Inclusive Enough? Exposing Queerphobia in Progressive Christianity
Headlines were flying last month after Ellen Page tweeted criticism of Chris Pratt for allegedly attending an anti-LGBTQ+ church. Pratt fired back on Instagram arguing that his church was welcoming, but Page refused to be silenced: When asked by another Twitter user why any church should have to take a stance, Page said, “That’s called complacency.” A similar, wide-scale conversation took place at the United Methodist Church (UMC) General Conference meeting, where denominational delegates voted to continue a ban on ordaining LGBTQ+ clergy and same-gender marriages. So what does LGBTQ+ affirmation in Christian spaces actually look like in today’s world? Besides bad theology, churches face inner turmoil when faced with the decision to start the conversation about affirming queer people in their communities.
The United Church of Christ (UCC), a relatively small, progressive Christian denomination, has been dedicated to the fight for the rights of LGBTQ+ people since 1972. Despite progressive stances at the national level, covert homophobia and transphobia still remain problems, especially among interim clergy and churches with mixed views. In recent years, my home church in suburban Connecticut has employed two interim pastors during transitional periods, both of whom were approached with the topic of starting the “Open and Affirming” (ONA) process, or the conversation that a church undertakes to welcome all LGBTQ+ individuals into the life of the community. Both interim pastors rejected proposals to start the process, under the assumption that beginning the ONA process could further divide the church and damage their reputations as interim pastors. The lack of willingness to engage in the conversation towards becoming an inclusive community is a violent decision that deems queer Christians second class members and prevents them from fully integrating in the life of the community.
The assumption that interim pastors would be responsible for the ONA process, however, is misleading. The process used by UCC churches, designed by the Institute for Welcoming Resources, does not necessitate any sort of pastoral involvement in carrying out the process, nor does it recommend the exploration of ONA be led by clergy. Rather, it is led by a group of people with a passion for welcoming all people into the life of the church.
Pastors, regardless of their settled or interim status, have a unique position in the early stages of the ONA process within the UCC. Although the Institute for Welcoming Resources does not require pastoral involvement, the Open and Affirming Coalition of the United Church of Christ recommends that the parishioners who are interested in starting the process first consult with their pastor. Pastors are then forced to face a moral dilemma. Interim pastors, due to the temporary status of their positions, run the risk of not finding another placement if they become known for splitting churches over so-called “divisive” issues like LGBTQ+ affirmation. Ultimately, the stipulation empowers the pastor to make the decision to either reject or approve the start of the process. Although a group does not necessarily need a pastor’s approval to move forward with ONA, certainly rejecting the conversation in its early stages would discourage church members from engaging in affirming the faith journeys of LGBTQ+ people.
Both interims from my home church rejected the ONA process during the formative stage. The first rejection occurred during a conversation I had with my pastor after I felt that addressing LGBTQ+ issues was becoming more critical within a broader societal context and for the church to survive in today’s world. The second happened after an all-congregational meeting, during which starting the process was discussed—but later left out of meeting minutes. In these cases, both interim pastors used their authoritative position to prevent the church from becoming a more welcoming community. By doing so, they prioritized their own concerns over inclusion and progressive values of the UCC. In the UCC, more than 1,500 congregations have become ONA, indicating the widespread movement of churches welcoming LGBTQ+ people. The majority of UCC churches, however, are not ONA, since there were five-thousand UCC churches listed in 2016 located in the United States.
Hannah Snyder-Samuelson, a openly lesbian seminarian at Union Theological Seminary and member of the UCC, completed an internship at an ONA church in suburban Connecticut. She considers ONA to be an important ministry.
A number of years after the church made this decision, she said, “This work had a lasting effect that helped open the community to discuss issues about racial inequality as well as LGBTQ+ justice.”
Furthermore, Snyder-Samuelson’s home church in suburban Pennsylvania started the ONA process, but the church has moved slowly, and they have not made any official decision yet. Snyder-Samuelson mentioned a number of factors that led to this outcome, including a fear of potential divisiveness, a lack of connection to progressive views of the national denomination, and a decades-long culture of neutrality. Despite the slow pace, she has hope for the future.
“I do think they'll move forward soon, and I want to respect their effort to work thoughtfully and deliberately through the process,” Snyder-Samuelson said, “We have lots of out LGBT folks who are in leadership roles now, and I feel protective of the work they've done to get there.”
Despite progress in some churches, homophobia and transphobia remain problems in UCC churches. The decision to reject the ONA process is not justifiable in a denomination with a commitment to social justice or in a sociopolitical climate where addressing these issues is urgent. The Building an Inclusive Church Toolkit contains a congregational assessment tool to determine an appropriate pace for the ONA process, ranging from a few months to five or more years, depending on the existing culture of the church. Overall, the ONA process is designed to succeed because its creation is based on numerous factors that affect how change happens in religious communities. With this consideration, the ONA process can be adapted to each church, regardless of whether interim pastors or the church itself view the community as ready to begin.
Interim pastors may delay ONA with the intention that it will prevent further conflict in the congregation and allow the community to focus on other issues they may be facing during transitional periods, such as balancing finances, upkeep of the building, or identifying the next mission of the church. This move is often done in communities that have few queer-identifying members and where interim pastors view ONA as less vital. This prioritization fosters a spiritually damaging relationship between LGBTQ+ people, the faith community, and God, where the validation of queer Christian faith journeys are seen as less important than keeping the doors open. By doing so, interim pastors participate in enabling heteronormativity that restrains the possibility of queer people’s faith journeys to be affirmed in local UCC churches and encourages the church to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people. As a progressive Christian denomination that has committed to the support of queer folks, pockets of homophobia and transphobia are still hidden among UCC clergy who prioritize the survival of the institutional church and their own reputations over the call to the pursuit of justice and making Christian faith in its fullness accessible to all individuals.
These issues are not unique to the UCC, unfortunately. Michael D. McGarvey, a student at Middle Tennessee State University who is discerning the call to ministry in the United Methodist Church (UMC), said that he has suggested to his congregation to begin the the Reconciling in Christ (RIC) process, or the equivalent process to become ONA in other Protestant denominations.
Regarding his work with Methodist churches, he said, “One church was afraid of putting a label on ‘something they already were.’ They were afraid that if they told the world how we believed that people who disagreed would never come.”
The problem of appealing to homophobic views, however, creates a spiritually and socially damaging environment for queer people.
“All of these experiences reinforced to me that my experience as a gay man in the UMC was not worth the same respect as my heterosexual church goers,” McGarvey said, “It's a really scary time to be discerning a call into ministry.”
By making the decision to preserve anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes in churches, congregations delay the inevitable conversation about becoming more inclusive. Churches that have failed to open their doors to all people face serious decisions about how they move into the future, especially as American society becomes generally more accepting of queer people. Pushing the issue of inclusivity aside leaves the issue to fester. When congregations sweep ONA under the rug, they intensify an impending eruption of a church that has always been divided, even if the division was never spoken aloud. This results in an emotionally charged debate between the laggards, who have been maintaining the status quo, and queer folks, who feel like second class members.
Rebekah Anderson, a UCC student at Union Theological Seminary and disability justice activist, said that experiencing homophobia and transphobia in churches is usually inconspicuous, which helps to avoid the conversation about the validation of queer members.
“If a church isn’t ONA, then they won’t say it,” Anderson said, “I’ve never experienced outright hatred. But I’ve experienced attitudes like, ‘We can’t talk about that.’”
Anderson states that church members who disagree with being ONA are often caught in the tension of “rocking the boat,” and not wanting to openly affirm LGBTQ+ people.
“The important question,” Anderson posed, “is: Why isn’t church a place where we can have open conversations?”
Ongoing conversations are a key factor in becoming and staying an inclusive church. Katie Adams, a queer member of an RIC church in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, found her community to be supportive of her identity as a queer person.
“It was validating,” she said, “But I was also very closeted until I was a teenager.”
But Adams is concerned that a lack of ongoing conversation can cause complacency in communities that do not engage in the work of being inclusive from intersectional perspectives.
“It was around the same time that I realized what a disservice we were doing to queer people of color, trans people, disabled queer people, and low self-esteem people, or basically anyone who wasn’t a white middle class gay man or lesbian,” Adams stated.
“A lot of congregations won’t give LGBTQ people leadership roles. Queer people of color are almost never included in the conversation, and churches that are overwhelmingly hetero or cis are doing little to change because they’re comfortable,” Adams said, “Some churches that claim to be RIC are not actually fully welcoming because they haven’t done the work.”
There is no process for losing RIC status, either.
“You don’t get RIC status ‘revoked’ officially,” Adams stated, “But you’d lose members and your reputation in your community.”
Are pastors and the wider church doing the work of God if they do not prioritize inclusivity? Certainly there is more to ministry than taking care of the majority and sacrificing queer faith journeys in exchange for keeping church buildings open. Is a church really being a church if it is a home to people who are treated as second class members? Jesus befriended those on the outskirts of society and brought them into community and helped people to see each other as neighbors. Pastors and congregations need to consider the broader implications of giving low priority to conversations about inclusivity. Long term delays of important conversations further marginalize LGBTQ+ folks from the church. The conversation about ONA has to be a priority in UCC and other Protestant and Christian communities.