Introduction

Q:  Should a gay man join the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?[1]

First, let me start by doing something elementary - as in school.  Let me diagram the question.  The subject is “man.”  This is fairly generic, in that it is one of the two genders (as understood by modern Western culture) that comprise the human race.  I am focusing on the man because I am a man, and I have always been told to write about what I know best.   I have chosen to exclude women from this endeavor because their status as women requires the exploration of a very different dynamic than the one I am hoping to explore.  I recognize that most of my statements are primarily focusing on middle class American men descended from Northern Europe, whose lives are not directly impacted negatively by economic injustice, racial discrimination, or classism.  While these issues are every bit as important as those faced by women, I will leave them all to later writers to explore. 

The subject of the sentence is modified by the adjective “gay.”  By this I do not mean merely “homosexual” (one whose “predominant  erotic attraction [is] to others of the same sex since childhood”[2]).  I mean an “aware[ness] of being homosexual and… develop[ment of] a personal identity as a homosexual man.”[3]

The sentence’s action is expressed by the verb “to join.”  By this I do not only mean signing up as a member, coming to the church to sit in the pews on Sunday morning and giving a token amount of income as an offering.   Here, I am trying to express becoming a member in the way that the Book of Order[4] defines it.  In part, this includes

“taking part in the common life and worship of a particular church,… supporting the work of the church through the giving of money, time, and talents,… participating in the governing responsibilities of the church, demonstrating a new quality of life within and through the church, responding to God's activity in the world through service to others, [and] working in the world for peace, justice, freedom, and human fulfillment.” (BoO G-5.0102)

Modifying the basic verb “to join” is the qualifier “should.”  As with all aspects of our society, gay men are joining the PCUSA, either voluntarily or by being raised within a family that already belongs to a Presbyterian congregation.  My job here is to explore whether it is a good thing for a man who understands himself to be homosexual, and has developed an identity that includes that sexuality, to become a self-avowed, unrepentant, practicing Presbyterian.  To be more specific, by “good” I mean helpful to the man in his activities toward achieving his highest potential.

Finally, we come to the object of the sentence: the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Formulated in 1983 from the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America[5] and the Presbyterian Church in the United States,[6] the PCUSA is now a collection of some 2.6 million Reformed Christians[7] and is one of the more liberal mainline churches in American Christendom.[8]  I have chosen the PCUSA because it is the church that has nurtured me from my preschool days to the present.   It is the church I know best.  And it is the church that has caused me the most pain with its refusal to ordain self-affirming, practicing homosexuals like myself.  Again, I write about what I know best.

Now that we have dissected the question, I shall restate it to incorporate all the nuances it includes:

For a man who understands himself to be homosexual and who has accepted his homosexuality as an integral part of himself, is it helpful and supportive to become an active participant in the PCUSA?

Why should the PCUSA care about this issue?

Now that we have properly defined the question, let me do something practical - as in ministry.   Why do we care whether gay men want to join the PCUSA?  I am not going to go into the theological arguments about the Body of Christ or the Kingdom of God, or the philosophical ones about the seeking of truth through diversity.  I think that congregations for whom these arguments are taken for granted are in need of one very practical insight: If you know what they are looking for in a church, you can better provide for them.  In other words, what would encourage a gay man (assuming he wants to join up) to join up with your church?

Part I: Authority and Ecclesiology Within the PCUSA Constitution

            The word “presbyterian” refers to a system of governance, not to a theological position.  The word describes the rule of the local congregation by democratically elected – and ordained – lay “elders,”[9] who (along with the theologically trained professional ordained “ministers”[10]) then  choose those who shall lead the regional and national bodies.[11]

            So where does theological authority arise within the Presbyterian Church?   Governmental authority derives from the Book of Order, and that tome also provides theological direction in the form of theological justification for the system of government.  The BoO also states that the PCUSA “states its faith and bears witness to God's grace in Jesus Christ in the creeds and confessions in the Book of Confessions.”[12]  The BoO goes on to state that the PCUSA identifies with the faith of the Protestant Reformation and the Reformed (Christian) tradition[13] (BoO, G-2.0400 and G-2.0500).  Thus I will use both the BoO and the BoC to make my case regarding Presbyterian theology, but will also seek the assistance of Reformed Christian theologians not included explicitly in the PCUSA Constitution.

            Given this range of theological options, what can the PCUSA offer to humanity, and more particularly to that part of humanity identifying as gay and male?  What is there about the PCUSA that is different than any other grouping of people?  To recall my rephrased question, what about the PCUSA is “helpful and supportive?”

            The BoO gives several interpretations of the purpose of the Church,[14] but none so direct as this: “Christ calls the Church into being…for the establishment and extension of his Kingdom” (G-1.011b).  The focus seems to be on inclusion of all people, regardless of condition or worldly category, into one organization that is focused on a radical vision of God’s justice and mercy and love.   In a statement dating back to 1910, the PCUSA claims that the “great ends of the church” include:

·         “…the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God;”

·         “…the promotion of social righteousness; and

·         “the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.” (BoO G-1.0200)

Later in the BoO, the PCUSA claims to be called upon by Christ by

·         “demonstrating by the love of its members for one another and by the quality of its common life the new reality in Christ; sharing in worship, fellowship, and nurture, practicing a deepened life of prayer and service under the guidance of the Holy Spirit;…

·         “healing and reconciling and binding up wounds,

·         “ministering to the needs of the poor, the sick, the lonely, and the powerless,

·         “engaging in the struggle to free people from sin, fear, oppression, hunger, and injustice,

·         “giving itself and its substance to the service of those who suffer,

·         “sharing with Christ in the establishing of his just, peaceable, and loving rule in the world” (G-3.0300) and

·         “affirming itself as a community of diversity…and by providing for inclusiveness as a visible sign of the new humanity” (G-3.0401).

All of this seems to imply that the Church is a place where all can come to be accepted, affirmed, included, and loved. 

This vision of radical inclusivity is continued in the BoO’s section on membership.  The only requirement for membership is “faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and acceptance of his Lordship in all of life” (G-5.0101a).  The ritual of baptism and a public proclamation of the aforementioned faith provide the visible signs of membership (ibid.).  The elders of the congregation are charged with ensuring that those seeking membership in the Church are appropriately faithful and accepting (G-5.0101c-f). 

Members are seen to be called into Christ’s service and are responsible for the ministries of the church, including:

·         “taking part in the common life and worship of a particular church,

·         “…participating in the governing responsibilities of the church,

·         “…living responsibly in the personal, family, vocational, political, cultural, and social relationships of life,” and

·         “working in the world for peace, justice, freedom, and human fulfillment” (G-5.0102).

The BoO requires that all congregations “welcome all persons” professing faith in Jesus Christ (G-5.0103) and further dedicates the whole denomination to “greater inclusiveness” (G-4.0403). 

            Sadly, however, there is a single paragraph in the BoO that was added in 1996 to challenge all this diversity.  Section G-6.0106b[15] requires all ordained officers of the Church to conform to the heterosexual standards of either “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman” or “chastity in singleness.”  Because this section
has been inserted into the Constitution, it carries weight equal to, but no greater than, the weight of the other statements calling for diversity and acceptance of all people.  Congregations and individual Presbyterians that are seeking to be both faithful to the PCUSA tradition of inclusion and to the PCUSA Constitution are currently wrestling with how to deal with the 1996 addition.  Some are quietly ignoring it,[16] while others are challenging it directly through the Church courts and other venues.[17]

            Turning to the other half of the Constitution, the BoC, we find several ecclesiologies.  The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds offer us only that the Church is holy, catholic and apostolic (BoC, 1.3 and 2.3).   This is to say that the Church is somehow separated from the rest of the world; it is universal, across all humanity regardless of geography or time; and it is descended from the community that encircled Jesus of Nazareth.  The Scots’ Confession[18] tells us that the universal Church (or Kirk, in the original Scottish parlance) “is invisible, known only to God, who alone knows whom he[19]  has chosen” (ibid., 3.16) and that the earthly Church is discerned only by its preaching, its sacraments, and its discipline.  The Heidelburg Catechism[20] and the Second Helvetic Confession[21] expand on the Nicene and Apostles Creeds only slightly regarding the Church, focusing primarily on its role as disciplinarian (ibid., 4.085 and 5.124).

            With the completion of the Westminster Confession in 1649, we begin to see a greater emphasis on the role of ecclesiology in creeds.  This confession sets the Church’s canon (BoC, 6.002) but concedes that all churches are subject to error, no matter how perfect they may seem (ibid., 6.144).  Westminster’s Larger Catechism has a great deal to say about the Church as the repository of those who are destined to an afterlife with Christ (i.e. BoC, 7.171-175, 7.179, 7.192-193). 

            The next Presbyterian confession is the Barmen Declaration, written in Germany in the 1930s.  Robert Osborn explains that Barmen puts the Church at the center of all of Christianity. 

The Christian community, not the individual member as such, is the body of Christ – the presence and work of Christ in and for the world….The fact is that the church is what Christianity is all about and that the individual Christian’s first responsibility is to and for the church, through whom and with whom it participates in the presence and life of Christ in the world (Osborn, p. xiii). 

For the writers of Barmen, a Christian could not live as a Christian without the Church. 

            The first truly American Presbyterian statement in the BoC is the Confession of 1967.[22]  In it, the Church is described as a locus for reconciliation.  The mission of the Church has definitely changed roles from disciplinarian as in the Reformation era to social activist.  The Church is “to work for every form of human well-being” (9.32).  Instead of speaking of the Church invisible and visible, C-67 refers to the Church gathered (9.36) and dispersed (9.37).  C-67 calls on the Church to fight racism (9.44), nationalism (9.45), poverty (9.46), and sexism (9.47). 

            Upon reunion, the PCUSA wrote a Brief Statement of Faith, summarizing all that both predecessor denominations held in common.  In the Brief Statement, the Church is described as “the one body of Christ” to which the Holy Spirit has bound all believers (BoC, 10.4). 

            So what does the PCUSA Constitution offer gay men as incentives to join with the denomination?  Not a lot.  The church is likely to provide fellowship, a worship experience, a tax break for charitable contributions, and perhaps even an outlet for the gay man’s activist tendencies.  All of these can be found in other places.[23]  Sadly, the denomination has also enshrined its simple majority’s homophobia in its ordination requirements (BoO 6.0106b),[24] a move that is notably uninviting.

            As I mentioned earlier, the Constitution allows for a great deal of latitude by also claiming all of the Reformed Christian tradition.  Can a gay man find solace there?

Part II: Ecclesiology Outside the PCUSA Constitution

            Presbyterianism traces its roots back to John Calvin, whose ecclesiology is easily found within his opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion.[25] Within that text, Calvin is remarkably inclusive.  He states that we should “recognize as members of the church those who, by confession of faith, by example of life, and by partaking of the sacraments, profess the same God and Christ with us” (IV.i.8).  To those who were called to God through the Church (“the Elect”[26]), Calvin offers God’s salvation and eternal life, but not as a result of membership in a church. In fact, Calvin admits that not all who will be saved are part of a church, though they are all part of God’s invisible Church (IV.i.7-8).  He speaks extensively of what constitutes a true church, mostly to convince his readers that the Roman Catholic Church is not one.  His assumption seems to be that everyone will be a member of one church or another.  He did not understand church to be a voluntary association. 

            So, in our search for the answer to our question, we cannot count Calvin for much help.  Perhaps “the master of modern theologians,”[27] Friedrich Schleiermacher will be more beneficial. 

            In his On Religion: Speeches To Its Cultured Despisers, Schleiermacher attempts to justify religion, and eventually the church, to those members of the educated elite who see it only as superstition or an organization to develop power.  The first speech of the five develops his idea of the innate human sensibility of divinity (p. 5), but more important for our purposes is his fourth speech.  Here he declares that sensibility toward religion to also be “social” (p. 73).  The one who has allowed this sensibility to develop until there is an understanding of the Divine needs a space that includes others with similar development, others from whom he can learn and with whom she can share her own understanding.  The Church is that space.  It provides sanctuary for us to discuss in detail that which we have discerned and hear what others have learned.  It is like a school, where the uninitiated go to learn that which will allow them to take their rightful place in religious society.  Schleiermacher even says that “people become all the more indifferent to the church the more they increase in religion, and the most pious sever themselves from it proudly and coldly” (p. 80).  This is not so dissimilar from modern academia, by which we learn all that we think we can learn there and then we move on, leaving the collectivity of the classroom behind as we continue our journeys. 

            Later in his life, Schleiermacher wrote The Christian Faith, a systematic theology and a fuller exposition of the themes he introduced in the aforementioned Speeches.  In this later work, he posits that “to-day the communication of the Holy Spirit to the individual presents itself to each as a natural effect of the presence and activity of the Spirit in the whole formed by the Christian fellowship” (ß124.3).   In other words, the fellowship found within the Church causes the knowledge of the Divine presence.  Further, Schleiermacher notes, “the Christian Church…is…the perfect image of the Redeemer, and each regenerate individual is an indispensable constituent  of this fellowship” (ß 125).   This echoes Calvin’s sense that the only thing necessary to join a church is “[profession of] the same God and Christ with us” (Institutes, IV.i.8).  

            From these two theologians, we see that there is a history of inclusiveness in the Reformed Christian tradition. Schleiermacher, unlike Calvin, shows us that there is a reason for the individual to attend the church: to share her increasing sense of the Divine and to better understand what the Divine means in her life.  Now, let us turn to 20^th century theologians, starting with Paul Tillich.

Tillich’s primary image of God is the Ground of All Being, the source of everything, including existence itself.  For Tillich, God is that for which we are “ultimately concerned” (ST I, p. 211).  As we tear away at our own concerns, eliminating those which are not really “ultimate” for us, we come to realize that our ultimate concern is our own existence, or more precisely our own finitude within that existence and what that finitude means for us.  Thus, God is existence itself, or “Being” itself (ST I, p. 235).   The tearing away of our own concerns, the coming to a point of being “ultimately concerned with [our] sense of estrangement and about the possibility of reunion with the ground and aim of [our] being is already in the grip of the Spiritual Presence” (ST III, p. 223).   In turn, those who are “grasped” by the Spiritual Presence are considered to be in a state of faith, and all those in such a state comprise the Spiritual Community (ST III, p. 161). 

Tillich sees this Spiritual Community is a “community of love,” including all forms of love with the agape love that “unites being with being in transcendent union of unambiguous life” (ST III, p. 156).  Put differently, those who are concerned most about the limitations of mortality and are concerned with the possibility of overcoming those limitations are all included in a community based on connectedness with all other existence.  Tillich equates this community with the New Testament’s “body of Christ” and Calvin’s “invisible church” (ST III, p. 162).  Like Calvin, Tillich understands that the Church does not always demonstrate itself to be God’s community (ST III, p. 165), and understands that the Church can easily be confused with a myriad of other organizations if the Church is not viewed from a theological perspective (ST III, p. 166).  The understanding that the Church has a special position as the meeting-house of the Spiritual Community, founded in the “New Being” (the life of those who are justified through faith by grace) is essential to Tillich (ST III, p. 166-167).  The Church’s intention to live a life of devotion to the ground of all being, as revealed by Jesus of Nazareth, resisting the distortions that life produces, makes the Church unique.   Tillich realizes that neither a church nor the Church will ever realize its intention, but in the intending and the attempting to realize those intentions, the Spiritual Presence shines (ST III, p. 173). 

I think it is fair to say that, for Tillich, the accusation that the Church is hypocritical would be a mark of the Church.  Each church should announce its intention to live in a manner that demonstrates love to all of existence, out of its foundation in the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.  Each church will fail at times.  In that failure, there will be those who say that the church is not living up to its announced intent, which each church should keep announcing despite its failure to fulfill that intention.  They will say the church is being hypocritical.  They will be right.   However, they will be overlooking the fact that the intention is there and is often realized.  Thus, the importance of church membership is to support that intention, to join with those who understand the issues of ultimacy in the concerns regarding our finitude, and to share those concerns. 

More recently, Dorothee Söllee wrote of the Church as “the community of those who are there not to rule but to serve.”  The service came out of an understanding of the Gospel as calling us “to new life and to conversion” (Söllee, p. 141).  This service manifests itself not in good deeds alone, but in the offering of oneself humbly and without thought for personal gain.  The Gospel and its ensuing conversion to a life of service result in a sense of community, both with God and with others who have experienced a similar conversion (Söllee, p. 142).  This sense of the understanding of the Gospel, the sense of service, and the sense of community are all marks of the Church for Söllee.  For her, joining the Church or a church involves hearing the Church’s message, claiming the new life of service it offers, and cleaving to the community with and of God.

Migliore shares much of Söllee’s vision of the Church.  He scours the New Testament to find four images of the Church: the people of God, a servant people, the body of Christ, and a community of the Spirit (Migliore, p. 190-192).  In the first image, Migliore sees the members of the Church as people called by God into a single community.   The second image sets the community apart as the people who carry out God’s work in the world.  The third image shows that all members of the community, though each endowed with different gifts, are dependent on each other and on the “one head who is Christ” (p. 191).  The final image serves to show the Church as the precursor to the commonwealth of God, enlivened and freed by the Holy Spirit, and inclusive of all. 

Finally, from Peter Hodgson and Robert Williams, we learn that the Church is “a transfigured mode of human community, comprised of a plurality of peoples and cultural traditions, founded upon the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, constituted by the redemptive presence of God as Spirit, in which privatistic, provincial, and hierarchical modes of existence are overcome, and in which is actualized a universal reconciling love that liberates from sin, alienation, and oppression” (Hodgson and Williams, p. 271).  Working through the academic complexities of the sentence, we see that the Church is:

·         a new form of community,

·         diverse in nature,

·         based on the story of Jesus of Nazareth,

·         held together by the Holy Spirit,

·         seeking to overcome issues of power within the community itself, and

·         making real a love that frees all of creation from the effects of division and power imbalances.

In joining such a group, one would gain a diverse fellowship, space to exchange understandings of the importance of the Divine in life, and a sense that one is important as one is, not as one should be in someone else’s eye.

            So what have we gained by this review of Reformed ecclesiology?  We know that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which lays claim to the Reformed Christian tradition, can be said to see the church as a place where one can gain much.  Church can provide space for the sharing of understandings of that strange sensation that there is something bigger than us out there.  It can help us find answers to our questions about the meaning of our lives and our mortality.  It can provide a space to serve others without concern for what people think of us.  Finally, it can provide participation in a community that is as diverse as humanity, allowing us to share our lives with one another in love without fear or hatred.

            Let us now turn to the other side of the question.  Gay men are coming to churches and always have.  Why?

Part III: What Brings Gay Men to Church?

            From the gay man’s perspective, why go to church?  What need is satisfied in a church that is not satisfied anywhere else in the gay man’s cosmos?  As British writer Peter Sweasey says, “My question is not: why should religions accept lesbian, gay and bisexual people?…My question is: why should queers want anything to do with religion?…What can God give them that a good fuck can’t?” (pp. 3-5).  To answer these questions, I turned to psychologist Richard Isay to discuss gay psychology; Michael Nava, Robert Dawidoff, Jack Nichols and others to discuss social factors; as well as various theologians and other writers who discuss spirituality in the gay community.

Psychological Needs

            Isay notes that the most psychologically helpful thing a gay or lesbian person can do is to be open and honest about who they are.  This process is also called “coming out.”

It is healthy for an adult to come out in all areas of his life, including to important straight people, in order to provide continuity between his internal, private life and his external, social life.  Coming out alleviates the anxiety and depression caused by the sense of inauthenticity that arises from hiding or disguising oneself. (Becoming Gay, p. 8)

Isay also explores the various issues that psychotherapists need to understand in working with gay male patients coming to terms with their sexuality.  He reminds us that the psychological problems of gay men are not inherent in their sexuality, but rather are the result of society’s rejection of that sexuality.   He concludes the book saying, “it takes enormous effort for gay men to maintain their sense of dignity and self-worth in a society that remains inimical to them and their sexuality” (Being Homosexual, p. 133).  From his perspective, then, gay men really need a supportive community, which would not be judgmental and injurious to them.  The Church, with the Scriptural admonition to avoid judging others, should be such a community. 

Social Needs

            Nava and Dawidoff state that all the gay (and lesbian and bisexual) community wants from the legal system is “the ordinary rights that all Americans enjoy” (p. xii).  Nichols puts the legal argument in more personal terms: “Both gay liberation and feminism seek for those represented the self-confidence that develops when an individual realizes his or her equal status” (p. 70).  Both books are trying to express the desire of gay men (and lesbian women) to be permitted to live their lives and love their loves with the same freedom granted to the heterosexual majority.   Given the current separation of church and state in American society, gay men cannot find equal legal rights by going to church.  However, the churches are not prohibited from expressing themselves on particular political issues.   Every statement that the PCUSA and its predecessor denominations have produced addressing gay rights has consistently advocated equal civil (legal) rights for gays and lesbians.[28]

Spiritual Needs

            The few (but growing number of) books dedicated to gay spirituality and the intersections between homosexuality and spirituality point out the diversity of paths taken by gay men (and lesbians and bisexuals) in satisfying their spiritual needs.  From lifelong commitment to the church of one’s childhood, to the “suck-it-and-see approach” (Sweasey, p. 38) to spiritual experimentation, the gay community is trying to find the answers to questions it often cannot articulate.  Two authors, David Shallenberger and Peter Sweasey have interviewed a multitude of gay men and lesbians to find the intersections between spirituality and homosexuality.

            First, I want to clearly define what I mean by spirituality, using Sweasey’s definition which, I believe, captures all the nuances of the term.  Spirituality, for Sweasey, has several points:

·         it “refers to our sense of being;

·         “it grapples with the questions of why we are here and how we live and seeks a context with which to approach these questions;

·         it fosters a sense of connection with other people, the universe we live in, and the force of creation;

·         it helps make sense of transcendent experiences” (p. 23).

These overarching questions are as applicable to gay men as to any other group in our society, and as disconcerting.  With a society that is, in Isay’s words, “inimical to” us, what is our purpose?  Why are we here?  What is expected of us?  These are the base points for spirituality. 

            Can we say that the experiences of the women interviewed by Shallenberger and Sweasey reflect similar needs to those of gay men?  I think so.  Sweasey’s definition of spirituality does not seem to differ by gender, and I believe that where spirituality is concerned, gay men and lesbians have more in common than not.  This is not to say that their experiences in specific religions are identical, or even comparable, nor to say that the choices they make in satisfying their spiritual needs are similar.  I do, however, believe that the fundamental spiritual needs exist across the genders[29] and that the spiritual crises that we undergo in coming out are similar. 

Shallenberger notes that coming out was an essential part of the spiritual development of all his interviewees (p. 6).  In Shallenberger’s introduction, he posits a five-part course of coming out through which most people travel:

·         “self-questioning,”

·         “self-acceptance,”

·         “disclosure,”

·         “movement into community,” and

·         “integration” (p. 7).

Each stage builds upon rather than displaces the previous stage.  The self-questioning stage starts a process of “[replacing] society’s… norms…with a value system that is congruent with…[one’s] evolving self-image” (p. 7).  This questioning continues as the individual achieves self-acceptance and begins disclosure of his newly-claimed identity and moves into community as an openly gay person, eventually integrating the gay identity into the fuller sense of selfhood.  Likewise, disclosure continues as one moves into community and integration.  

            Shallenberger identifies a second pattern, which often interacts with and sometimes follows the coming out pattern I have already discussed.  The second pattern shows how gay men and lesbians integrate their specifically spiritual selves into their broader selves.  The five stages Shallenberger proposes are:

·         distancing from long-held assumptions and deep questioning of those assumptions and of spirituality in general,

·         finding spiritual communities,

·         exploring alternatives to traditional religion,

·         returning to childhood traditions in a new way, and

·         defining a ministry and sense of purpose (p. 13)

Not all of Shallenberger’s interviewees underwent each stage, but enough of the pattern was present in each interviewee’s life to justify the categories.  I think the pattern also
provides a direction for our search for spiritual needs.  

            Integrity becomes a significant issue for gay men and lesbians as they seek to integrate their sexuality and their spirituality into the rest of their lives.  This integrity takes the form of challenging long-standing beliefs held personally, and new belief systems encountered on the journey of life.  As Sweasey summarizes from Buddhist interviewee Maitreyabandhu, “what is most unhealthy is conformity” (p. 29).  The individual needs to be self-identified and must live into that self-identification to claim his own integrity. Maitreyabandhu puts it rather succinctly when he says, “Coming out can be the beginning of a realization that you’re never going to fit into the group” (ibid.).  Sandra expresses this need for integrity when she says “I think that you should do your best not to intend to be hypocritical” (Shallenberger, p. 97).

Several interviewees noted that in satisfying the need to be open and honest about who they are (that is, in coming out), they found that there are many parallels with the Judeo-Christian mythology.  Coming out is compared frequently to being born again (Sweasey, p. 32; Lowenthal, p. 93) and to the empty tomb on Easter (Sweasey, p. 32), as well as to the Passover story (ibid., p. 33) and the Exodus (ibid., p.43).  The ultimate claiming of one’s homosexuality is even illustrated in terms of the name God gave when Moses asked who was speaking from the burning bush: I am what I am (ibid., p. 34).  Liberal Christianity, which allows and even encourages one to wrestle with the questions of spirituality is seen as very similar to the nature of coming out (ibid., p. 40). 

Philip Joyce, a gay therapist, speaks of a need to make sense of spiritual things, doing that deep reflective questioning Shallenberger includes in his first stage.  Philip asserts that “religions are a way of talking about spirituality, of articulating and formulating beliefs about what otherwise is mysterious and beyond understanding.… They are, in a sense languages, they make communication about spiritual things possible, by sharing concepts, vocabulary and mythology” (Sweasey, p. 61).

Sue talks about Shallenberger’s second spiritual stage: acceptance and community.  “The core of Christian faith,”[30] she says, “is an awareness of God’s love.  God is the precious essence of all loving, caring relationships…Feeling at home and accepted [by the Church] instead of ‘on the outside’ I was, and continue to be, able to involve myself every more deeply with my re-found spiritual home” (Sweasey, p. 74).  Shallenberger recognizes the importance of acceptance and community when he states that as his interviewees “progressed through their coming out, finding a larger community with others who shared some aspects of their spiritual journey was crucial” (p. 79). 

Not all find this community as they emerge from the closets.  Mary, a middle-aged professor who grew up in a missionary family “misses a faith community now, but there doesn’t seem to be a place where she is completely at home” (Shallenberger, p. 80).  She is creating that sense of spiritual community outside the Church, but the journey has been a long one.  She compares the reclamation of her spirituality, and integration of it with her sexuality, with the process of reclaiming one’s body after a rape (p. 96).

 Sandra also talks about why community and acceptance are so crucial when she says

you can be very spiritual, but you still need to have contact with people….It reminds you…how everything is kind of important in the scheme of everyone, that it’s important to have a connection to other people.  In your day-to-day life, you affect people, and you need to be concerned about the way you affect people….No matter what you do, you still are connected with people, unless you’re off on a desert island and there’s no contact, but then you’re interconnected with animals and stuff.  (Shallengberger, p. 91)

Sandra eventually found that sense of community in the Metropolitan Community Church,[31] but says that she would have stayed in the mainstream churches if they had provided her the acceptance and community she found in the MCC (ibid., p. 94). 

Harry, who grew up in a nominally Lutheran family, echoes that sense of not fitting in, of not having community, even within his own family (Shallenberger, p. 121).  This sense of non-relationship extends to his current relationship with the church.  He just does not sense that he belongs regardless of how welcoming or affirming the pastor or congregation is (ibid., p. 134).   He feels a sense of missing community, of non-acceptance in the Church.  He is now part of the Wiccan tradition, putting him in the third stage of Shallenberger’s spiritual development system.

Summary

            So what are the needs we have identified?  We can boil down the list to the following:

·         Psychological health, best cultivated by being “out”

·         Equal civil rights

·         Acceptance

·         Community

·         Integrity

·         A place to talk about spirituality without fear

Interestingly, the psychological need to be “out” overlaps with the spiritual need for integrity which includes being honest about who one is.  The social need for equal civil recognition coincides with the spiritual needs for acceptance and community.

Is there an intersection between the what the PCUSA has to offer and what gay men need? 

Part III: Presbyterian and Gay – Oxymoron or Natural Affinity?

            The PCUSA Constitution speaks of the Church as a place for fellowship, a place for worship, a place for activism, and a place to share resources.  It also speaks of the Church as inclusive, except in ordained leadership.  The Reformed Christian tradition, which the PCUSA claims, speaks of the Church as a place to learn and share spiritual understandings, a place to find answers to our questions of meaning in our lives, a place to serve the needs of humanity, and a place to share ourselves with one another to learn more about all that makes us part of creation.

            The church’s fellowship and worship are presented as wildly inclusive events, calling all together to share.  This seems to be an answer to a gay man’s prayer for acceptance, community, and freedom to be out.  The church’s activism, in conjunction with the aforementioned statements advocating gay civil rights, seems to answer the prayers for equal rights (or at least for support for them).  The church’s tradition of asking hard questions about spirituality and life and not flinching at the answers (well, eventually not flinching) seems to respond to the gay man’s needs for integrity and a place to talk freely about spirituality. 

            Do we have a match?  Not so fast.  Let us now look at the actual practices of the PCUSA in the lives of actual Presbyterians.

Part IV: Presbyterian and Gay – Can It Really Be This Good?

            I will start with my own stories.  I was raised in First Presbyterian Church of Charlottesville, Virginia.  I did not come out until after I left for college at age 17.   Several years later, I was at a Presbyterian General Assembly meeting in Cincinnati and was preparing to give testimony to a committee considering a minor statement reminding local and regional bodies to study the issues of human sexuality in preparation for the following year’s discussions.   I realized that the pastor of my childhood church, where my parents still attend, was a member of the committee.  As I would be self-identifying as a gay man, I was concerned about the pastor’s response.  He had never been liberal, and there had been enough difficulty between him and my parents that I suspected he was  strongly opposed to just about everything the Presbyterian gay caucus supported.   I made sure that he knew who I was, even claiming my previous membership in his church before the whole committee.  He was vehement in his opposition to the statement we were advocating.   He greeted me later, asking if my parents knew I was there.  I said they did and they supported me.  He has never mentioned to my parents that he saw me there. 

            After a 10-year exile from the Church during college and a long-term relationship, I joined Bon Air Presbyterian in Richmond, Virginia.  I knew a lesbian couple and a bisexual (albeit closeted) pastoral counselor, as well as several delightfully liberal heterosexuals, who worshipped there.   I was invited to participate in the liturgy program, and was very pleased to be a member there.  My first attempt at liturgy resulted in a congregational dispute (war?) that ended the lay-liturgist program and caused several members to leave. 

            Throughout my time at Bon Air, I came to understand that I was being called to seminary, and in 1996 I moved to Nashville to attend the Divinity School at Vanderbilt.  During my first semester I joined Priest Lake Presbyterian.  They were aware of my sexuality and had welcomed me with open arms.  After two years with them, I asked the elders to allow a group I was forming to meet at the church quarterly.  The group was a local chapter of the Presbyterian gay caucus.  I also approached the elders at two other area churches, and received permission from both other congregations.  Priest Lake approved my request initially, but a small group of congregants forced the elders to reconsider the issue, and permission was withdrawn.  The letter announcing the final decision committed the elders to further study of homosexuality.  A year later nothing had been done about the study. 

            I wish I could report that no one else has run into these sorts of troubles in the PCUSA, but I cannot.  For similar stories, I highly recommend the books Called Out: The Voices & Gifts of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Presbyterians and Called Out With: Stories of Solidarity in Support of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Persons.  These two books include stories of the challenges presented by the PCUSA to about 65 different people.  

            Not all PCUSA congregations cause troubles for gay folks.  In 1989, Lawrence Reh found that 90 percent of Presbyterians polled knew gays and lesbians in their congregations, 80 percent knew of out gay ministers, and 60 percent knew of gay elders and deacons (cited in Comstock, p. 79).  Obviously some congregations are ignoring the church’s stance against gay ordination.[32]  Many congregations have passed statements affirming their gay members and promising to ordain without regard to sexuality.

            So do we have an answer yet? 

Part V: The Answer

             The purpose of this exercise has been to discern the answer to the question “Should a gay man join the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?”  I believe we now have the information necessary to answer that question. 

            Some PCUSA congregations sponsor “ministries” that encourage homosexuals to enter into heterosexual relationships.  They do not allow self-affirming, unrepentant, practicing homosexuals to participate in the life of the church other than attending worship and tendering their tithes. 

Some PCUSA congregations are welcoming of all, regardless of sexual orientation.  They give to AIDS charities.  They allow gay people to serve on committees. They use the talents of gay men and lesbians in the worship service and the life of the church. 

Other PCUSA congregations understand.  They do intentional outreach to the gay community.  They advertise in gay media.  They march in Gay Pride Parades or set up booths at Gay Pride Festivals.  They sponsor programming of interest to gays and lesbians, such as debates on gay marriage or fund-raisers for gay causes.  They appear at political rallies for gay rights, and write letters to legislators and editors espousing civil
equality for gays and lesbians.  They not only allow holy union ceremonies, celebrating the commitments of gay or lesbian couples to each other, but attend them in a spirit of community and encourage their pastors to officiate.  They send statements to the regional bodies advocating full inclusion of gay men and lesbians in all ministries of the church, including gay ordination.  They share their facilities and resources with the gay community and encourage that the gay community share its life with the congregation as well. 

The only way to determine in which category a particular congregation belongs is to visit and ask questions.  If you want to go to a gay-friendly church, you have to be out and up-front about who you are.  The PCUSA has some wonderful congregations.  So does the United Methodist Church.  So does the United Church of Christ.  Even some congregations in the Southern Baptist Convention are gay-friendly.  Despite the promises of the PCUSA Constitution and the Reformed Christian tradition, a gay man seeking to participate in the life of a church cannot rely on the PCUSA “brand name.”  Shop around.  Find a congregation where you are welcomed and where the pastor understands the issues and where the ministries of the church reach out to all, including gays and lesbians.   I would certainly start with PCUSA congregations, but I would consider a nearby UCC before I would consider a Presbyterian church 15 miles away. 

Part VI: So What’s a Congregation To Do?

            I have thus far addressed myself primarily to gay men who are seeking a church home.  Now I am going to address the issues of what a congregation might do to attract these men.  Presbyterian congregations have a warrant, granted by the General Assembly in the 1970 statement Sexuality and the Human Community and affirmed several times over the years, to minister to the needs of gay men and lesbians.  They have a long theological tradition of inclusiveness to draw upon.  Even the statement in the Constitution effectively banning gays from leadership positions can be overcome with creative and earnest consideration.  So how do you get gay men in the doors in the first place?  

            First, be sure you mean it.  Gay men can smell disingenuity a mile away.   If you are welcoming to gay men because you think the Scriptures want you to be, please go work on the problems of world hunger or homelessness.  Be sure the congregation has an opportunity to discuss sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, from Scriptural, theological, historical, medical, psychological, and practical perspectives.  Let the disagreements come.  Don’t be afraid of them.  It is better to have open dissension and conversation than to have hidden agendas just below the surface.

            Second, be proactive.  Don’t wait until you have a gay man in your midst to be active in the gay community.   Offer your building for meetings of your local chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), or the local gay justice organization,[33] or start one of these groups if there is none in your community.  Get involved in AIDS ministries, where you will meet many gay men who are also involved (and not just on the receiving end).  Find out what the political issues are for gays in your community and organize around them.  Do whatever you can, but do it. 

            Third, do not be afraid to say the words “gay”, “lesbian,” or “homosexual,”  especially in your outreach literature.  Gay men are used to being shunned.  We assume the Church really does not mean us when it says it is a welcoming place.  Consider adding a rainbow flag[34] to your church’s sign.[35]  Start every worship service with a welcoming statement that specifies gay men and lesbians.[36] 

            Fourth, include gay members in every aspect of the church’s life.   Avoid tokenism, but encourage diversity on all committees and in all gatherings of the church community.  If a particular gay man can lead worship well, let him do it.   If another has a particular gift with children, let him work with them.  If a third is completely incapable of carrying a tune, do not encourage him to join the choir just so you can have an out gay tenor. 

            Finally, honor the lives of your gay members.  If your congregation is not ready to hold holy unions in your sanctuary and gay anniversaries in your fellowship hall, they are probably not ready to do intentional outreach to gay men.  Include gay couples in your photo directory the same way you do with other forms of family: one picture per household.  If gay relationships fail, provide communal support the same as for a legal divorce.  Recognize changes to the family lives (births, adoptions, illnesses, deaths) of gay members in the same way you do for non-gay members.  This is the best way to show gay men that you truly are an inclusive faith community. 

Bibliography

The Book of Confessions. Louisville, KY: Office of the General Assembly, 1991. 

The Book of Order.   Louisville, KY: Office of the General Assembly, 1998.

Calvin, John.  Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. by John T. McNeill.   Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960. 

The Church and Homosexuality.  Louisville, KY: Office of the General Assembly, 1978.  

Comstock, Gary David.  Unrepentant, Self-Affirming, Practicing: Lesbian/Bisexual/Gay People Within Organized Religion.  New York: Continuum, 1996.

 Hodgson, Peter C. and Robert H. King, eds.  Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994

 Isay, Richard A.  Becoming Gay: The Journey to Self-Acceptance.  New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1996.

 ---.   Being Homosexual: Gay Men and Their Development.  New York: Avon Books, 1989.

 Lowenthal, Michael, ed.  Gay Men at the Millennium: Sex, Spirit, Community.  New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 1997.

 Migliore, Daniel L.  Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology.  Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991

 Minutes of the 119^th General Assembly (1979).   Atlanta: Office of the General Assembly, 1979.

 Nava, Michael and Robert Dawidoff.  Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America.  New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994.