Mount Vernon Unitarian Church
|
|
Mount Vernon Unitarian Church |
| About Us | Who's Who | Directions | Home | Education | News | Programs | Contact Us | UU Links |
The
History and Spirit of The Welcoming Congregation Program
at The Mount Vernon
Unitarian Church, Alexandria, Virginia
[as of April 6, 1997, as experienced and told by Pete Bloom]
During the Civil Rights era, the Mount Vernon Unitarian Church took a courageous stand – especially for a church in conservative Virginia in the 1960s: It provided a sanctuary for white and black members of the Congress of Racial Equality to train in non-violent protests—and to stay overnight. Not surprisingly, the affluent, white residential community surrounding the church was disturbed.
Ever since, MVUC has prided itself on that legacy. Indeed, the church defined its liberal, progressive spirit by those courageous efforts to help end segregation . Since the founding of the church in 1955, all members, it’s safe to say, would have described themselves as affirming of people discriminated by the larger society.
Yet in the late 1980s, a growing awareness of another civil rights issue made itself known as public notice and media exploration broke the silence of many years. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people were coming out of the closet and establishing themselves as another group who were being freely franchised almost nowhere—including churches. It had become clear to some church leaders that gay, lesbian and bisexual people did not feel welcomed at MVUC. In fact, many felt alienated, afraid and deeply hurt as some members communicated negative attitudes about homosexuality, overtly or covertly, over the years.
The negative attitudes became more overt following two services led by our then new minister, Kenn Hurto, in 1987 and 1988. Kenn expressed his solidarity with gay and lesbian people and encouraged the congregation to confront its own attitudes and also those in the world beyond. Thus began a process of education, consciousness-raising and social action that has profoundly affected the congregation and the wider community. How this process developed, how the opposition was met, significant events and the spirit and meaning of becoming an officially “Welcoming Congregation” as I have experienced it from the start, unfold here as I recall my active involvement of more than seven years in this process.
Kenn began the process of healing on Feb. 22, 1987, with a sermon about the plight of homosexuals in Unitarian Universalist churches. He concluded with these words:
“I say to you, all of you, Love one another....Yes, you may be fearful to stand with one another, gay and straight together. But know that gay men and women are not the cause of your fear. Rather, your fear is your own participation in society’s bigotry. Don’t be afraid to love people who are the same or different. Just love people. It’s the only way to wholeness and to holiness.”
Kenn pledged to stand with all gays and lesbians, including those troubled by homosexuality who sought help and with family members of homosexuals who needed assistance. “ Let us root out the darkness of ignorance, the darkness of fear and the darkness of hatred.,’’ he said. “Let us hear the ancient message of the religious life. Let us affirm and promote the worth and dignity of all souls everywhere. Let love guide all our actions.”
Two months later, Kenn devoted another service to this topic. In the discussion afterwards, several people challenged Kenn’s position , basically asserting that there was no need for attention to this as homosexuality was sick, perverted and dangerous. Many others expressed concern and support for gays. Afterwards, 149 people at the service filled out a questionnaire. Although the majority expressed support for welcoming all peoples to MVUC, several indicated they felt uncomfortable with: 1) discussing gay and lesbian issues, 2) associating with open gays/lesbians, 3) inviting an openly gay/lesbian couple to dinner with straight friends, 4) homosexuals expressing affection in public,5) The church choosing a gay/lesbian minister, 6) women dancing with women and men dancing with men at a church dance and 7) openly gay/lesbian persons teaching religious education.
Over the next year, some gay and lesbian people quietly came to Kenn and some trusted friends in the congregation to express their outrage over the negative attitudes that had come to light. At the annual church retreat to Prince William Park in 1989, about 10 people, gay and straight, discussed these concerns. Gays and lesbians said they feared that if they revealed their sexual orientation by word or deed, they would be criticized as “flaunting their sexuality” and shunned by other church members.
Meanwhile, The Unitarian Universalist Association had been grappling with the same issues. In 1987, it formed a Common Vision Planning Committee to collect information about how welcomed gay, lesbian and bisexual people felt in UU congregations around the country. “From all across the continent the painful stories came.” Many people said they felt “substantially unaffirmed, and unsupported in their liberal religious communities.” As a result many drift away or stay ‘in the closet’, hiding this fundamental fact about who they are as human persons from other members of their congregations.
Citing the principles of our Unitarian Universalist faith, which “affirms the inherent dignity and worth of every person,” delegates to the 1989 General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to initiate the Welcoming Congregation program recommended by the Common Vision Planning Committee and the UUA Board. The newly created UU Office of Gay and Lesbian Concerns (OGLC) developed a manual to assist motivated congregations to identify their own needs and goals and to make changes. When a congregation felt it had made significant progress, it could inform the OGLC and be designated a “Welcoming Congregation”.
At MVUC, the Board of Trustees decided in l989 that one of its main priorities was making MVUC an intentionally inclusive church with respect to lesbians and gays. The board supported Chairman Larry Jackley’s proposal to form a working group to move toward becoming an inclusive church. Karen Jones and I were asked to co-chair the committee. Karen was asked because , as a lesbian, she had begun to speak out about her pain and fear due to the church’s negative atmosphere in regard to homosexuality. As a clinical psychologist, I had been interested in this as far as treating gay, lesbian individuals and their families was concerned, (I did not regard homosexuality as an emotional or mental disorder, in accord with The American Psychological Association’s progressive thinking in this area) although I did not feel especially conversant with gays’ and lesbians’ significant concerns.
The Board of Trustees asked us to: “Undertake programs to develop among MVUC’s heterosexuals awareness of:
the presence and potential contributions of gays and lesbians inside and outside the congregation;
the special concerns and needs of gays and lesbians;
factual information concerning gays and lesbians, and;
actions that MVUC members can take to impart a sense of inclusion and welcome toward gays and lesbians who come to our church.”
Karen and I formed a wonderful group of church representatives to plan how to do this: Bev Southerland (leader of the metropolitan-area support group Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays); Mike Walker (MVUC Board of Trustees); Dotty Ann McClelland (Board of Trustees and the Sunday Services Committee); Fran Grisar (Religious Education and Social Action Committees); Joe Sanders (Helping Hands) and Parish Minister Kenn Hurto. Linda Peebles (Director of Religious Education)and Ralph Slawson were added during our first year.
We wanted people who would inform their constituents about our needs and plans and bring us back information and recommendations. We began to consider recommendations for improvements in religious education , social action, inclusive language and church celebrations. I called UUs and others around the country who were experienced in this work. I began a library. I consulted with Scott Alexander of the UU OGLC, and Karen and I attended a Welcoming Congregation workshop with him.
Karen and I worked closely together, sharing our fears, values and dreams. We agreed to support each other through the anticipated difficult times ahead. We planned meetings carefully and reviewed them afterwards. We divided responsibilities, based on our interests and comfort levels. We prepared our task force for the challenges and congregational conflicts that our work was increasingly generating. This was no surprise—congregation members’ deeply held attitudes and anxieties were being challenged, as well as long-standing religious, institutional and cultural beliefs and practices [serving, in part, to maintain white male comfort and privilege.]
We regularly reviewed the criticisms of our goals and programs, which were often experienced as harsh and mean-spirited. We reminded ourselves regularly that no program would succeed if it did not treat those who disagreed with it with utmost respect, attempting to draw people out, elicit their prominent concerns, listen carefully to them and respond to them honestly from our own experience. While we sought to reach as many members of the congregation as possible and to involve them with our issues, we also believed that if more and more people would emerge from their position as silent bystanders to speak out in positive ways to the concerns of gays and lesbians and if they would come forward to actively support gay and lesbian people, then those who were frightened about scorn and rejection would feel caring and affirmation.
Soon after our task force began meeting, on April 1, 1990, we held a Sunday service to introduce the congregation to our group, discuss the reasons we were formed, describe our mission, mention some of the kinds of programs we would be sponsoring and encourage people to participate and to give us feedback as we went along. We had several speakers at that service, including a gay man a lesbian person, a mother of a lesbian person and a straight man, discussing personal experiences which led them to see the need for this program within our church..
Following this service and for the next year or so, there was strong, outspoken criticism of this program by about five church members. There was active involvement and support expressed by about seventy members, some people expressed some discomfort and curiosity and yet a real desire to learn more so that no one in our church would feel unaffirmed and afraid.
A questionnaire, similar to the one used two years before, was used to survey the congregation. Ninety one of these believed that it strengthened our church to affirm and support gay and lesbian concerns and fifteen disagreed. Fifty believed that homosexuality is normal and healthy, twenty-four disagreed and thirty-two were unsure. In regard to questions about comfort level with specific situations, responses were similar to the first survey. The most discomfort was reported with “two men dancing together at a church dance”, “ gay or lesbian person holding hands or embracing in public”, “my church choosing a gay or lesbian minister” and “openly gay or lesbian people teaching religious education classes.”
The most vocal criticisms were directed to the minister, to the chair of the BOT and at board meetings, to me and at the annual congregational meeting on April 29,1990. Letters were exchanged, conversations were held over lunch, on the phone and in small groups. The main criticisms were as follows: “This is an aggressive program uniquely aimed at attracting homosexual/bisexuals to this church;” “Prevent this church from becoming the San Francisco of Churches” , a “gay church,” with that reputation in the community; “ Let us not deepen the division further by the continuation of the aggressive program to attract homosexuals;” “It is not only divisive but counterproductive and could lead to significant financial reaction;” “I understand that it was the complaint of a couple of homosexuals that they did not feel welcome in our church that is at the root of the problem. The barrier to their feeling welcome is in their own minds. If they would volunteer to actively participate in any of our many programs they, as others have found, would soon become fully integrated into our group;” “Homosexual males are the major means of propagating AIDS;” “In the military, homosexuality leads increasingly to discrimination and sometimes to death. Homosexual rape is a reality in prison and there is a strong correlation with pedophilia. The list is almost endless—let not our church be a promoter.”
People expressing these distressing and uninformed views were treated with respect and patience. They were given time and opportunity to discuss their beliefs. It was very difficult to do this, as our anger, frustration, impatience and hurt were common understandable reactions. But we tried to understand how these kinds of prejudices develop in all of us—to recognize biases as a human phenomenon present in all of us, resulting from cultural, sociological and psychological factors. We tried to understand how attitudes and behaviors change in positive, life-affirming ways and we supported each other in practicing listening skills, personal sharing and assertive challenging of prejudicial attitudes and behaviors. Personal testimonies of gay people and their family members were extremely compelling, especially when expressed by well-known and well-respected people. It was critically important to have the strong involvement and support of the minister, Kenn Hurto, and the BOT Chair, Larry Jackley, who served two terms during our inception.
During our first year, we also expanded our activities as follows: 1) A monthly film/discussion series, where attendance ranged from 10-20 on most occasions, 2) Dispersal of information in the church newsletter on the survey results, events and issues, 3) Recommendations for inclusive language in the BOT’s welcoming remarks at the beginning of each service, 4) A homophobia workshop for members of our Welcoming Congregation Committee and 5) In December, 1990, the BOT made us a standing Committee and our charter was approved in February, 1991. Our mission expanded to explore ways that other individuals might come to feel more welcome in the Church, including those in groups discriminated against as a result of race, gender, national origin, physical handicap and age. Although we focused on the needs and issues of sexual minorities during our first few years, we maintained the belief that there is “no hierarchy of oppression” (in the words of poet Audre Lorde) and that progress made here will lead to progress for all.
A 10 session class on becoming more comfortable and affirming of same-sex friendship and love was held in the fall of 1990. It was led by Karen Jones and Peter Bloom and was attended by 12 people. The response was enthusiastic and their was a strong commitment to continue to promote change in the church. One of the participants, Marsha Campbell, had a gay brother, Ron, who she had invited, along with his partner to speak at one of our classes. However, Ron had AIDS and died on the day he was to come to our class. Marsha actively sought our support, as did her husband Andy, during the last part of Ron’s life and after his death. The class and many others from the Church, attended his memorial service. The class sponsored a Sunday service on February 24, 1991, where they shared what the class had meant to them. Saul Baran spoke about the solidarity that Danish people demonstrated toward Jews during the Holocaust. Pink triangles were given to the congregation so that they could demonstrate solidarity with their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
In our second year, Toni Herring, Rose Valentino and Bonnie Rabichow joined our committee. In addition to continuing to expand our programs within the church, we began to get more involved in community programs. Specifically, some of our major programs that year included : 1)A second homophobia class was held in the Spring of 1991. It was for twelve hours and was attended by twelve people. 2)We sponsored a talk by a young woman with HIV who spoke to about 50 people, including our teenage group, about living with her illness as well as about AIDS and safe-sex practice. A fund raising concert for local AIDS services was held featuring The Lesbian-Gay Chorus of Washington. 3)A group of 16 visited an Alexandria restaurant to give it support in its legal battle with the state of Virginia because of discriminatory laws against homosexuals, (The law has been removed from the Virginia Code by the Commonwealth’s Attorney.) 4)Eight MVUCers attended the national gathering of UUs for gay/lesbian and bisexual concerns held in suburban Maryland.5) Received BOT support to join with other UU churches in placing regular ads in the Blade newspaper.
We sponsored our third Sunday service, on March 1, 1992, called a “Question of Justice.” The highlight and one of the most moving and profound experiences in our program’s history was when long-time MVUC member, Ralph Slawson, former Chair of the BOT, stood before the congregation and read a letter which he had written in the late 80’s, during the initial period of significant negative protest about the discussion of the concerns of gays in our church. Ralph was not prepared to sign the letter then, so it was denied publication then (as an “anonymous letter”) in the church newsletter. With our program beginning to have significant positive effects, especially the emergence of active “allies”, Ralph felt ready to read his letter and to conclude, “Can I sign it now?” (See the Appendix). The congregation was deeply touched and inspired. Ralph was embraced and supported. Some of those who were most critical of our program, came forward to show their respect and affection for him.
A third questionnaire survey was done and the results were compared with the previous surveys. Support was added to the expressed personal impressions of many people that significant positive change was occurring on many fronts. It is clear that the active support by so many in the congregation is making a difference, so that the church in general and personal relationships in particular, are becoming safer and more loving for many who previously felt alone and fearful.
In our third year, Karen Jones moved from this area to attend graduate school. She told us how much she had grown during these years and how much more comfortable she had come to feel at MVUC. She contributed significantly to our program, was a great inspiration to many of us and a very dear friend.
During this year, Dottie Ann McClelland, Mike Walker, Fran Grisar and Joe Sanders left our committee, after several years of important service, to focus on other aspects of church life. Ellen Warren and Lynn Hopkins joined our group. Bonnie Rabichow joined Pete Bloom as co-chair. During this year, we focused on gay, lesbian and bisexual rights, as it became a more visible social issue in the country. These are some of our activities this year, 1992. 1) A petition to Gov. Wilder was signed by 143 members, asking him to sign an executive order barring discrimination based on sexual orientation. Following our statewide effort, effort, Virginians For Justice-a gay lobbying group in Richmond-took our idea and made a statewide effort to do the same., 2)Our continuing film/discussion series held a benefit for GLAAD [Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]. It reached beyond our hill and had a wonderful turnout. 3)Our church and its members opened up their homes to other UUs who attended the March on Washington for Gay/Lesbian Rights [April 25, 1993.] We housed 60 people. Many church members attended the march as well. 4) Several dozen members called the White House, the Pentagon and their representatives to voice their opinion about lifting the ban on gays in the military. Our annual Sunday service on April 18, 1993 included 6 speakers discussing the issues surrounding gays in the military, including personal testimony of gays who had served in the military. An active discussion followed-debate was strong, but the tone was not as negative as it had been during our earlier debates. A luncheon was provided for participants and Welcoming Congregation Committee members by a couple who had had serious reservations about the Welcoming Congregation program during its’ first year. 5) Tim Berkoff assisted in having SMYAL [Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League] come to speak to our teens about being a gay youth in this country. 6) The Alexandria Gazette had an article on our program. 7)Over 50 church members participated in the AIDSWALK and raised over $4,300 to benefit the Whitman-Walker Clinic. 8) In November, 1992, Pete Bloom testified before the Fairfax School Board challenging it to include sexual orientation among the groups listed in its code of conduct concerning verbal harassment. He also recommended that the Board develop educational programs for administrators, teachers, students and parents to increase their sensitivity to issues of homophobia and diversity. Many church members signed a petition and made calls to support this.
In our fourth year, Victor Beaumont and Elissa Godfrey joined the committee and Rose Valentino moved on. Bonnie Rabichow became Chair of the committee. The major thrust this year was a very focused effort to involve the congregation in addressing the question of whether we felt ready to officially consider ourselves a welcoming congregation. In preparation for the vote at the Annual Meeting on May 2, 1993, we helped the congregation to understand what this would mean by putting articles in the newsletter, holding discussion sessions and being available for one on one conversations. The vote was intended to evaluate where we were in the process and where we needed to go. We wanted to determine if the congregation supported the ten suggested guidelines for this mission. 1) Being inclusive and expressive of the concerns of gay, lesbian and bisexual persons at every level of congregational life in worship or social occasions, welcoming not only their presence, but the unique gifts and particularities of their lives as well. a. Not assuming that everyone is heterosexual, using a vocabulary of worship that reflects this perception and celebrates diversity by inclusivity of language and of content. b. Understanding that the experience of lesbian, gay and bisexual persons will be fully incorporated through al programs, including religious education. 2) Including an affirmation and nondiscrimination clause in the bylaws and other official documents of the church affecting all dimensions of congregational life such as membership, hiring practices and the calling of religious professionals. 3) Engaging in outreach into gay, lesbian and bisexual communities, both by advertising and by supporting other gay, lesbian and bisexual affirmative action groups. 4)Offering congregational and ministerial support for services of union and memorial services for gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and celebrations of evolving definitions of family. 5)Celebrating the lives of all people and welcoming same-sex couples, recognizing their committed relationships and equally affirming displays of caring and affection without regard for sexual orientation. 6)Nurturing ongoing dialogue between gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual persons to create deeper trust and sharing. 7)Being actively represented in the Joseph Priestley District UU Lesbian and Gay Concerns group and participating in their programs. 8)Affirming and celebrating gay, lesbian and bisexual issues and history during the year [possibly including Gay Pride Week in June]. 9) Advocating for gay, lesbian and bisexual people, attending to legislative developments and working to promote justice, freedom and equality in the larger society, and speaking out when the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual persons are at stake. 10)Celebrating the lives of all people and their ways of expressing their love for each other.
The resolution to be voted on read as follows: “Whereas the Mount Vernon Unitarian Church established a Welcoming Congregation Committee in 1990 to inform and sensitize people to the issues and concerns of gay, lesbian and bisexual people; sponsored a broad program of classes, workshops, Sunday services, social actions, movies and discussions; holds a tradition as leader in both the community and the Unitarian Universalist Association for taking early stands in matters of conscience concerning minorities, BE IT RESOLVED that the membership of Mount Vernon Unitarian Church takes cognizance of suggested guidelines developed by the Unitarian Universalist Association asa foundation from which to continue the process of welcoming gay, lesbian, bisexual and all minorities and declares for the record that it is A WELCOMING CONGREGATION.” The vote , by show of hands, was approximately 180 for and 4 against. Becoming an official welcoming Congregation is one of the important accomplishments in the history of MVUC. Soon after this historic vote, the Office of Gay and Lesbian Concerns of the UUA sent us an attractive poster proclaiming that we are a Welcoming Congregation. Rose Valentino framed it and we placed it in a prominent place in the Commons.
Other programs sponsored by our committee in this year included: A third homophobia class was offered in the Winter of 1993-94 for eight weeks and was led by Elissa Godfrey and Victor Beaumont. Pete Bloom led a Sunday service in August, 1993 on “A Pilgrimage to Le Chambon—A place of rescue during the Holocaust.”
When Pete learned that the simple religious people of the town in southwest France had protected 5,000 Jews, at risk to their own lives, he felt compelled to go there to bear witness to this “conspiracy of goodness”. He and his wife, Sonja, went there and actually met three of the surviving rescuers. Pete told this story and connected it to the spirit and purpose of social action in general; that evil can only occur when bystanders do not act and that when bystanders do act, other bystanders are encouraged to act, perpetrators are discouraged and victims are encouraged. This is what we have been trying to do in the welcoming congregation program—encouraging bystanders to understand the plight of our brothers and sisters, gays, lesbians and bisexuals and to take action to change the conditions which lead to their oppression.
On December 9, 1993, we held a forum on “Facing the Religious Right”, with guest speakers Meg Riley of UUA and Deanna Duby of People for the American Way. Approximately 50 people from the church and community attended to learn how to deal with this and to work on coalition building. Our annual Sunday Service on 3/27/94 dealt with the evolving pictures of family—to see how broad the definition of “family” can really be. Along with the church’s singles group, we sponsored a Spring Fling dance and raised funds for Virginians for Justice—the state’s only gay rights lobbying group. Area businesses donated food and refreshments. This was our second social event, intentionally planned for gays and straights together.[the year before was a Gayla Picnic, cosponsored with the Arlington UUs. ]
In the Autumn of 1993-4, a telephone tree of 30-40 members was established to make calls or write letters when issues come up. A postcard campaign opposed Gov. Allen’s stand on homosexuality. Also, church members attended meetings and contacted County officials to oppose efforts to delete the word “homosexuality” from the Family Life Curriculum. We prevailed—for the time being. Rose Valentino and Victor Beaumont led church members to the AIDSWALK in Washington and raised over $300 for the Whitman-Walker Clinic.
In October, 1994, we held a forum on the sodomy law in Virginia. We had guest speakers and the discussion and strategizing were powerful and led people to get more involved in seeking change to this oppressive, antiquated law. In November, 1994, several church members went to the County Library Board meetings to resist the censorship being pushed to eliminate the Washington Blade newspaper[ a free gay weekly]. The censorship effort was defeated—again, for the time being.
Several people participated in the “Weaving the fabric of diversity” ten week class, taught by Elissa Godfrey and Mark Myers. They explored all the “isms” in our society, including ableism, agism, classism, racism and sexism.
In February, 1995, Bev Southerland,, our new Chairperson and longtime leader of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays in the metropolitan area, arranged a cooperative program between our church and Pflag. The focus would be how to create a safer environment for lesbians and gays. On alternating months we have book discussions and programs on specific issues with guest speakers Vicky Williamson joined our committee. Bonnie Rabichow has been very active in the leadership of Virginians for Justice, has been on its’ Board for the past four years and has served two years as its Treasurer. At least once a year the church has an offering to support its lobbying efforts. In February, 1997,we sponsored a folk music concert to raise funds for it.
In 1995, following several sermons on racism, Reverend Hurto encouraged the development of a committee which would focus on this issue within our church and community. Pete Bloom has been the main link between the Racial Justice and Cultural Diversity group and our Welcoming Congregation group. A weekend workshop was held in April, 1996 which focused on diversity awareness and conflict resolution. The committee has continued to meet approximately every 4-6 weeks. We try to be aware of continuing and new needs within the congregation and the community. Realizing that there are many new people attending church now and that the membership is not the same as in the first three years of our existence and through the vote to formally commit to being a Welcoming Congregation, we will hold a service on April 6, 1997 to inform the congregation about our reason for being, our history and our desire to have continuing participation and feedback (about new concerns and issues, as well as reactions to the way we address these issues) from as many people as possible. We will review the significant values upon which our work continues to be based, the spirit we try to create and the virtues of participating in the process.
I will now review and summarize what has happened in our church and its significance to human lives. Of course, these are only my observations and opinions. First, I am not sure that this would ever have happened had not Reverend Kenn Hurto raised the issue back in 1987, soon after he arrived at MVUC. His commitment to this cause was and continued to be, a source of inspiration and leadership, both for our committee and, especially, when he spoke from the pulpit. The frequent statements from the pulpit that we welcome all people regardless of sexual orientation do make a big difference.
Second, Larry Jackley’s leadership of the BOT to make this a major priority of his two year administration was extremely important. Larry supported us in many ways: talking frequently with those who opposed this program (as did Rev. Hurto), keeping the issue up front before the congregation, encouraging time for dialogue, verbal support to committee leadership and active participation in our program by attending our first class. In the Sunday service which followed, he recommended the class and our other programs, as a self-confessed “flaming heterosexual” to other straight men, especially those of his generation He said, “ I would like to extend an open invitation to some of my soul mates here in the congregation today. The Welcoming Congregation class needs a few good men and women who are willing to examine their own feelings and attitudes about this issue in a class environment. If you accept this offer, I can promise you that you will discover some very different ideas about yourself and learn something about a group of people whom you have avoided all of your lives. One thing I am absolutely certain about. You will never forget the experience.” I heard, just after I started to develop our program, that when well-respected heterosexuals stand up and speak out in support of these values, other straight people who either have negative beliefs about it, barely tolerate it or are indifferent to the situation, begin to pay attention and reconsider some of their attitudes and practices. (These people have been called “ white knights”, by those who have witnessed change in other congregations.)
Third, several gay and lesbian people have felt ready to come forward, to come out, to actively participate in this process to inform, inspire and lead us with their special insight and gifts. Karen Jones, Ralph Slawson, Bonnie Rabichow, Rose Valentino and Victor Beaumont have given us much, often requiring great courage and trust in the rest of us to be there for them. When well-respected and well-liked people come out as gay and lesbian, those who have known them have to re-examine their previously held attitudes.
Fourth, Bev Southerland has been with us from the very beginning. As a mother of a lesbian person, and as a long-time leader of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Bev has been through this evolutionary process in a very personal way. When Bev talks, people listen. The demonstration of real love by parents of gays and lesbians, as they confront their own biases, fears, hopes and dreams and emerge supporting their children in being true to themselves is a great inspiration and teacher for the rest of us.
Fifth, Linda Peebles has been actively involved in our work from the start, has represented our program’s message, as Director of Religious Education, both within the congregation and in her travels within the larger UU world. Linda’s friendships with gay and lesbian people has always been real and natural. Her support for gay and lesbian artists and performers at the Coffee House she sponsored for many years provided lessons in freedom as well as enjoyment for many people.
Regular sharing with other UU churches has made a difference. Ed Kolbee and his partner Al Usack, of the UU church in Paint Branch, Maryland, assisted us a lot and participated in some of our programs in the early days. Sharing ideas with the leaders of the welcoming congregation program at The Arlington UU church has also helped a lot.
Having a broad base of people on our own committee has been important in many ways. It makes a difference when gays and straights work together—both for the lessons we learn from each other and the profound friendships that are developed along the way, but also because others who witness us working together learn that we are all in this together and that people in trouble need allies. I have never liked the assumption that only “gay activists” are involved in work for social justice for gays. Neimoller wrote about the Holocaust, “When they came for the Jews, since I wasn’t a Jew, I did nothing. When they came for the Catholics, since I wasn’t Catholic, I did nothing. When they came for the trade unionists, since I wasn’t a trade unionist, I did nothing. When they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to do anything for me.” This leads to what for me is the most powerful teaching of this work: Bystanders need to be aware when others are in trouble, they need to understand what the source of the danger is and they need to act to protect victims of oppression and to work to change the conditions under which and from which oppression grows and thrives. Jesus said, “Love one another.” The good people of Le Chambon understood that to mean love and help the stranger who is in trouble. Elie Wiesel said, “The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.” Some wise person has said, “None of us is free until all of us are free.”
Caring, attention, awareness, involvement and wise, committed action is necessary. “Bystander research”, in the field of social psychology, demonstrates how bystanders often will observe violent acts and other forms of injustice but will do nothing out of lack of concern for the victim[s]—often because they do not like them or feel any identification or empathy for the victims who are considered different from themselves—or, they do not feel that their own actions alone will make any difference or they are scared or concerned that if they act alone to stand up for someone in trouble that they will appear foolish or may be hurt themselves. The research shows, however, that when bystanders do act, that they can make a big difference, as victims are protected and often encouraged to do more to help themselves, other bystanders may be encouraged or emboldened to act and often, the perpetrators of violence and oppression are discouraged from continuing to do harm or may even come to understand the injustice and wrong of their actions and attitudes. I believe that “bystanders” at MVUC have made a difference in supporting those living in pain and fear in our midst and in creating conditions for greater respect and freedom for all.
Frederick Douglass said, “In the struggle for justice, the only reward is the opportunity to be in the struggle.” Dorothy Height, president of the National Council of Negro Women since1957, said, in this regard, “You can’t expect that you’re going to have it tomorrow. You just have to keep working at it.” African-American author and lecturer Cornel West said, when speaking about racism in America recently, that Americans are from a “hotel culture”, in that they are always on the move and expect comfort along the way. He believes that idealists easily become cynics, when results do not come quickly and easily or are not always enduring. What is necessary is awareness that the sources of prejudice are often deeply embedded in personal and institutional fears, myths and power and privilege needs; and that therefore change needs to take place at many levels, from many directions, in varying ways over time. It is therefor necessary to keep in mind the old African-American motto, “Keep on keepin’ on!”.
There are some real benefits for bystanders who get involved in the struggle. Good, deep friendships are made. You learn that much of our society’s biases and practices in regard to gay and lesbian people is bases on misunderstandings about what it means to be male and female. For example, little boys learn very early that it is very important to act like a boy and not like a girl. It is important to be brave, not be a “sissy”, to be tough, not scared or timid, like girls, not to cry, like girls, to have friends, but not to express your fondness for your friends too directly or openly, like girls or “queers” do, to be independent and not needy or even confused, like girls are, and to grow up like dad or other “ masculine” role models, to play sports and win or play with boy toys and have boy interests and never show that you don’t like sports, guns or other boy interests. You might be called a girl or a “fag”, or as many straight boys, teens and men have come to fear, they might be like girls or really be gay.
This confusion about what “ normal” male attributes are has led many men to unnecessary confusion, fear and lower self-respect, as well as distorted efforts to appear like a “ real man.”
Another benefit for all people of being involved in this process has been deeper self-respect which comes from trying to live up to our highest ideals. I have heard many testimonies of personal growth and enhanced self-respect. It has been true for me.
A related outcome of this work for myself was my decision, after twenty-five years as a contented “friend of the church” , to join the church as a member in 1992. With the realization that my Jewish heritage and its’ basic commitment to action for social justice for all people could be nurtured and supported by special people with special ideals on this “holy hill,” I finally felt right about becoming a member. One of the founding members of MVUC, Saul Baran, often uses the term “holy hill.”. He has been a great spiritual mentor and friend to me and many others and has supported and inspired me greatly during these years.
Another indirect benefit has been lessons learned from doing a program such as this; lessons about clarifying the mission of social action, developing the goals and approaches to them, dealing with differences of opinion, criticism and conflict at a personal and group level. Especially at the beginning, it was very helpful to have co-leaders of our committee, who could share responsibilities, plan together and support each other. It was also useful to have designated committee members, many of them representing different church constituencies and programs. It was important to have committed and enthusiastic committee members. When some people were ready to move on, they did and new people ,with energy and fresh ideas replaced them.
Another important lesson and teaching has been making the distinctions between “tolerance,” (“We can live with it as long as they don’t flaunt it.”), “acceptance” ( “Live and let live.”) and “affirmation” (“We embrace and celebrate the unique gifts that gay, lesbian and bisexual people bring to our midst.”) We have learned about creating an atmosphere of openness and safety where people can express their attitudes, comfort levels and ask questions, seeking deeper understanding.
Challenging as it was, we learned to practice our ideal of respecting the “inherent worth and dignity of all people” as we engaged with people whose expressed attitudes and behaviors sometimes were extremely disturbing to us. Mistakes were made. They were acknowledged as best we could. We learned about the importance of sharing leadership, of letting people go when they felt ready for moving on to other interests and the importance of interesting and involving new people in our work. We learned to share our lessons with other church groups, organizations and individuals interested in confronting these issues. We learned about continuing to inform the congregation about our work and involve them in dealing with the many subtle and not so subtle aspects of and consequences of heterosexism ( the assumption that heterosexual values, language and privilege is the right way to go in our culture.)
We learned that there is always more work to do. Hate crimes against gays and lesbians is continuing to grow. Virginia does not recognize violence against gays as a hate crime. The legislature still does not protect the civil rights of people according to sexual orientation and gender. Gay parents can lose custody of their children in this state. Marriages or unions between gay people are not legal in this state or nation, with the temporary exception of Hawaii. The “religious or conservative right” is continuing to challenge the basic human rights of homosexuals in many aspects of public and private life. The suicide rate among gay and lesbian teens is still higher, proportionately, than the rate for heterosexual teens. Young kids still use “queer” or “fag” as one of there main insults. Some gay and lesbian people do not feel fully welcomed and affirmed in our congregation, just to name a few reasons why our work must go on. There is much to do within the church, the community and the larger society. We welcome the challenge and opportunity to continue this work. We invite others to join us.
Last updated May 18, 2004 17:29