12/27/2013
By now, anyone who doesn't live in a monastery
knows Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made anti-gay and
racially insensitive remarks in an interview with GQ, and that
the religious right has leapt to his defense.
Much has been written about it,
but my lessons learned are a bit different.
First, this is a disaster of our own making. His
racist remarks were frequently ignored or left out
in articles by progressive media, even though some bloggers noted
the issue. This allowed the religious right to frame the issue as
"Bullying gays vs. good, God-Fearing Christians." They succeeded
beyond their wildest expectations as a result of this journalistic
incompetence, so much so that conservative pundits like Neal Boortz wondered out
loud on national radio why Jesse Jackson was getting involved in a gay rights
issue.
However, media ineptitude wasn't the most
shocking thing I observed.
It was that affirming Christianity as a cultural
influencer is more or less dead.
The religious right has managed to completely
own the relationship between Christians and gays, and that relationship is one
of disgust and condemnation. Any message of acceptance has been lost, and the
influence of affirming denominations has waned to irrelevance in the debate. It
is taken as a given by decision makers (like the CEO at A&E Network),
independents and young people that Phil's view is the Christian view.
While affirming churches are trying to get their
message out, it is no longer being received by either the public or decision
makers. Conservatives have made opposition to gays, in every form, the paragon of freedom
of religion and speech. Republicans have managed to brand
Christianity as homophobic as effectively as Coke has made red with a white
swoosh synonymous with their product. As a result, liberal, affirming
Christianity is no longer a voice in the culture wars, and is in sharper
decline than any other religious group, according to Pew Research.
Thus, when Christian organizations and individuals try to speak up to say
"We're not all like that," the typical reaction they get reminds me
of a quote from Harry Potter: "Yeah, well, yeh get weirdos in every
breed."
In other words, don't make any judgments based
on statistical outliers. And affirming Christians are seen as an outlier.
Nate Silver reminds us not to make any decisions
based on a single data point though. Unfortunately, the data, both empirical
and anecdotal, all points in the same direction. Affirming churches were
smaller than those hostile to LGBT people to begin with, and are declining even
faster churches where the most outspoken opposition has come from. This is in
part due to the higher birth rates and insularity of conservative faiths. The
top down leadership structure of some ensures that officials (and often
members) do not stray too far from the party line on LGBT issues. In other
cases (Evangelicals), the pressure from other members not to accept LGBT people
is just as intense.
In short, hoping that organizations opposed to
LGBT issues will change isn't going to happen for a long time.
However, the "graying" of progressive
churches is a vicious cycle. With each passing day it becomes harder to get new
people in the door. The question is, why would someone who is young and
socially liberal want to embrace the label of Christian? Sarah Palin, Phil
Robertson, and others have managed to successfully "brand" their
faith as rural, homophobic, racist, ignorant, and intolerant of anyone who
tries to contradict their interpretation of their faith. If you reject any of
these, then you're not a real Christian.
Or at least not one whose opinion matters in the
culture wars.
The growth of the "nones" is greatest
in the Northeast corridor, and it comes at the expense of progressive churches,
which have seen the worst declines in the same region. A few years ago, Ada
Calhoun wrote at Salon how being a Christian in New York was a source of shame.
Since then, matters have only gotten worse as the right wing ownership of
Christianity has been so spectacularly successful.
This is not to say that there is no value in the
affirming denominations. They are of great benefit to many people. For many
they provide community, hope, and a chance to reconnect with beliefs that are
important to them. They are undoubtedly of a net benefit to us. However, I
cannot help but conclude that they have lost whatever ability they may have had
to influence the narrative of how Christianity and the LGBT community
intersect.
When I arrived at the conclusion that the battle
had swept past affirming denominations as a factor in our cultural discourse, I
reached out to a number of deeply religious LGBT individuals I knew, hoping
somehow that one of them would tell me I was missing something, or looking at
the issue from the wrong angle. That somehow affirming Christian denominations
are relevant to the national fight for LGBT equality and acceptance.
They couldn't.
After I laid out what I was seeing, one of them
wrote back to me, "I wish you were wrong."
No comments:
Post a Comment