Finally watched Milk. It's bloody amazing. Largely due to an unselfish performance at its centre which puts me in the unusual position of agreeing with Oscar (I thought Mickey Rourke's turn in the Wrestler was unbeatable until tonight).
Anyway, I think lots of things about it, but I'm notoriously bad at articulating thoughts soon after a viewing. I liked the way it was filmed, and the integration of archive footage was beautiful; the faded film stock reminding us that this was not just a story, this was real. Biopics are difficult to structure in a narratively satisfactory manner, but this was masterful in its signposting, early on, of its ultimate destination.
Anyway, it led me to reflecting on something I've been thinking about for a while. A number of years ago I was involved in a series of debates, both formal and informal, whereby my church attempted to address the issue of homosexuality. It was a strange and difficult time, and important in lots of ways. A good many people supported the exploration of homosexuality in a Christian context, and were prepared to consider change. I used to think it was a brilliant and brave thing, and that we acquitted ourselves well. But the further away I am from that time, the more I feel an acute sense of regret and shame.
I had several opportunities, one of which was literally in front of a microphone at the head of the congregation, to express my point of view about the whole 'Does God hate the queers or not?' debate. I was very much on the 'or not'side of things, and tended to suggest that it might not be a bad thing to consider that being gay and being Christian were not mutually exclusive. You know, given that we were intelligent beings living in a civilised society with an understanding of language, culture and history. I was generally well spoken and, if I do say so myself, reasonably witty.
Well, now - now I've seen the years pass and seen the lack of change - I wish I'd been a lot less well spoken, and that I'd forsaken gentle wit for something a bit more forthright. Something a bit more like a list of the horrors suffered by gay people around the world. Just a simple, long list, pointing out the killing, bullying, repression and torture inflicted upon this minority by stupid, ignorant people. I wish I had read the list out, and then drawn attention to our response. Our response, as a church of Jesus Christ.
That response, from a great many people in a church I considered home, was to say no, we cannot be a church that accepts gay people as anything other than second class citizens in need of fixing by us better, more Christian people. Furthermore, we cannot agree to disagree on this. We refuse to share a church with those who think otherwise.
Not everyone thought this, and not all of those in opposition did so without thought. Some people were scared that this was the beginning of the end for a comprehensible belief system. Some wanted to accept the people but could not bring themselves to challenge long held beliefs. Some may have had other, more deeply rooted concerns that I was not privy to.
But there were many whose opposition was instant, angry and lacking in any desire to dialogue. Those whose idea of a 'proper' church outweighed their imperative to love, to protect, and to fight for justice rather than a perceived version of morality. They were stupid, and they were cowardly. And, now I look back on my weak and feeble challenge to their idiotic points of view, I realise that I was too.
Gotta respond. Don't know how.
ReplyDeleteThis is a public space and what i put here is open to any and all - well, at least those of us rich and priviliged enough to have internet connections and ability to read the English language. There's a political balance for me to strike because some will read what i say as 'oh, that's just andy', and others will read what i say as the words of a 'minister (albeit junior minister) to the conflicted church of which Rob speaks'.
First, i too loved Milk! I recall weeping through a considerable amount of its running time - but then that's no great shakes for me.
Secondly, i too have had a similar (and i use the word unashamedly) epiphany since the time you referred to. It has caused me nothing but sorrow, regret, and a desire seek some sort of reparation since i'm convinced the shame the church looks to project on to its gay community is a shame which much more rightfully falls on those making such projections - i.e. me and things i've previously espoused. It's so difficult to find a place to take this stuff especially when the homophobia seems so systemic within the church establishment. I guess i have to wear it as personally and openly as i can, and be faithful to what Jesus is doing within me regardless of where it may take me.
Thirdly, 'stupid and cowardly'. Not sure about this, Rob. Both are labels i will happily (well, confessingly) take for myself, and since you appear to have done the same i can come back to you on this. I would want to suggest you reconsider using these insults - which they are - particularly of some people in a community you have removed yourself from. It feels too much to me like throwing stones or, perhaps even, hand grenades from a distance. It does a dis-service to the humanity of the people who hold the views you describe. Whilst i would want to say to people 'i disagree with you because i think your view is wrong', to insult those holding such a view does just as much violence to the gospel of Jesus as anything else. Also, these exchanges are all the more meaningful when they take place in the context of continuing relationship.
Fourthly, the sentence above, i think, is the strength of the line the church took at the time. The weakness is when it, as it often has, turns into avoiding the issue because we think differently on it. It's the difference between saying the church party line is 'we'll agree to disagree' versus 'we'll commit to remain together as we work this out'. The later is live, brave and active, where the former is weak, silencing and static.
I've tried to think carefully about what i've put here, but that doesn't mean it's completely devoid of stupidity or cowardice. There are all sorts of nuance in communication that the written form can't express acurately (or at least, a writer of my lowly caliber can't) and for that reason this probably isn't the best medium for such a conversation. Let me therefore state explicitly a couple of the things i might otherwise just assume you understand:
Even though i can't go all the way with everything you've said, i rate you quite highly, Rob, and i very much admire your bravery and passion on this issue.
Catcha soon.
My first reaction to this - and thus probably an incomplete one - is to check your understanding of the focus of my attack. It is emphatically not on those whose views differ from mine. In this specific case, I can testify to growing in admiration for some of those who argued against me, but did so with intelligence, compassion and thought.
ReplyDeleteMy ire is reserved for those who would not listen, and who considered the very asking of such questions to be inherently sinful. There were a number of these people, and they did not stop at arguing; rather they worked to derail the entire discourse and called into question the morality of those wanting to have a discussion. I don't blink from calling these people stupid and cowardly, because no matter what their point of view, they still had a choice as to how they engaged. As far as them being part of the community goes, they removed themselves long before I did. Maybe that doesn't matter.
As you say, written text is a problematic form. I know I often come across as much more argumentive and hostile than I mean to when I get the typing bug. These are my first reactions to your points, and I seek to check your understanding of my position as much as anything else.
It hopefully goes without saying that I hold you in high regard also, though I suspect that all your crying at stuff might mean that you are gay.
Rob
Oh, the people who wouldn't listen to anything, yeah, they were [this space is left blank for you to insert your own strong but amusing swear word in plural form]!!!
ReplyDeleteNo, you're right, i'd not gathered entirely that these were the people you were referring to. For any point i've made which was unjustly aimed at you i apologise.
That's an interesting point though; what to think or feel about the band of people who couldn't even entertain the idea of engaging, and are they as people separable from the attitude they demonstrated?
I recall, in just about equal measure, feeling angry, amused, offended, frustrated and hurt by them. I think the behaviour was outrageous, but i still can't quite get to writing them off or going for personal attacks. What i'm left with most is a sense of disappointment (patronise them, that's the way forward!) that they were so bound to a particular mode of scriptural interpretation and rule it left them completely unable to factor in any human element.
Does the emotional violence that this leads to justify a mutually violent response? Not that i'm saying that's what you're doing, by the way, it could be just as easily argued all you're doing is calling a spade a spade. But that can cross easily into more destructive thinking.
How is the church to hold together as one church, all the while such different uses of 'truth and justice' are hailed and used within it? Which is more important, unity or justice? Could it be that unity is so important that the only issues worth splitting over are the ones about disagreement over who can be included? Ooooh, paradox!
Milk is great. We should watch more films and cry all the time. Everyone. All of us. But mainly you because deeply repressing emotion for fear of being found out isn't healthy.
I was raised to belive that it was not right for a man and a man or a women and a women to be together in a sexual way. At the same time the bible says not to judge and to help and love all people no matter what. I have friends that are gay and have had my own experience with a female. I don't think that god would not love me for this. It is a sin to over eat and to cuss also, dose that mean if I am overweight I should not be aloud at church?
ReplyDelete