Safe Havens

The following post is from Brent Bailey, a Master of Divinity student at Abilene Christian University. Brent will be interning with us again at The Marin Foundation this summer and you can find his blog at oddmanout.net.

I want us to imagine the church functioning as a support system that empowers people to come out.
.

I was recently reacquainted with a well-known quote from Harvey Milk: “Every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends if indeed they are your friends. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in. Once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and all. And once you do, you will feel so much better.” The quote reignited an ongoing conversation I’ve been having with a roommate about how to change the negative perceptions and attitudes that exist about LGBT individuals, especially those perceptions and attitudes that exist among Christians.

The two of us have gradually arrived at a similar conclusion: The situation in our culture would change dramatically and swiftly if every sexual minority came out. The most conservative estimates suggest 3% of the population experiences nontraditional sexuality. If every one of them came out to everyone in their corner of the world, it would be immediately conspicuous. The terminology they’d use would be their own, obviously, whether they felt most comfortable with the language of “lesbian” or “transgender” or “bisexual” or “same-sex attracted” or any other variation, but the effect would be the same: Absolutely everyone (at least everyone who knows 30 people) would be directly connected to an openly LGBT individual.

When I envision that scenario, I tend to focus on the positive changes I’d anticipate coming at a breathtaking pace: Ignorance would decline as uninformed people (and please realize there are people across the spectrum of ideology who are uninformed) had the opportunity to ask honest, probing questions to people they already knew and loved and trusted before they learned they were gay or bisexual or transgender. Thoughtlessly homophobic vocabulary would dwindle as people calculated the probability that someone in the room would be hurt by their saying, “That’s so gay.” Church conversations about sexual ethics would no longer be able to talk about homosexuality as a problem for those people out there, since churchgoers would recognize in what close proximity they’re standing to LGBT individuals in a packed auditorium on any given Sunday. And, of course, the situation would change significantly for LGBT individuals as well. If we all came out, it would be tough for any remaining feelings of isolation or abnormality to survive among us, and I think shame and self-loathing would evaporate quickly as well.

I base these predictions off the best of what I’ve seen in my experiences coming out to others, but undoubtedly the reality would be less rosy than what I’ve painted. There are many cases, for example, when someone’s coming out has led to further polarization and cloistering in the people around them, but I think this reaction would be difficult to maintain if an uninformed person were connected to two, or five, or twenty openly LGBT individuals. Other negative consequences would result. Certain factions would urgently build up arms for an ongoing culture war, certain individuals would react with noisy fear and anger, etc., etc., etc. Regardless of the mixture of reactions, though, at least we would all have a much more accurate perception of the situation: Who we are, where we are, how many we are, what we’re like, what we’re not like.

Okay, so this is the point in the ongoing conversation with my roommate in which I repeatedly feel a responsibility as the gay person to speak up on behalf of closeted individuals: As much as we can discuss an romanticized version of how society would change for the better if sexual minorities weren’t invisible, it’s simply not possible or advisable for every person to come out today. Many individuals are not in a position to risk losing what they could potentially lose—much less to endure the emotional weight of the process—and many families and communities are not prepared to respond with compassion and sensitivity or to address the questions that would inevitably arise. (Many LGBT individuals simply don’t feel any particular compulsion to come out, at least not beyond an intimate circle of loved ones.) The dangers and wounds of homophobia cut deep, both for our society and for many closeted sexual minorities, and it’s foolish to ignore the intimidating obstacles that force people to keep secrets. I wish I felt credible calling every sexual minority to come out, but to be entirely frank, I don’t feel as though I have the right, since the process of coming out hasn’t cost me nearly as much as it has cost some and would probably cost others.

So, what would be required in order for every sexual minority to feel safe coming out today? We’d need some kind of solid support structure. There are still many states—like the one I call home—in which people can lose jobs and housing merely for coming out as gay, so people would need assurance others would be ready to cover their most basic needs as necessary. (This would be especially essential for LGBT youth, who suffer a disproportionately high rate of homelessness.) We’d also need to provide social and emotional support for those people whose relationships would suffer or disappear as a result of their coming out. And, of course, those in Christian circles would need to prepare themselves to walk with the sexual minorities in their midst as they journeyed through questions about identity and God’s calling on their lives. We’d need to be informed enough to extend fellowship in the most helpful and meaningful ways.

In other words: A support system for people coming out would require something remarkably similar to what the earliest churches were for the earliest Christians. Consequences for identifying as a follower of Jesus were often severe for those early Christians, and it appears becoming part of one of the early Christian churches was similar to becoming part of a new family, at least in social and economic terms. Houses belonging to church members evidently served as church assembly halls (Acts 12:2; I Cor 16:19; Col 4:15) and hotels for traveling Christians (Acts 16:15; Gal 1:18?), and new converts in Jerusalem apparently didn’t hesitate to sell “property and possessions to give to anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). There’s a good chance Paul had something more involved than warm affection in mind when he offered such exhortations as, “Carry each other’s burdens” (Gal 6:2) and, “Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn” (Rom 12:15). In a time of rapid transition and church growth, these Christians quickly learned to take care of one another as they committed themselves to a Messiah who had “no place to lay his head” (Luke 9:58). What if the church learned to do the same things for sexual minorities in a culture that often punishes them for being honest?

That, friends, is something that gets me fired up: The idea that churches could become safe havens for their members to experience the refreshing joy of a life lived with honesty and integrity, rather than being part of the oppressive machine that makes that kind of honesty and integrity impossible (or at least difficult to imagine and attain). I envision churches becoming places in which people feel safer being entirely transparent than they feel anywhere else, knowing the reactions they’ll encounter will spring from unconditional love and severe humility. I envision churches that are known as houses of hospitality and places of peace, where even non-believers might seek solace and unexpectedly encounter the transforming presence of Jesus. In short, I envision churches being churches.

Have you ever witnessed a church providing this kind of holistic support for an individual whose coming out led to negative consequences elsewhere? What might be preventing other churches from demonstrating that same kind of hospitality and compassion?

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

About Andrew Marin

Andrew Marin is President and Founder of The Marin Foundation (www.themarinfoundation.org). He is author of the award winning book Love Is an Orientation (2009), its interactive DVD curriculum (2011), and recently an academic ebook titled Our Last Option: How a New Approach to Civility can Save the Public Square (2013). Andrew is a regular contributor to a variety of media outlets and frequently lectures at universities around the world. Since 2010 Andrew has been asked by the United Nations to advise their various agencies on issues of bridging opposing worldviews, civic engagement, and theological aspects of reconciliation. For twelve years he lived in the LGBT Boystown neighborhood of Chicago, and is currently based St. Andrews, Scotland, where he is teaching and researching at the University of St. Andrews earning his PhD in Constructive Theology with a focus on the Theology of Culture. Andrew's research centers on the cultural, political, and religious dynamics of reconciliation. Andrew is married to Brenda, and you can find him elsewhere on Twitter (@Andrew_Marin), Facebook (AndrewMarin01), and Instagram (@andrewmarin1).

  • http://humonastic.wordpress.com Rosten

    Brent, you said “the most conservative estimates suggest 3% of the population experiences nontraditional sexuality.” I understand why you put the conservative estimate on here, but what do you think is the most realistic estimate?

    Also, “the idea that churches could become safe havens for their members to experience the refreshing joy of a life lived with honesty and integrity, rather than being part of the oppressive machine that makes that kind of honesty and integrity impossible” fires me up too!

    • Brent Bailey

      Good question, Rosten, and I honestly don’t know what I would guess. I find it tough to estimate for (at least) two reasons:
      1. Because “sexual minority” includes bisexuality, it’s tough to estimate how many people out there experience at least some attraction to their own sex, even if they’re primarily opposite-sex attracted. I’d guess the number of people who experience some degree of same-sex attraction but still identify (not just openly, but even to themselves) as “heterosexual” is much, much larger than the number of people who identify as “bisexual.” I’m not sure whether to count the former—even if they’re essentially “bisexual” as I would define it, I’d think their self-perception should count for something.
      2. In the same vein, having spent many years denying my own orientation—even as I was entirely conscious of the fact that I was exclusively attracted to men—it’s just really tough to guess how many people out there are (a) closeted publicly but also (b) closeted to themselves.
      I suppose for the purposes of this post—people who at least personally acknowledge their same-sex attraction or gender nonconformity and would thereby be likely to come out if EVERYONE came out—I’d put it, like Joe said, somewhere in the 5-6% range, but that’s more of a hunch than anything.

  • Joe

    A realistic estimate for gay is less than 2%. “Nontraditional sexuality” includes everyone who isn’t straight – which is around 5-6%

  • http://www.facebook.com/walktherope Martyn

    Don’t you just wish that countries would add an orientation question to a census so we had actual statistics? That would be amazing! Perhaps we could lobby for this.

    • Neo

      Do you really think people would be honest enough for the numbers to be any good? I think that’s one of the difficulties with existing attempts to figure it out.

  • http://www.jerrypritikin.blogspot.com Jerry Pritikin

    I was one of thousands who left their hometown to be themselves and came to San Francisco to begin the 1960s.
    It was at the end of the Beat generation,followed by hippies/flower children,/summer of love and Peace Mongers /war protesters. And I discovered many gays within those movements. I moved to a changing working class neighborhood in the Eureka Valley called the Castro. I found myself part of the gar rights movement. I was a photographer who displayed my images in the window of a bakery shop at 420 Castro. I met and became friends with the owners of a new camera shop… Harvey Milk and Scott Smith. When I first came out in the 50s, homosexuality was still considered a mental condition. So I’ve seen change,at first at a snails pace then in 1974 I joined the 1st gay sponsored softball league in the country. By osmosis I became involved in many aspects of gay life. It’s nice to quote Harvey, but please do not forget those of us who also contributed o breaking down closets,get involved in politics. In my case,I came out nationally in 1977 when I fought back against Anita Bryant’s anti-gay rhetoric when I created the ANITA BRYANT”S HUSBAND IS A HOMO SAPIEN! T-shirt via United Press International. And I have been fighting ever since! There is a great web-site:
    http://www.thecastro.net/ it is dedicated to the evolution of the Castro into America’s gay mecca. Look at my chapter there that tells of my historic foot note in gay history… the iconic image of Harvey Milk with a Bullhorn and a Save our rights sign in the background on Orange Tuesday 6/7/77. Thanks for keeping the movement moving,Cheers
    Jerry

    • Brent Bailey

      Thank you so much for commenting and letting me hear some of your story!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X