere that teaches discrimination against gays.

I actually don't know what your point is, if you have a point. The OP is one individual's grand assessment on all churches. It is only his personal opinion. There is nothing to indicate he has the authority to speak on behalf of the majority of gay people.

and this:

Just remember that when you respond to a post that talks about issues that have to be solved with "My church isn't like that" you're doing a "Not all men" kind of reply. So no, you don't get a cookie and a pat on the head for belonging to a church that isn't acting like a monster.

You don't understand. The OP author made a broadbrush generalization that is false. When I showed that it was false, you dismiss me. You don't dismiss my evidence, you dismiss me.

Underwhelming, to say the least.

[Lordquinton]

38. Yea, deflection

You didn't address any of the points, just "Well, not all churches" when he was specifically addressing the ones that claim to be LGBTQIA friendly. You didn't show anything in the OP to be false, in fact you fall afoul of #2 in his list.

The more I think about it and reread the article, the more I think you didn't read past the headline. You didn't show anything to be false, and even reinforced several of his points. In fact in this thread your claim was proven false, as the Episcopal church nearly split over this issue. It didn't, which means the anti-inclusive branch is still a part of your church.

You don't dismiss my evidence, you dismiss me.

What, you mean what you are doing to the author? You didn't supply any new evidence that wasn't already covered, in fact it more undermines your own argument. I was pointing out an argumentative fallacy you were using. You didn't address any of his actual points, just the headline.

[kwassa]

40. We are LGBTQ friendly, and he is wrong.

As an institution, the Episcopal Church is friendly to gays.

I showed him to be false be sharing my real life experience in the Episcopal Church. I have offered the same quality of evidence he has, which is anecdotal. And, I have studied the issues on a wider level. I have no idea what he has done, as he has offered no back up on his perceptions.

and you claim a fallacy, but don't prove it.

This group loves to claim fallacies. And not prove them. Fallacy claims are evidence of nothing.

[trotsky]

42. kwassa, the article is specifically written for someone like you.

It is noting that no matter how inclusive your church is, no matter how wonderful YOU think it is, there are STILL reasons LGBTQ+ people might not want to go to it.

So once again you're arguing against a straw man.

[kwassa]

44. no, trotsky.

I am arguing the specifics of my church against the undifferentiated view of the OP writer about all inclusive churches.

[trotsky]

47. And yet, there will STILL be people who won't want to go to your church, no matter how much PR.

This article tries to explain why. Pity you don't care and would rather just spout "NOT MY CHURCH!"

[kwassa]

50. How would you know?

You've never been to my church.

[trotsky]

52. Doubling down with your "not all men" strategy - how bold!

Tell me, do you think it's *possible*, just maybe, that there might be just ONE non-straight, non-cis person out there who might not want to go to your church?

[kwassa]

32. All religion is local.

They walk into a church, they like it or they don't. They are focused on what the local community provides them.

My diocese is very liberal, as is the majority of the church. The same culture wars that go on in every other aspect of society go on in the national church. In ours, the conservatives lost on a national level, but there are very conservative churches. Church policy, on a national level, is quite liberal.

[Voltaire2]

34. well that is nonsense

but you seem to be speaking as an authority for all lgbtq people so i guess you know better.

[kwassa]

35. You don't even have an argument.

If you think you do, state it.

Calling something nonsense is not proving something nonsense. It is avoiding dealing with the things I have stated out of my life experience. What experience have you had in the Episcopal church?

In no point in this conversation have I ever suggested that I speak for all lgbtq people. If you think I have, prove it.

And, what is your point, anyways? Do you have a point?

[Lordquinton]

39. You didn't claim to speak for all LGBTQIA people

you claim to speak for all Episcopalian people though.

[kwassa]

41. I have a good sense of the overall Episcopal church.

I have studied the subject, over time.

[Voltaire2]

43. Oh so I guess I misunderstood

When you wrote:

They walk into a church, they like it or they don't. They are focused on what the local community provides them.

I thought “they” referred to lgbtq people, but you’ve clarified that “they” meant episcopaleans. My mistake. Your point now doesn’t make any sense, but obviously my objection was irrelevant.

[kwassa]

45. No, they meant all human beings that walked into the church.

I am sorry if I was not more clear.

[Voltaire2]

46. Oh so you now speak for everyone who walks into

a church. I actually don’t think that is what you originally meant, but if you are now claiming everyone you are rejecting entirely any different experience for the subset of everyone that is the set of lgbtq people. Sort of the point of the article.

[kwassa]

51. You don't do this very well.

You have to be more persuasive when you try to put words in my mouth that I never said.

[Voltaire2]

57. Your words:

No, they meant all human beings that walked into the church.

[Iggo]

16. Seven.

Seven.

Seven.

Seven.

Seven.

Seven.

Seven.

[Heddi]

19. Watch out....that's a dangerous word

Or at least it used to be

[KansasKali]

26. I can think of a few more

8. To quote Tyler Perry's Madea "I'll go to church when they put in a smoking section and a bar."
9. Brunch
10. Some of us are atheists or other non-believers.

[Runningdawg]

27. #3

It's still a church. I get anxiety just thinking about what happened there in my past. When the door closes behind me I feel exactly like most of you would if it were the door to your cell.

[AlexSFCA]

54. Because LGBT had enough BS already

It seems that MCC is having hard time attracting heteros so I am seeing them at every pride event trying to recruit new clients. We call them ‘gay churches’. All these churches cherry pick what’s convenient for them. If someone wants to beleive in god, they don’t need any churches. Many of these places play more of a social gathering role than anything else.