Maize said:
1) What were some of the issues that brought resistance (if any) from some members on becoming a WC? And how did you resolve those issues?
2) Aside from finishing the program, what, if anything, did your congregation decide it needed to do or affirm to be WC? For example, one of the issues I was told that came up before was that some would want to be "out" in the community, such as putting up a civil marriage sign in front of the church, and others who were all for being a welcoming church to BGLTs were afraid of the risk that could happen from vandalism from being so out. They weren't willing to risk that. What should we be willing to do prove that we are welcoming besides the plaque on the wall?
Hi Amy,
I'm glad there are people of good intent in your congregation. I'm not UU, but I am gay, and I hope you don't mind my sharing some reactions.
1) For me, the whole "Welcoming Congregation" movement sets off all kinds of alarms, and so does discussion about how to implement it and how to deal with opposition from within the congregation.
a) To me, the existence of Welcoming Congregations in any denomination is clear proof that there are congregations that are NOT Welcoming. If it's necessary in any denomination for a congregation to specially designate that GLBTs are welcome in that particular congregation, that's a denomination I don't want to belong to. Why should I support with my time, my work, and my money, a denomination in which Welcoming is
optional?
Let's say there's a denomination in which some congregations welcome African-Americans, and others don't. One congregation has a big sign out front saying, "Interracial marriages okay here;" they celebrate Black History Month and Kwanzaa, and African-Americans are genuinely welcome as full members of their congregation in every respect. But they have a sister congregation in the next town, or maybe the same town, that teaches that African-Americans are under a curse as descendants of Ham, that interracial marriages are an abomination to God, and that while African-Americans may be acceptable as members provided that they're deferential to Caucasians and don't blatantly celebrate who they are, they may not be ordained or hold any office in the congregation, and may not marry Caucasians. The denomination holds that it's important to respect both positions -- that of the first church and that of the second.
Let's say further that you're African-American. How do you feel about a denomination that considers offical, institutionalized racism a valid option for its congregations?
b) When a congregation, even with the best intentions, finds it necessary to discuss the issue of becoming a Welcoming Congregation, my gut feeling is that maybe they aren't quite ready to bear that designation. You mention that "others who were all for being a welcoming church to BGLTs were afraid of the risk that could happen from vandalism from being so out. They weren't willing to risk that." In that case, seriously, maybe your congregation should consider NOT becoming a Welcoming Congregation. Members of a religious congregation ought to be able to stand together, and to help bear each other's burdens. GLBTs are under constant attack from religious bigots -- especially, in the U.S., from Christians. It's a daily fact of life, and it's something we never get away from. You'll find many GLBTs who are pitifully grateful for
any level of acceptance, and will gladly take you up on the offer, "You're welcome here, but we don't want any trouble." But in all honesty, that's not good enough. We
have troubles, and our troubles are caused almost entirely by religious bigots. A congregation that isn't ready to stand with us in the face of those troubles, and to share them, would better serve itself
and GLBTs by honestly admitting that. There are plenty of congregations where GLBTs are welcome, but those congregations don't want any trouble, and they want to be discreet about their welcome or to qualify it in some way. Your congregation should honestly consider whether that might not be the best course for you.
2) I don't know about a sign. There's something a little distasteful to me about "Gays Welcome Here." On the other hand, if your congregation generally wants to become a welcoming congregation, you really do have to make a special effort to get that point across. We've learned from experience that when churches say "
You are welcome here" or "We welcome
everybody," they usually don't mean
us. You can hang a big banner over the door that says "House of Prayer for
ALL People," and 90% of GLBTs will see it and think, "Yeah, I'll bet." So you really do have to be explicit to get your point across. Advertising that you celebrate same-sex marriages is one way of doing that. But a better way is to have a genuine and obvious commitment to equality. One way of doing that would be to have members of your congregation visibly involved in PFLAG and in the struggle for equal rights. Does your community see a UU banner in the Gay Pride Parade? Do they see heterosexual UUs marching under it? Is your congregation a sponsor?
I've grown very cynical about religion. The Beth Stroud case was really a watershed event in my life; it was like the straw that broke the camel's back. You'll find that many GLBTs are easier to please than I am. But personally, I'll join a congregation when that congregation announces it won't register any more of the opposite-sex marriages it celebrates with the state, as an act of solidarity with its members whose same-sex marriages cannot be registered with the state. And not before.
I don't mean to give you a hard time. I'm sure you have the best intentions, and I'm very glad there are people like you in religious congregations, who want to work toward being genuinely welcoming. But I think that to genuinely share the burdens and the joys and sorrows of GLBT people is very difficult in a religious setting. If the members of your congregation don't share your level of commitment, it would be better not to mislead us about what to expect.
