Quakers as Teachers

This morning, I was sitting in on a teen First Day school class. I had not been to this group before, but I wanted to meet the woman running the group as we had previously communicated about me talking with the group about glbt issues. Because the scheduled speaker/activity was late, we actually spent much of today talking about these issues. There were 4 youth in the group (a senior, a junior - both from a local Quaker private school, a freshman from a suburban public school, and a sixth grader).

Rather than lecture, I did what I usually do, turn to questions for discussion. Here's what was identified: at the private high school, sexual orientation was absolutely no big deal, according to the students from that school. But, at the suburban school, the youth reported that gays were annoying - loud and irritating. I asked if the lesbians were the same, and he said no. We talked about why there might be more reactivity to male homosexuals (and, perhaps more reactivity from among within this group). We seemed to reach a point of understanding taht we live in a time where it is easier for females to slip out of feminine roles, than for males to slip out of masculine roles (such as express their affection for each other). For this same youth, I hasked if the "annoying gays" were the only gays in the school, and he said they are the only one's that are out. I asked how gays who come out are recieved, and he stated that they are generally directed towards the annoying gays, which led to a discussion about how we often tend to reflect the behaviors of our environment (I used regional accents as an example).

At this point, we abruptly shigted gears because the scheduled presenter showed up. He is involved with Amnesty International, and talked about the 3 issues on AI's docket for this week that are their letter-writing campaign. This is where something interesting - perhaps troubling - happened. The three issues are clearly of concern, but the coercion to sign the three letters was not good. The youngest member of the group stated he wasn't sure he wanted to sign the letters (his stated reason: wondering what would happen to him. The teacher said he'd become a good person if he signed the letters). She really did not leave "not signing" as an option, and the older kids pretty much jumped on the bandwagon. At first, I did not want to sign them either (I'm not much for that kind of activity, although I support others in doing it), but also felt as if that was not ok.

My concern here is the overly coercive/lack of dialog approach to activism. It seemed like what was happening was this: "here's the problem (amnesty issues); we all agree these are problems; now, do what I say to address this" For me, this didn't seem to be the best of Quakerism as a process of unerstanding and love; instead it seemed to be more of the bad stuff - a fundamentalist, don't ask questions, just get in line approach to social justice.

FLGBTQC, or Why Is This Acronym So Long?

[EDIT: The final draft can be read here.]

For my Monthly Meeting's Newsletter, our Testimonies & Concerns committee has suggested I write an article about FLGBTQC. Here is the rough draft. I am open to suggestions at this time; the article is not due until February 22nd. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions.

Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (FLGBTQC) is an organization composed of and run by Quakers who are concerned about the Testimonies (especially the Testimony of Equality) in relation to Friends with a variety of understandings and experiences of sexuality and gender. As I've told several Friends at Third Haven about this group, the response has tended to be laughter at the length of the name and the amount of initials in the abbreviation. Friends have implied that the name could be shortened; or the Q could be dropped, asking why the Q is necessary with all the LGBT in front of it.

I do not mean to imply that Friends have not been appropriately supportive of the group; but each and every one has commented on the length of the name. We Quakers love our abbreviations and have many of them that are commonly used in normal conversations at Meeting (AFSC, PYM, T&C, FGC, FCNL, etc.). FLGBTQC is longer than most; I admit to having trouble memorizing it at first. Yet since I've come to realize what the letters stand for, the acronym FLGBTQC comes easily to me now.

I can't imagine any of us not knowing what Lesbian and Gay means, but I will speak for a moment about why listing both Lesbian and Gay is a tribute to our Testimony of Equality. Gay was first used to refer to homosexual men, to the exclusion of women. In recent years, it was extended to refer to homosexual women as well; as homosexual women began to get more recognition both inside and outside of the "non-straight" community. By using both Lesbian and Gay, FLGBTQC is acknowledging that lesbian women and gay men have different identities. This is important, because not only is it true; but their experiences can differ vastly as well. Also, listing Lesbian first reverses the common acronym of GLBT, where Gay is listed first. This is a step towards equality of men and women, by not automatically assuming that the male-oriented acronym should go before the female-oriented one.

Bisexual might be a term most of you are familiar, but uncomfortable, with. Bisexuals can be attracted to either sex. To a bisexual, lesbians and gays, and straight men and women are considered monosexual; that is, they are attracted to only one sex instead of two. Bisexuals can be accused of being "fence sitters", or "confused", or "going through phases". I had a male friend in high school first come out to me as bisexual, and then later came to accept that he was gay. This does happen; but it does not mean that all people who identify as bisexual are confused or in denial. We are perhaps the only sexuality group whose sexuality is regularly denied and ridiculed by members of the "normative" sexuality (i.e., straight) and members of the GLBT community. There is a lot of confusion about bisexuals; I would like to offer myself as a resource to any member of Third Haven who would like to know more about bisexual people (I am one).

Transgender is one category that I have to admit to having little knowledge or experience of. Transgender can refer to people with both male and female sex organs, those who are in the process of changing their sex surgically (or are thinking about doing so, or have done so in the past), those who feel they have a different gender than sex (for example, a man stuck in a woman's body), those who bend the gender identity rules of our society (such as crossdressers), and so on. Transgender is not a sexual orientation, but a gender identity. Transgender people can have any sexual orientation, including straight.

Queer is for those people who don't identify with any of the previous identities, but do not consider themselves to fit into societal norms of sexual orientation or gender identity. For example, some people consider themselves to be pansexual instead of bisexual, acknowledging that they can be attracted to anyone regardless of sex or gender identity. Pansexuals feel that bisexual, with its implication of men and women only, excludes transgender individuals. Pansexuals often feel they are attracted to the person, regardless of the person's sex or gender. There are also those who consider their sexuality and/or their gender identity to be fluid instead of set into a specific category. The Queer is listed as part of FLGBTQC concerns to allow those people the chance to have a voice in the Religious Society of Friends.

If any would like more information about FLGBTQC, they have a website at http://www.quaker.org/flgbtqc/ . Included at their website is a letter to all Friends everywhere written last February:

"Once again, we are called to testify to the love we find moving among us. It is a testimony of radical inclusion. It is a cause of great pain to our corporate body to know that there are some Friends for whom our message is deeply disturbing; indeed, apparently, in contravention of their strongly held beliefs. It would gladden our hearts if Friends could soften their hearts to hear us out."

The rest of that epistle can be found here: http://www.quaker.org/flgbtqc/2007epistle.html .

I hope that I've cleared up the necessity of each of the initials in FLGBTQC; and that by doing so have made the acronym easier to remember.

Sexuality and Faith

At my last Worship & Ministry committee meeting, the following question was posed to me:

"How do you feel your sexuality relates to your faith?"

I was a bit taken aback by this, as I assumed I already knew the answer and found out when I tried to answer the question that, indeed, I am not clear on this yet. The answer I gave was something to the effect of since love is spoken about so much by Jesus as being so important, thus who I am capable of loving affects my faith. That answer isn't wrong, but it is incomplete.

The truth that I knew then and was too afraid to speak borders on severe egoism. I worried at the time, as I am worrying now, that sharing the true answer to that question would lead to charges that I was raising myself to God's level; further, that these charges wouldn't be altogether uncalled-for, either. But a truth that I keep to myself and am unwilling to have tested by people who might disagree with it or find it offensive isn't a truth at all, but just a shadow of the truth.

Here is the truth, egotistical as it may be.

The answer I gave is the beginning of the truth, but not the whole truth. As the cliché goes: "God is love". I find romantic love to be the closest we humans can get to experiencing the love God has for us. I don't know who first said that to be in love is to see someone as God sees them, but I find this to be true experientially. Thus, who I can love is connected to my faith in a sense of perception, that I can potentially see all these people the way God sees them.

And this is where the potential charge of egotism might be raised. I consider the fact that I am bisexual (or, more accurately, pansexual, if any of you are aware of the difference), to be a great gift from God. The fact that I have the potential to love someone regardless of their sex, seems to me a true blessing. I am capable of seeing so many more people as God loves them than most mono-sexual (heterosexual or homosexual) people are capable of. My potential to see someone as God does is, in a way, higher than most people whose attractions depend on the sex of the person.

I try to not let this make me think I am better than people who are only attracted to one sex, but the truth is that I find bisexuality to be a unique blessing. If God has a sexuality, I imagine that He or She would share the same sexuality I have. This is not to say that I don't think gender identity is important. I love my husband partially because he is a man and he wouldn't be who he is if he were a woman. But the potential to love a woman the same way I love my husband is there. The potential to love two people, one male and one female, is there. And I am infinitely grateful for this, even when it means I feel excluded from both straight and gay people.

I sometimes wonder if attraction to the opposite sex implies an attraction to what's different while an attraction to the same sex implies an attraction to what's similar. At least, this is how my sexuality often feels to me. And I consider this to be another aspect of my sexuality to be grateful for, that I can be attracted to the similarities and the differences. My sexuality is not only part of my identity, it affects the whole of my identity. My ability to relate to other's attractions taught me empathy for other's perspectives. And this has led me to open-mindedness, which is an enormous part of my faith, the ability to empathize with other people and their different faiths.

I hope this doesn't make me sound monophobic, if I can coin a term. (By this, I mean someone who thinks bisexual people are better than those who are only attracted to one sex.) This is just my attempt at answering the question I was asked honestly and fully.

The Gay Christian Network Gathering

I attended the Gay Christian Network Gathering yesterday. This event is taking place in Alexandria, VA from Jan. 3 to 6. I'm not up for the whole weekend, so I'm thankful to Justin for allowing me to participate for the afternoon and into the evening. It was impressive to see the numbers of people (350 is what I heard). Overwhelmingly, the participants were white males, and people came from all over the country.

As someone from the tradition of unprogrammed Quakers and silent worship, here are some of my observations and thoughts:

• The opening of the afternoon General Session consisted of singing, and not the kind of singing I've experienced at the more traditional (Episcopal, Lutheran or Catholic) services I've attended over the years, but singing in the Evangelical tradition - drums, keyboards, and video screens with words. Very uplifting, but as I so often feel with these kinds of things, a bit awkward. I don't know if it's because it's not a part of my nature to go with the flow (what's that all about, anyway?), or if I'm feeling that my emotions are being manipulated, or what.
• LOVE - there was lots of love in the air. But I could also sense a lot of pain - people who have been hurt by their church. There were many people there who had been through "ex-gay" programs, and are among the 70% of people for whom ex-day programs tends to do more harm than good, although they are clear that they do not blame these programs for their hurt, nor do they begrudge those for whom the programs work.
• There was nothing visible about HIV/AIDS. It's possible that I was the only one with HIV there (in fact, I mentioned it at the small group gathering I attended, and a man sitting next to me asked "what is HIV?". I said "You know, AIDS", and he still didn't know what I was talking about). It's quite possible that something was said in the morning session or opening session the night before, but I'm sensitive to is the silence a form of acceptance or denial?
• The speaker for the general session I attended was fantastic! Kelly Fryer is a former Lutheran Minister who was "de-frocked" after coming out as a Lesbian by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. She started an organization called A Renewal Enterprise ("Setting people free to change the world"), based in Chicago. (For more info, see http://www.arenewalenterprise.com/). The theme of her message was that we all draw lines, and right now in "the church", glbt issues is one of the most prominent lines being drawn. The fact is, however, that everyone draws lines somewhere (I sure can back that up: my parents are wonderful and caring secular humanists, but have very fundamentalist lines when it comes to certain political and religious groups). But, Kelly said, Christ died to set us free from hatred, self-hatred and doubt, and that ultimately, we don't get to draw the lines. I particularly like her calling that we all have a mission, and that when we accept this, it is a responsibility (as my good friend Lois so often says, with opportunity comes responsibility). A part of that mission is reconciliation, something our world so desparately needs, and that this comes to us and through us to the whole of creation (a concept very much in line with Quaker teachings of the inner Light and God in all things). Kelly stated "Jesus is Lord" as the first of five guiding principles. Just from my own upbringing and knowledge, I know that this statement is not universally agreed upon by Christians, let alone other faith traditions, but the more powerful part of her message (this is why, I think, it's important to keep listening) is that no one - not the church, not one's pastor, not one's family - speaks for God. God/Lord is the one who knows us better than we know ourselves, and loves us anyway.

Kelly's message, I think, was very empowering. She emphasized responsibility, and not being a victim. She stressed that we all need to be willing to be changed, not just wait for others to change - all messages that I completely resonate with, and like to think have been a part of my life's work. I know that I've changed immensely in my ability to see love in places I never thought I'd see it in the work I did in Wheaton, IL, and now see that when love rather than anger can be the driving emotion, good things can happen.

The question, for me, is "what about Quakerism?" The GCN gathering was clearly more Evangelical in nature. There are those of us who have not necessarily been hurt by our faith communities, but within Quaker traditions, there have been and continue to be a lot of angry words about homosexuality. Is there a way for Quakerism to be a part of the healing, bringing forth some of what is uniquely Quaker - the Peace Testimony, for example? And, at future GCN gatherings, can/should we try to have a greater presence to perhaps offer silent worship in the morning for those who need that as part of their faith practice?

I've been reading a book called "Head and Heart" by Garry Wills about Christianity in America. In early America, Quakers figured prominently in the abolition movement. In a future posting, I'll write about that, as I think we have some models from that history to perhaps guide our role in holding the dialog around homosexuality, faith, and God.

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.