Bloody Sunday - Irish Rocker Spotlights Church Role in Anti-Gay Russia

Last spring, I wrote about a young woman named Dannika Nash who quoted the Macklemore song "Same Love" in some frank advice to the institutional church on behalf of milliennials. In a nutshell, she warned that if the church forced her generation to choose between it and their support of LGBT rights, it was going to be disappointed in the outcome. Her basic message was one that research clearly shows is shared by many in her generation, 30% of whom do not claim any faith affiliation at all. She implied that - for them - music and other aspects of their culture fulfill a social-consciousness need that religion does not.

Macklemore, classified as a rapper, was not afraid to call out the genre's reputation for homophobia and misogyny. In January of this year, he performed "Same Love" at the Grammy Awards while Queen Latifah witnessed the marriages of thirty couples, including some of the same gender.

I heard a song recently in my truck which caught my attention because the chorus starts out with the phrase "take me to church..."  Not only is this unfamiliar subject matter for popular music (for reasons explained above, I expect), but a Facebook buddy and his friends use the expression "go to church" as a euphemism for their favorite pastime (kayaking over waterfalls in the Pacific Northwest), and I thought he might get a chuckle out of a song that features that phrase.

 

Video for Hozier's "Take Me to Church"

(CAUTION: Violent Imagery)

Hozier at SXSW 2014
PHOTO CREDIT: WFUV Radio
Used under Creative Commons License
 Some rights reserved

It wasn't til I got home and read more about it that I understood the song's topic is no laughing matter.  Having only half-heard the words while driving, I discovered upon closer examination that Andrew Hozier Byrne (who goes by his middle name), a 24-year-old Irish man, is not asking to be brought to a religious institution, at least not the ones he knows.  Describing his experience as "Every Sunday's getting more bleak / A fresh poison each week"  Hozier (or at least the protagonist in the song) is -- like Ms. Nash -- eschewing life in the pews for a "religious experience" of another kind, in his case a lover.

What caught my attention, however, was the subject matter of the song's video.  It depicts -- in brutal honesty -- the abduction of a gay couple in Russia by a vigilante gang.  The connection to the lyrics was not immediately clear, but -- if you know a little background on what's going on there -- it starts to make sense.

For at least the last 12 years, anti-gay sentiment in Russia has been ramping up. Attempts to hold pride marches in Russian cities have been generally meant with political opposition and/or violent protests.  The country's Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders have all spoken out against the observances, with the Grand Mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin encouraging flogging for the participants in the Moscow Pride of 2006.

"I always stand by the song and the point that the video made, so it’s never a chore," Hozier, who is not gay, told the London Evening Standard. "The song is about loving somebody, and the video is about people who would undermine what it is to love somebody."

Journalist Jeff Sharlet, whose books C Street and The Family document the degree of control a cadre of evangelical Christians have over Washington, traveled to Russia this fall in the run-up to the Sochi Olympics and painted a stark picture of gay life in the country which appeared in February's GQ.  Sharlet describes the growing hostility towards gay people as part of a larger social unraveling: Russian civilians, encouraged by their government and religious institutions, have taken matters into their own hands.

"There's a national network called Occupy Pedophilia, whose members torture gay men and post hugely popular videos of their 'interrogations' online. There are countless smaller, bristling movements, with names presumptuous (God's Will ) or absurd (Homophobic Wolf). There are babushkas who throw stones, and priests who bless the stones, and police who arrest their victims."

In the article, Sharlet describes shoot-ups in bars, rapes, beatings, and computer surveillance, (even on the part of private citizens).  Readers learn the measures to which people will go to survive, and the lengths others will go to tear apart the lives of complete strangers in pursuit of some dystopic fever-dream. We meet two families that live together symbiotically, presenting as heterosexual to the world as a cover for their actual same-gender partnerships.  Sharlet talks to both targets and perpetrators, attempting to help readers decipher what is behind the fear and violence.

The Duma in 2013 passed an "anti-propaganda law" which makes it illegal to communicate about "non-traditional sexual relationships" to minors. Of course what constitutes "propaganda" can be broadly interpreted to suit the occasion, and one could be punished for doing anything something as simple as holding hands anywhere "where children might see."  Victims of vigilante violence are laughed at or punished if they seek help from law enforcement.

Western Connection (AKA, Why We Should Care)

If the rationale of "protecting the children" sounds familiar, it is because it is the same mantra used to justify anti-gay laws in Africa, and -- lo and behold -- some of the same American evangelical voices, including Scott Lively, are taking at least partial credit. Lively is currently the target of a federal lawsuit under the Alien Tort Act for crimes against humanity, due to his involvement in getting Uganda's "Jail the Gays Bill" passed.  He toured that country in 2009 with several other Americans, stirring up anti-gay fear at a series of rallies.  He employed the same tactics in Russia and called the passage of the law there "one of the proudest achievements of my career".  His enthusiasm was shared by the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer.

Most American clergy, not unaware of shifting public opinion, are more nuanced in their positions on LGBT issues, sometimes head-scratchingly so.  Televangelist Joel Osteen told Larry King "I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I don't want to preach about it." Jim Wallis of Sojourners (who is frequently described as a progressive) drafted and circulated a letter to Barack Obama in favor of a "religious exemption" to the President's executive order on discrimination by companies holding federal contracts.  A number of the large, venue-based churches like Hillsong NYC, attempt to avoid the topic altogether.

But we can't not talk about it, so long as crises as large and terrifying as the one unfolding in Russia continue to happen, and as long as there are places in our own "civilized" country where people think belonging to a church makes it okay for you to be a bully and want that enshrined in the law.  For those of us who believe there is a place for everyone at God's table, the recent string of domestic victories should not be mistaken as a sign that we're anywhere near done doing justice work. The "religious freedom" laws being introduced in various quarters are a clear sign of that.

Nor can we rest on our laurels while we know that hurtful things are being done in God's name anywhere in the world. The one thing our Savior didn't abide well is hypocrisy, and the YouTube generation is reminding us of that by voting with its feet.  Perhaps if they saw our churches witnessing to the pain being inflicted in the name of religion and how this conflicts with the Gospel we know, they'd be more inclined to stick around.

Christian Paolino is the Chair of the Integrity Stakeholders' Council and Diocesan Organizer for Newark.

Reflections on 'An Open Letter to the Church'

Our corner of the blogosphere was abuzz last week with reposts and commentary about an open letter on a fairly-new blog called I Said I Don't Know, created by a young woman named Dannika Nash. If you haven't read it, go read it. Now, please. I'll wait here.In it, Ms. Nash has some frank words for the collective church (she doesn't say in what tradition she was raised... you can draw your own conclusions), which she warns -- in a nutshell -- if you ask me and my friends to choose between you and our LGBT friends, you will lose.

"But my generation, the generation that can smell bulls--t, especially holy bulls--t, from a mile away, will not stick around to see the church fight gay marriage against our better judgment. It’s my generation who is overwhelmingly supporting marriage equality, and Church, as a young person and as a theologian, it is not in your best interest to give them that ultimatum."

This is not, should not, be news to us. In the Pew research study of the "nones" (those people who identify with no faith tradition whatsoever). the overwhelming majority are progressive voters who believe in marriage equality. They cite religious institutions' meddling in politics and focus on rules among the main reasons for their disaffection. But here is a young person willing to single herself out and flat-out say it. I love you, church, but it's just not working for me, and here's why.

Now we know that our own denominational party line is not condemning of LGBT folk, at least at the national level. We passed numerous major pro-LGBT resolutions at our last General Convention, including the adoption of a rite to bless same-gender relationships. About two-thirds of our dioceses have agreed to use that rite in some form. In areas of the country where marriage equality is legal, every bishop with jurisdiction save one signed an amicus curae urging the Supreme Court to find for a repeal of Proposition 8 and DOMA. We have many congregations where identifying as LGBT will simply not be an issue.

US And Pride Flags over St. Paul's: Oakland, CA,
photo by Flickr user rudisillart and shared under
Creative Commons license. Click photo for details.

However, other than at placard-and-bullhorn events, how effectively are we putting that message out there? In your town, how can you tell from the curb which church will preach tolerance from the pulpit and which will preach condemnation? When we say "all are welcome" on a website or service leaflet, do we understand that a population which has been and continues to be the target of so much vitriol from some who purport to represent Christ will -- if they don't see themselves specifically included in that welcome --  assume there's an asterisk there and a footnote in invisible ink that says "except you" ?

And can we blame them? Disconnect yourself for a minute from what you know about the inside of your own parish, your own diocesan committees, NPR and the HuffPo Religion pages, and think about what the word Christian conjures up for the average American. Does Gene Robinson get as much as much airplay as Cardinal Dolan? Whose name you think more unchurched young people know: Jim Wallace or Pat Robertson? This means that we have to try that much harder, be that much more intentional in our efforts to be known as a church where there no outcasts. We need to name those who have specifically been excluded and invite them back in the door (or -- increasingly -- for the first time) with humility and a willingness to listen.

We are -- as a denomination -- famously squeamish about touchy subjects. Garrison Keillor can get away with teasing us about it, because he's one of us (okay, and because he's Garrison Keillor!), but remember it's been said that was basically our excuse for not taking a stand on slavery, too. In my work, I've heard some amazing things done in the name of not making a scene, such as, "We stopped flying the pride flag because we want to attract more young families with kids." Really? Did you ask them first if that's why they weren't coming? Look at these numbers again, please. And -- looking again at the real picture once you're inside many of our churches -- if they have a big problem with LGBT folks, are they going to feel comfortable anyway? I doubt many of us are ready to visit the don't-ask-don't tell days. My own congregation flies a rainbow flag 24 x 7 x 365, and we're crawling with kids!

"Do we understand that a population which has been and continues to be the target of so much vitriol from some who purport to represent Christ will — if they don't see themselves specifically included in that welcome — assume there's an asterisk there and a footnote in invisible ink that says 'except you'?"

However, I get it. We don't welcome new people in a way that sends those already here screaming for the exits. We don't want to create a one-issue church, and I think I can speak for the vast majority of the LGBT faithful that we're not looking to have our lives be the topic of conversation week after week. In other words, we don't want to go to "the gay church" either. That isn't what this is about.

All it takes is a few small signs. We encourage congregations to develop a welcoming statement that specifically includes reference to sexual orientation and gender identity or uses the words gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender specifically, for the reason described above. We have -- with our ecumenical partners in the Believe Out Loud movement -- created graphics which "our folks" will recognize and understand, which you can pop into the margin of your web site or bulletin. We ask that you consider linking to our chapter or organizational web sites and Facebook presence, and we link to those who have identified as working with us.

In another blog post titled "Winning Back the Nation", Ms. Nash writes:

"Another chunk of people in this nation are gay. And an even bigger chunk consists of people who love those gay people and want them to be treated like they matter. What would happen to this nation’s perception of God if the church began an overwhelming campaign to love gay people unconditionally? What if churches began LGBT missions (NOT to fix them, to love them exactly how they are) and proved to those people that they do matter to the church and to God? People are pretty good at detecting empty promises. How would this nation react to an outspoken love from the church? Some people would react with rage, I know that. I know those people personally, they live in my building. Churches have this really huge opportunity to love the kinds of people that Jesus would have loved. The outcasts, the abused, the thirsty. Win the nation, Church."

An LGBT mission? That's heady stuff, and maybe beyond many congregations, but that is also why organizations like Integrity are here to help. Maybe you will never have a parish contingent in a pride parade or a specific ministry to LGBT concerns. That is okay. But we know many of you are welcoming to us in your own way; we're just asking you to say it a little louder.

Christian Paolino is the Diocesan Organizer for Newark and the Chair of the national Stakeholders' Council of Integrity USA.