Can We Just Coexist?
The tolerance for difference is a lost art in our society, especially in the church.
Between my junior and senior years of college, I interned with my congressman on Capitol Hill. It was a memorable summer for me. Being a political junkie, I was starstruck at seeing all these politicians I had seen on television. It was also a time when I met other college-age kids from all over the country. It was truly a great time. I can remember so many images from that summer of 1990. One memory involved an elderly man who drove a scooter like a madman to catch the underground subway connecting the House office buildings with the Capitol. That man was Silvio Conte, a Republican from Massachusetts.
Conte would be an unusual man in today’s world. He was a liberal Republican at a time when that was still a thing. He voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and for Medicare. One of his last votes before his death in 1991 was against going to war against Iraq.
Liberal Republicans were on the wane 30 years ago, but they were still around even as the party had become more conservative in the Reagan years.
Oh and the congressman that I interned for? Dale Kildee who represented my hometown of Flint, Michigan was a Pro-Life Democrat.
Three decades ago, it wasn’t uncommon to see such diversity within the political parties, which is a far cry from today. The tolerance for difference is a lost art in our society, especially in the church.
A few weeks ago, something momentous happened. After over half a century of infighting, the United Methodist Church removed its restrictions on LGBTQ clergy and changed language in their Book of Discipline that saw homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching at their General Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. There was a lot of happiness on social media and there was some grumbling as well. There was a ton of talk about how the UMC had finally become a place that was welcoming to all.
I think this is all good, but this comes at a cost. Between the last General Conference, a special one held in 2019 (the 2020 General Conference was postponed and then canceled due to COVID) several more conservative and evangelical churches left the UMC to create the Global Methodist Church. The number of conservatives in the denomination declined and may have made it a lot easier for moderates and progressives to pass more affirming legislation that would allow LGBTQ Methodists to live their lives fully within the life of the church. Justice, long denied finally arrived. But that justice was achieved at the cost of unity.
At some level, this was bound to happen, especially on an issue as fraught as issues involving sexuality. Many denominations that dealt with this issue have ended up in a schism with denominations becoming more open to LGBTQ Christians, but also more homogenous theologically.
There is both promise and peril in this move among Methodists. The promise is of course that young LGBTQ Christians who attend a United Methodist Church don’t have to come to think that they can’t ever become a pastor. The peril comes in what could happen to traditionalists who choose to stay in the UMC. Will they be allowed to “live and let live,” or will they be forced to submit to the dominant narrative or leave?
I know that many of my fellow gay clergy would say that no one is forcing people to do something they don’t want to do. But do we really believe that? Can we really believe that if someone comes forward and says they disagree with same-sex marriage they will be left alone?
Maybe 15 or 20 years ago that could have been the case, but more and more, I don’t believe we will allow a “live and let live” philosophy. We’ve become more siloed in our beliefs, less tolerant of the other and afraid of those who aren’t like us. The philosophy of the big tent, which dominated all aspects of American civic society has declined and in its place is the rise of affinity groups. Mainline Protestant denominations used to be big tents, but they are becoming more like affinity groups. This is also happening in more conservative circles where institutions like the Southern Baptist Convention which were also more of a big tent has over time turned into groups where everyone must believe the same things or leave.
I shared in a recent post about a proposed overture in the Presbyterian Church (USA) that might force the remaining evangelicals in the denomination who chose to stay after the schism of a decade ago to leave the PCUSA altogether. I wrote the following:
I read both the overture and the statement and felt for both sides in this matter. I know that progressives who believe in full LGBTQ inclusion believe such an amendment is necessary in order to ensure that LGBTQ persons can be fully welcomed into the life of the church. Having worked with Presbyterians, I know the impact the 1996 overture that banned LGBTQ persons from ordination had on pastors and those who wanted to be pastors. And I know the impact such a ban had in my own denomination where I had to remain silent through my own ordination process. Conservatives who are upset now must and should know the hurt that many LGBTQ people who felt called by God to serve experienced when they were told by their churches that they could not fulfill that call to ministry.
That said, progressives shouldn’t repay kind for kind either because if this overture is approved, that is what could happen. Conservatives would either have to hide their true feelings or leave the denomination, which is pretty much what happened with LGBTQ people thirty years ago.
Presbyterian Outlook had a number of articles on this proposed overture including one from Brian Ellison the Executive Director of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians the pro-LGBTQ group in the PCUSA. He believes it is time for the PCUSA to say that discrimination against LGBTQ people is wrong and I would agree. But read the following words from his essay:
I have supported that approach, sharing in dialogue and education efforts with conservatives in the church during earlier controversies and seeking to keep divergent parts of our communion moving forward together, albeit slowly.
But it has been 14 years since the door was opened to the ordination of LGBTQIA+ people as deacons, elders and ministers. Many now serve openly, using their gifts to God’s glory and fulfilling their ordination promises with excellence and deep faith. Even to this day, they frequently do this against a backdrop of continuing discrimination, enduring exclusion and pushback in many presbyteries, and struggling to find equal opportunities.
For all our stated commitments to racial equity and LGBTQIA+ inclusion, the PC(USA) constitution still does not require that candidates for ordination articulate their commitment (or lack thereof) to representation, participation and non-discrimination. The Olympia overture calls on the church to state clearly its values of equity for all God’s people, and to put those values into action as it conducts examinations for ordination — nothing more, and nothing less. It is time.
He says that this is not about kicking conservatives out, but it’s hard for me not to see how this can be used to make sure the right kind of people become ministers while we dismiss those who don’t measure up. Maybe that’s not the intent, I worry from this statement that the subtext here is that the time for dialogue is over and people must support the ongoing concern or leave.
So why am I as a gay man making such a big stink about this? I think that part of the Christian walk, part of what truly sets the church apart from the rest of the world is love of the enemy. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus calls us to love those who are our enemies and to pray for persecutors. I’m not saying we must put up with abuse, but is it possible for LGBTQ people and conservatives to work for God’s kingdom even if they don’t see eye to eye?
New York Times columnist Frank Bruni said recently in a podcast how the United States is unique because we are a multiracial/multiethnic democracy and we haven’t really seen a nation like ours exist. Bruni isn’t engaging in American exceptionalism as much as he is stating the reality of the United States now. We are more diverse than we ever have been and it is fashionable among progressive circles to talk about how wonderful diversity is, but diversity is hard. It is difficult to try to build bridges with people that you don’t always agree with and that have different ways of thinking and being.
My colleague and fellow pastor Loren Richmond had an interesting podcast episode with theologian Ted Smith about the future of denominations. One of the things Smith talks about is how denominations are moving from being voluntary institutional-focused bodies to becoming more affinity groups. I’ve written in the past about how we see the demise of “big tent” or mass culture and the rise of more bespoke culture. What we see in denominations is they are becoming groups where people gather around a common understanding rather than gathered around an institution. This is one way of looking at what is happening in the Presbyterian Church. The policy changed and most conservatives took their toys and went home. The progressives who remained now can make the denomination in its image. After a while, the place becomes a place of affinity, a place where everyone agrees and where it will become more uncomfortable for those who don’t agree with the majority. I don’t know if progressives are trying to force conservatives out, but intentionally or not, that seems to be what is happening. This is not something limited to progressives either, you are seeing this among Southern Baptists as they are moving to kick out churches that ordain women pastors. It’s even happening beyond church; what is the MAGA takeover of the GOP but a changing of the Republican Party from the Big Tent to an affinity group?
I’m not saying we should not celebrate the progress happening in our churches when it comes to LGBTQ people being able to be full members in the life of the church. But is it possible to think about the wider whole and also care for justice as well? It used to be that we cared a lot about those who disagreed and worked to find ways to keep them in the fold while expanding to welcome others who had long been excluded. As I’ve said before, I remember hearing the phrase “We have some healing to do,” in the aftermath of a hard vote on sexuality issues. When I heard that phrase back in the 1990s, both sides still had a loyalty to institutions. There was at least a hope both sides would work things out. That spirit doesn’t exist anymore. It doesn’t exist in the church and it doesn’t exist in the wider society. In our conformist age, there is no live and let live. From MAGA to “woke” from social justice to being “biblical” the message is not to accommodate, but to fall in line or leave.
In our day and age, we talk a lot about inclusion and diversity. We are a more diverse culture than we used to be. Issues like race and sexuality tend to be more accepted in society than they used to be.
This is all good. It is good for me. But our churches and organizations don’t seem to be places that would accept a version of Silvio Conte anymore.
That’s not good for the church or the nation and I fear where this will all lead.