One of the reasons I haven’t posted much in the last month is that I requested a Clearness Committee partially about the purpose of this blog. The meeting was yesterday. I still don’t have clearness about whether this blog should be used for ministry only or as a means of spiritual journaling, where I vent my questions and share my thoughts.
But the heart of this Clearness Committee was about my concern about the state of the Meeting with regards to gay marriage. This concern has two parts: first, I am concerned that where the Meeting is makes us not as welcoming as we should be to GLBTQ people; second, I am concerned about the damage done to the Meeting during the stage of conflict that led up to our current position and that time alone won’t adequately heal these wounds. (For the record, our position is that a gay couple can have a commitment ceremony with individual members taking that commitment under their care.)
Without going into too much detail about the inner workings of my Monthly Meeting, I discovered during the Clearness Committee meeting yesterday that even just defining what the letters GLBTQ stand for can be seen as stirring up controversy. This discovery occurred after the statement was made that I would have been treated exactly the same by the Meeting if my life partner had been a woman instead of a man; and that the Meeting has no problem welcoming GLBTQ people specifically. I asked: “How can our Meeting be truly welcoming to people when we can’t even discuss what their letter stands for?”
If we are so uncomfortable discussing sexuality that even the most general information can be seen as controversial, how can this not affect how we treat people who challenge our perceptions of “normal” sexuality and gender?
This saddens me greatly, because I had hoped that my Meeting was past this. And it saddens me to know that there must be people who don’t or won’t feel as welcome as everyone else in my Meeting community.
I went into the Clearness Committee meeting with one question first in my mind: what am I being called to do? It had become clear that my concern was not something I should lay down: because I’ve tried that in the past and it just keeps coming back. By the end of the meeting, I didn’t feel I had the clearness I’d been seeking. But it came to me last night, as I was trying to process what happened during the Clearness Committee meeting, that I do know what I’m being called to do and to say that I don’t know is just an excuse to give me the option to choose not to do it.
I am, quite simply, being called to speak. I am being called to break the silence that smothers my Meeting with regards to non-heterosexual people, loves, sexuality, and even faith. I am being called to stand up and challenge heterosexism whenever and wherever I see it.
I am being called to honor silence when used in worship, but to reject silence when it is oppressive. I am called to respect the comfort levels of other people, but only when they do not deny a part of my being.
I would prefer to keep silent. Anyone who knows my history well knows that I would rather be the one solving a conflict than stirring one up. By speaking up about an issue that will make others uncomfortable, I risk being called or thought of as an attention seeker, a troublemaker, or a drama queen. I am none of those things.
I’ve been struggling with the testimony of Integrity for a while. The only way I can truly live my life with Integrity is by speaking up when being silent would be denying part of who I am. I have to admit, though, that I am terrified.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 14th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Martin Kelley
Hey Tania,
I’ve often found myself being the one who had to ask awkward questions among Friends. It’s not easy and I often find myself praying for guidance–well, an also appealing for relief, i.e., “Jesus, isn’t there anyone else here who can make this OBVIOUS observation?”
Speaking up is not easy but I think it’s a big part of the work we need to do. Just remember to keep it all in prayer. Sometimes we aren’t called to speak up, sometimes it’s just our role to observe and only the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit can clue us in on the difference. My shorthand for this is “the right message at the wrong time is the wrong message.” I’m not implying that you’ve ever spoken out of turn, just that it’s easy for those of us with a concern and a sensitivity to issues of diversity to want to change it all now and forget that this has to be on God’s time and that a period of suffering (our own or those we advocate for) might be part of the process that is needed to move the whole body forward on the concern.
Thanks for sharing this all with us, it’s good for us all to hear one another’s struggles and concerns!
Martin @ Quaker Ranter
March 14th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Bill
Clearness is tricky. In your previous post you argue that what Jesus had to say about paying taxes was pretty clear.
In reference to this post, many followers of Jesus would argue that Jesus was pretty clear about affirming marriage as heterosexual (for example, Matthew 19:4-6). I think there are many sides to the struggle you are describing.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
thefriendlyfunnel
I just want to point out that I am not making any claims in this post about what Jesus did or did not say. I am only saying that I am being called to embrace my bisexuality openly and speak up when that part of my being is being challenged or diminished by another.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
John K.
I guess I don’t understand how “embracing” bisexuality can be consistent with embracing monogamy. No offense intended. I just really don’t understand.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:04 am
thefriendlyfunnel
Martin: Thanks for the reminder. It’s timely and I will try to keep myself Centered in this.
John K, two comments: first, I didn’t say explicitly that I embrace monogamy. But I don’t think that’s your point.
In regards to whether bisexuals can be monogamous, yes, we can be. Just like when heterosexuals get married, they can still be attracted to other people and choose not to act on it; so can bisexuals get married, be attracted to other people, and choose not to act on it.
There are some, myself included, for whom the attractions to different sexes are noticeably different. Being in love with a man has a different texture and tone than being in love with a woman. Honestly, ideally I’d like one of both, because I do in a sense feel there is something missing from my life now. However, not all bisexuals feel the same way. I also feel there is a difference between having one life partner from each sex one is attracted to (which is, when you think about it, what heterosexuals do when they’re monogamous) and being polygamous which seems to be about having more than one partner (life or otherwise) from each sex one is attracted to.
I guess what I’m pointing out is that monosexual people (those attracted to only one sex) have defined monogamous and polygamous to fit their particular attractions. If bisexuals had defined them first, I think we might have said monogamous is having one of each sex, polygamous having more than one of each.
But again, I do not speak for all bisexuals, but only for myself. For the record, Rob and I are monogamous, but open to the idea of other possibilities.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Liz Opp
Hi, Tania.
I may have been in touch with you privately already, but seeing these comments, I want to add to the conversation.
In connection to your post and related to Martin’s caution that “the right message at the wrong time is the wrong message,” I want to recommend taking a look at Marshall Massey’s comment on a recent post about written ministry (aka, epistles).
In particular, tucked away in his remarks is the caution to discern “what the person or group one is addressing is ready and able to hear.”
I know in my own recent history of speaking out of the concern I carry, I have been focused on lifting up what I myself was ready to say, without the discipline of slowing myself down to consider what the body was ready and able to receive. Typically when I take that extra step, I am in fact able to get a sense of where the body is in relation to opening itself to the concern, to receive ministry from others about it, etc.
…On the other hand, you’ve got to move when the Spirit says move.
It’s tricky indeed.
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up
March 17th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Mia
My prayers are with you, Friend.
Mia
March 18th, 2008 at 8:13 am
James Riemermann
I feel a need to point out the need for humility in this clearness process, part of which is not closing oneself to the possibility that one might be at least partly wrong, and the people one is trying to persuade might be at least partly right. I’m not saying you’re wrong here, Tania, and in fact I personally feel very clear about the importance of being welcoming to Friends of diverse sexuality. It’s really important work, in my view.
Nonetheless, we all have blind spots, and the nature of a blind spot is that you don’t know you have it. When we work on a concern, the meeting might not be ready to hear us, but there might also be something important that we are not hearing, that is getting in the way of our work. An example is the earlier comment that seemed to equate–mistakenly–bisexuality with polyamory. Maybe someone doesn’t understand that many–I suspect most–bisexual people are also happily monogamous. I have heard this confusion in my own meeting at least once. This is not prejudice but misunderstanding, and we need to be able to tell the difference.
Or maybe a Friend working on a concern assumes another Friend doesn’t care about their concern, but really they’ve just got enough on their plate and can’t be active everywhere at once. All of us need to make choices where to put our energies.
Or maybe there is some truth on each side in an apparent conflict. The issue of theological diversity, in contrast to sexual or racial or class diversity, comes to mind. I am deeply committed to a broad and radical theological diversity among Friends, and I often bump heads with people who seem to feel that theological diversity among Friends has gone too far. I suspect there are important things I am not seeing here, though I am trying. And I suspect there are people on the other side of the conflict who are missing important things, too.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am
lamentha
I just thought I should share, as an outsider looking in, how much I admire your group for being able to coherently discuss your opinions and concerns without collapsing into arguement. I found this site while I was googling for a Quaker joke my father shared with me when I was little.
As a Christian lesbian, I often feel stifled and split. I am either on the company of my friends, who love and accept me, but have very little interest in my beliefs. Or, I am in the presence of my family, who love and accept me, but have requested in the typical silent ways that I not speak about, nor admit to my homosexuality. So, whichever side I go to for guidance or advice, some part of me is left unnurtured.
It gladdens my heart to see that there are people who at least make an attempt to accept both, and allow discussion of the subject. Why, in the books that I read about Quaker groups, was this acceptance never mentioned? Well, I suppose I know why.
Just out of curiosity, what is the age range of the people in your group? Do you think that a young adult (late teens) might be able to join and participate? I live in Houston and would be very glad to find a functioning Quaker group here, but have my doubts about whether there is one.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
thefriendlyfunnel
I’m really happy to be able to tell you that not only is there a Quaker group in Houston, there’s one that’s willing to put the rainbow flag on their site:
http://www.friendshouston.org/
A young adult can definitely join and participate in Quakerism. The age range of my particular Quaker group is from early 20s to 80s+. But that doesn’t mean the Meeting in Houston will have the same make-up.
Quakerism as a whole isn’t in unity about non-straight sexualities. But there are Meetings that are in unity about it and are accepting. I can’t encourage you enough to give it a try.
Have you done any reading about the way (liberal) Quakers worship? It’s a bit unique. The Quaker Meeting I linked to earlier has a pretty good explanation on their site: http://www.friendshouston.org/info.html .
And feel free to email me with any questions. There’s also an online magazine about LGBTQ Christians called Whosoever: http://whosoever.org/index.shtml .
Wishing you wholeness, friend.