Tolerance for Intolerance

Increasingly I am finding that for me, the essence of Quakerism is to use love as the vehicle to bring truths together, and not to stake a claim as the holder of "Truth". The challenge is that there are many truths out there in the world - individual and collective truths. Some of these truths can be hurtful, and contentious, even counter-intuitive, but they are truths none-the-less. I think that love is the emotion that can hold us together as we struggle to not necessarily find unity on these truths, but simply recognize and respect them. In fact, if we are to believe the basic teaching of Quakerism that there is that of God in all things, and God is a loving God, then there is that of Love in all things.

I am reminded of this because of a sentiment I have heard over the years that I seem to be paying more attention to: "I'm a very tolerant person, except for those who are intolerant". I think that if we deem people of certain theologies or faiths as intolerant, we may not be "holding them in the light"; instead, we may be holding them in darkness. I say this because over the past two years, I have seen love and compassion in areas that I never though I would see it - the Evangelical community, and often over that time, Love has been what has held our relationships together. I am not saying at all that we have seen eye-to-eye on all things, but what I have seen is that love is absolutely a part of the motivating force for so many people to do their work. It was the words of a friend who comes from the Evanglical community, when I was struggling to make sense of "anti-homosexual" statments by a church leader in Wheaton IL, this past fall. "One thing to understand", Shayne told me, "is that this woman is really driven by love for Jesus Christ".

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear" (1 John, 4:18). This verse, plus writings from people like Deitrich Bonhoefer, who wrote much about the Sermon on the Mount ("The Cost of Discipleship"), and lines from the Prayer of St. Francis ("Where there is hatred, let me sow love", and "Grant that I may not be understood so much as to understand") can help give context and guidance for how to sit with each other and hold the dialog.

What does this allow me to do? It seems to have freed me to no longer look at the above-mentioned woman and people like her as angry, mean and hateful. Without a doubt, there are harmful consequences to her message - she is largely unable to see AIDS for what it is in Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia where she puts her HIV/AIDS efforts, and of course, in her own congregation, she perpetuates an intimidating message to all those who are gay and lesbian. But I have faith that in my being able to see the light of love within her, we can maintain an open dialog that, and by bearing witness to each other, there is the possibility for change. And, as opportunities rise, I am able to raise the questions of the conflict between a loving God and an angry God.

My fellow writer on this blog, Tania, has written about the work with her Monthly Meeting. It is a dialog that is all-too familiar for those of us who have been a part of Meetings that are dealing with issues of sexual diversity. Often these become "intellectual" arguments fueled by fear (or, just as often, fear is the mechanism that maintains silence on things that matter, and Martin Luther King said the world begins to end when we are silent on the things that matter).

What matters? I think it's that people can be honest about who they are - who we are. The best of us are intolerant to something, and to think we are all-tolerant is a delusion. But as Quakers, collectively we can hold our and others delusions and blind spots in the light, and with Love, we can hopefully bring healing and understanding.

Integrity, Part 2

I raised my concerns today at my Worship & Ministry committee. The assumption I was making that the Meeting was postponing discussion because they assumed everyone was straight was not an assumption that the other members agreed with. They did agree with my concern that openly gay couples do feel left out, or pick up on our hesitancy as a Meeting about gay marriage. We had a good discussion about what happened and what the next steps might be for us as a Monthly Meeting. The end result is that we're going to discuss it more; and I've been encouraged also to discuss it in particular with members who are opposed to gay marriage. I'm not sure I have the courage yet to do so, but I pray that, if I am doing God's will, He will grant me the strength and courage I need.

The struggle in particular my Monthly Meeting is facing is the potential loss of the handful of members who disagree with gay marriage. There are those in my MM that are flippant about this; feeling that these members should be willing to step aside to let the MM move on and that if they are not willing to do so, then they should leave. I have mixed feelings about this approach. I do agree that they should step aside, but I think it would be a huge loss to my MM if we lost these members. On the other hand, how many potential members have we lost because of our reluctance?

It is a struggle; and I am at once comforted and dismayed to know that we are not the only MM who is struggling with this.

Integrity

Being a bisexual Quaker often challenges my notion of our Testimony of Integrity. I am a bisexual, and I am not ashamed to admit it when it comes up in conversation; but the truth is that it never comes up in conversation at all. Because I am married to a man, the assumption is that I'm straight. This leads me to the awkward question:

Am I violating our Testimony of Integrity by allowing people to believe something about me that isn't true?

And then an even more awkward question follows if I answer yes:

How do I honor our Testimony of Integrity and correct people's assumptions about me?

I haven't found a good answer to this yet. Short of making an announcement of some kind, I have no real ideas. No one's ever said to me directly that they assume I'm straight; yet to me it feels like the assumption in my Meeting currently is not only that I'm straight, but that everyone who regularly attends or is a member is straight as well. This assumption allows us to postpone indefinitely dealing with the issue of gay marriage, which we could not find unity about 5 years ago (before my time with the Meeting).

But I fear that this postponement subconsciously affects the way we treat openly gay attenders, when they do in fact attend (which is not often). Knowing that this person could force us to deal with an issue we don't "feel ready" to deal with, I worry that we are not as friendly towards that person as we would be if he or she was straight. I worry that this person, even if we treat him or her exactly the same, will pick up on our hesitancy as a community to deal with gay marriage; and leave us for a more open and affirming religious community.

I wonder if my Meeting would be as comfortable postponing this issue if they knew I was bisexual. I remember a brief conversation I had with the Worship & Ministry committee, of which I am a member, about gay marriage. Most of them didn't understand why it mattered so much, unless a gay couple actually wanted to be married under the care of the Meeting. I tried to explain that it does matter, even if the person doesn't want to be married, because it is, in our minds, discrimination. Since gay marriage is an issue and straight marriage is not, the message non-straight people get is that there's something different, and indeed lesser, about their relationships compared to heterosexual ones. It is discrimination, as much as we'd like to pretend it isn't. It might be Biblically-based discrimination, but that doesn't mean it's not discrimination.

And in a Society that prides itself so much on its Testimony of Equality (look, we were anti-slavery before it was cool! we were for women's rights before everyone else was!), it gives me a great sadness that there is discrimination my Meeting can't even speak openly about yet.