My brother is a rock star.
He is seven years younger than I and is the second author on two scientific articles (one in Advance Materials and another one in Cell). In the first article, he made an important contribution by applying biology to nanotechnology. Through the second, he helped discover an important function of a gene that, when mutated, causes hypersusceptibility to tuberculosis infection by inflammation. This information could potentially affect how tuberculosis is treated, through personalized medicine. He is a PhD student at Yale in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences and is totally hot (which means I am not so bad either since we look exactly like each other… 🙂 )
My brother is also a homosexual. Yes a homo. This apparently continues to be a problem not only in religious communities, high school hallways, college dorms, but also at the Yale Student Medical Center. My brother went to said medical center and was treated for a parasite. After getting sick from the medications, he went back to the acute care facility of the Yale Student Medical Center and the doctor there recommended that he stop taking the medications if they were bothering him. She said, and I quote, “homosexuals have a propensity to get parasites” and questioned the purpose of treating the parasites at all, since after all he is a sexually active homosexual and would just get them again anyway. She offered no advice about how to avoid them.
Homosexuals have a propensity to get parasites? Even if there is a statistical basis for this statement, being a homosexual does not mean you have a higher chance of getting parasites. Perhaps certain sexual activities, which by the way can be practiced by both hetero- and homosexuals, leave one at higher risk of contracting parasites, but being attracted to someone of the same sex, does not. In addition, the doctor didn’t even bother to investigate other possible causes. In my brother’s case his roommate had just returned from living in a foreign country for two years; it’s possible she passed the pests on to him. What I think is more accurate is that Homo sapiens have a propensity to dehumanize other Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens, in general, as a race overall, have a propensity to be real jerks.
This medical malpractice is form of bullying. The phenomenon of teen bullying and its consequences has caught the media’s attention recently. By the beginning of October five suicides brought to national attention the problem of bullying in schools and specifically the problem with the bullying of homosexual teens. According to the It Gets Better Project:
– 9 out of 10 Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered (LGBT) students have experienced harassment at school.
– LGBT teens are bullied 2 to 3 times as much as straight teens.
– More than 1/3 of LGBT kids have attempted suicide.
– LGBT kids are 4 times as likely to attempt suicide then our straight peers.
– LGBT youth with “highly rejecting” families are 8 times more likely to attempt suicide than those whose families accept them.
My church, The United Methodist Church, is ambivalent towards people like my brother. He’s obviously human, so he must be of sacred worth, but a fundamental part of who he is, his sexuality, is “incompatible with Christian teaching”. You’d think, ok, perhaps the Methodists like to list all things incompatible with Christian teaching… turns out there are only three: war (BOD¶165C), forced conscription into the army (¶164G) and the practice of homosexuality (BOD ¶161H). Singling out homosexuality, a practice denoting individuals (vs. war, which is a national endeavor), is dangerous. Regardless of one’s position about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, most Christians would agree it is not the only sin, so what gives? Singling homosexuality out points to one group of people as particularly sinful; as THE ONES who practice unclean acts; as THE ONES who have the inherent propensity to contract parasites
In an open letter sent by Bishop Minerva Carcaño in November 2010, she states it this way:
As a bishop of the church I am forced to again look at the statements of the church and consider whether what we say has contributed to this deadly situation. What must our young people hear when we say that homosexuality “is incompatible with Christian teaching (2008 Book of Discipline of The UMC, Paragraph 161H)”? Does this contribute to some of our young people treating their homosexual peers as less than themselves? Do these young people believe they have permission even from the church to mistreat those who are of a different sexual orientation? What violence do we promote in our churches and in society when we devalue our homosexual brothers and sisters?
I pray that we will all consider this situation and seek every way to rectify any wrong that we may be contributing to. Love and compassion in the spirit of Jesus who excluded no one from the circle of God’s grace must be how we live as persons of Christian faith. I pray that one day our exclusion of persons of homosexual orientation will end in The United Methodist Church. I earnestly hope that our exclusion of our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender brothers and sisters will one day be seen as the wrong that it is. While we work and wait for that day, let us not sin against those whom God loves.
The truth is Homo sapiens have a propensity to fall short of the grace of God. Homo sapiens regardless of sexual orientation are both of sacred worth and in need of divine grace. As Homo sapiens in the Christian tradition of United Methodism we are challenged to “Welcome one another… just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.” There are no qualifications on this welcome, and there is NO ONE who deserves it, it is a gift from God.
I want to thank my brother for allowing me to share his story; it took courage to do so. It is my hope this Advent season, as we are faced with issues of bullying in schools, medical clinics, families, workplaces etc. that the church can be a safe place, one of welcome where it becomes incompatible with Christian teachings to dehumanize and judge other Homo sapiens. Where the church becomes a safe place not only one day a week, but a safe place that declares to the world continually: “We are all homos! Let us welcome each other for the glory of God.”
Thanks for the moving and poignant telling of another real story of the people in the pews in the UMC. We, who pray for a change in the Discipline, let alone the minds and hearts and doors (which are not open). Collectively I truly believe that the people in the pews are happy to allow all God’s children in the church, but there are a few with power that are afraid they’ll lost it if we who are gay or lesbian, transgenderd or bisexual are openly let in. If we are openly let in, I’d venture to say that no one would notice that much of a difference!
Hi Carole,
Thank you for your comment. I wish I could share your optimism about the collective “people in the pews”. 🙂 I think collectively they prefer the status quo… which as you said, is generally not very open at this point.
Also, I would hope a difference would be noticed! When part of the body of Christ is missing, it is dysfunctional… In my experience multicultural, open and welcoming congregations feel completely different (in a great way) than monochromatic/monocultural congregations.
Thanks for reading and sharing.
Peace,
Kelly
Thank you for this. I especially appreciate that you point out the ways in which institutionalized homophobia has real consequences on both a social and individual level. As religious organizations reëvaluate their positions on sexual ethics, I think that these consequences have to be a major part of the moral discussion.
Hi R.J.L,
Thank you for your comment. I wholeheartedly agree! I would argue that this process of ethical discernment – includes dialogue between Scripture/tradition and practical life situations/consequences. Personally, I call this process theological reflection…. 🙂 SIP-y enough for ya?
Peace,
Kelly
PS. Thanks for my next blog post pic!
“I call this process theological reflection…”
It really should be that simple, shouldn’t it? And yet you will hear some writers (e.g. some of the teshuvot I’ll be using in my thesis) saying that this kind of consequentialist analysis has no place in determining religious law. Perhaps it’s that I come at it with a certain amount of outsider’s perspective, but I am always dumbfounded when I hear such things.
And you really will never stop evangelizing for SIP, will you? 😉
awesome article, Kelly 🙂
“Homo sapiens have a propensity to dehumanize other Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens, in general, as a race overall, have a propensity to be real jerks.” Exactly.
GREAT piece!
This is a great piece with an URGENT message. I think it does two things: reaffirms how the UMC is complacent and inconsistent with its theology of “open hearts, open minds, open doors” and that the stigmatizing of LGBT folks far outreaches the scope of the church or religion in general.
Hi Anthony,
Thank you for your comments. I agree. I will go a step further – I think “open hearts, open minds, open doors” is just BAD theology. It is meaningless without any grounding in either Scripture or reality – so the UMC can just say it without actually having to be accountable to anything.
In terms of stigmatization of LGBT folks, I would argue that the church by maintaining such a dangerous position about one particular type of individual action actually under girds the stigmatization that goes beyond its own scope. So although the church might not be directly to blame for the treatment of my brother, the church’s position gives silent assent and support to the culture and status quo that is to blame for it.
Thanks again!
Peace,
Kelly
I cannot deny that!
Maybe someone already brought this up, but at the 2008 General Conference, this resolution was actually passed:
WHEREAS, homophobia1 is the discrimination of people perceived to be nonheterosexual, regardless of the victim’s actual sexual orientation or sexual identity; and
WHEREAS, heterosexism2 is a self-justifying system of homophobia that:
1. perpetuates stereotypical categories of what is essentially “masculine” and what is essentially “feminine”;
2. provides a privileged status for people who identify as culturally defined heterosexuals; and
3. discriminates against persons who, regardless of their sexual orientation or sexual identity, do not appear to fit within the particular category defined as appropriate for their gender; and
WHEREAS, actions rooted in homophobia and heterosexism, including violence, threats, ridicule, humiliation, discrimination, isolation, and rejection, are damaging to persons of all sexual orientations and identities; and
WHEREAS, homophobia and heterosexism are manifestations of sexism in general in that they foster stereotypes based on arbitrary distinctions of gender categories; and
WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church is committed to the eradication of sexism (#3444, 2008 Book of Resolutions);
Therefore, be it resolved, that The United Methodist Church strengthen its advocacy of the eradication of sexism by opposing all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice, or sexual orientation; and
Be it further resolved, that the General Board of Church and Society provide resources and materials aimed at educating members of the local churches about the reality, issues, and effects of homophobia and heterosexism and the need for Christian witness against these facets of marginalization.
1. Homophobia, A commonly used definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (1992): “Fear or contempt for lesbians and gay men.”
2. Heterosexism, A commonly used definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (1992): “Discrimination or prejudice against lesbians or gay men by heterosexual people.”
ADOPTED 2008
I bring this up to point out that now our own UMC discipline has this explicit tension – decrying heterosexism on the one hand in our resolutions, while lifting up and continuing heterosexist policies and stances (what’s more hetersexist than saying homosexuality is “inconsistent with Christian teachings”?).
Each year, the margin has gotten slimmer on the critical vote to change the offending paragraph. I look forward to seeing what 2012 holds for us.
Thank you for raising your voice against discrimination, Kelly! Your brother sounds like an impressive man! My only encounter wit the Methodist Church has been through Harvard-Epworth om Cambridge.
I am delighted to say that the church is 100% affirming of LGBTQ individuals and the Pastor, Scott Campbell, is profoundly committed to equality. Although I am a Humanist I find him and his church deeply inspiring. Perhaps you two should meet up?
Imagine for a moment that there was a person, a Christian say, who was convinced on the basis of Holy Scripture, church tradition, and reason that homosexuality (or homosexual acts…) is sinful, even “intrinsically disordered.” Imagine too that this person is not a pompous, mean-spirited jackass. He spends no time in the front pew thanking God for his sexual sanctity for not making him like the rest of men. He even thinks it rather hypocritical, even disgusting of the church to spend so much time condemning homosexuality when he thinks other “sexual sins” like pornography, divorce, and extra-marital sex negatively affect many times more Christian people than homosexuality. Imagine finally that this person was fortunate enough to stumble across your post, is terrified by the statistics you cite, and moved by your passion. How is he to respond? Does “welcoming” your brother mean sinning against his own conscience by affirming (even if by silence) your brother’s homosexuality? This imaginary Christian will not likely find being told “we all fall short” and leaving it at that very satisfying when precisely at issue is what “falling short” includes. He might even find is an abuse of scripture for the sake of rhetoric.
Though it does not seem that many Christians like these have joined in the discussion here, they are not merely imaginary.
Hi Ben,
Thank you for your thoughts. I had actually hoped more Christians of the sort you are representing would join this conversation.
I guess I would say (and I do not claim to have “the right” answers to your questions) that welcoming people in Christ, as they are, is our responsibility. For Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin, I would expect them to welcome homosexuals, and to be open about what they understand to be sinful and why… to allow the homosexual person in on the reasoning process. But to do all of this out of a genuine concern to be in relationship with another human being–i.e. if such a position is to be held – actively seek people who are affected by such a position and engage them in dialogue about it.
I put this in the terms of my own church, because whether or not homosexuality is a sin, it is not the only one. The fact that my church privileges homosexuality as the only “individual-committing” sin that is against Christian teaching, I believe leads to underpinning of ideas which dehumanize homosexuals and therefore makes violence against homosexuals more acceptable. This was the main concern of my article, not to make a claim either way about whether or not homosexuality is a sin.
In terms of the use of scripture, I would love to hear more about “abuse of scripture for the sake of rhetoric”…
Thanks again for your post and your comments. I know that many share the view you are espousing and appreciate the courage it took to share it.
Peace,
Kelly
Hey Kelly–
By abuse of scripture, I meant exploiting the rhetorical force of something like “we all fall short of the glory of God” while treating that phrase as if it is empty of content. I am not sure what sure what a church would look like who welcomes everyone who can say they “fall short” but leave it up to individuals to figure out for themselves what falling short looks like. Do you want Methodists to welcome white-supremacist “Christians” who think their racist beliefs–far from falling short–are part of what it means to be a Christian? Maybe you’d say, they should be welcomed into the conversation… but do they preach, commune, teach, proselytize? The question is about what “welcoming” entails.
That said, I complete agree about the need for active, peace-seeking, engagement and reasoning around scripture. In fact, given homos(apiens!) propensity to violence, sinner’s propensity to dehumanize and only hear what they want to hear, and the horrific treatment of homosexuals in our culture–treatment at times funded by pseudo-Christian rhetoric, perhaps a rule should be made that only Christians engaged in reasoned, relational, symmetrical, face-to-face dialogue with homosexuals should be allowed to talk about the subject at all. Since I’m not at this time such Christian, I’ll shut up for a while. “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”