Conditionally Accepted

Christians' Perspectives on Sexuality and Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights

Baker A. Rogers

• Publisher: Rutgers University Press
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781978805026
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

This book explores Mississippi Christians' beliefs about homosexuality and gay and lesbian civil rights and whether having a gay or lesbian friend or family member influences those beliefs. Beliefs about homosexuality and gay and lesbian rights vary widely based on religious affiliation. Despite having gay or lesbian friends or family members, evangelical Protestants believe homosexuality is sinful and oppose gay and lesbian rights. Mainline Protestants are largely supportive of gay and lesbian rights and become more supportive after getting to know gay and lesbian people. Catholics describe a greater degree of uncertainty and a conditional acceptance of gay and lesbian rights; clear differences between conservative and liberal Catholics are evident. Overall, conservative Christians, both evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics, hold a religious identity that overshadows their relationships with gay and lesbian friends or family. Conservative religion acts as a deterrent to the positive benefits of relationships with gay and lesbian people.

Part 1

Religion and Homosexuality

1

God Said Love Thy Neighbor, Unless They’re Gay

[Conversation with interviewee at the completion of a phone interview]

Angela (fifty-three-year-old, white evangelical Protestant from the Gulf Coast): Are you a Christian?

Me: I grew up in the United Methodist Church, but I do not identify as Christian now.

Angela: I’m confused. Did you grow up knowing the love of Jesus Christ?

Me: I grew up in the church being taught about Jesus.

Angela: Then why are you not Christian?

Me: I believe in some higher power but do not believe that Jesus is the only path to god.

Angela: Then what God do you believe in?

Me: I believe in the same god as you. I believe that all religions that teach love, acceptance, and compassion worship the same god and that Jesus is not the only one path to god.

Angela: Then I guess you have not read the Bible.

Me: Actually, I have read the Bible.

Angela: I’m confused. How is that possible? I knew another person who grew up in the church, even sang in the gospel choir, who turned their back on God. I do not understand this. I guess that’s a lot of Satan’s doing. I will be praying for you. Are you a homosexual?

Me: I identify as a lesbian.

Angela: Again, I will be praying for you, I would hate for the end of the world to come and for you to be left behind.

Me: Thank you. If that is what you feel like you need to do, I respect that.

While my personal ties to this research allowed me to more thoroughly understand the topic and to ask better questions, my insider position also made the research process extremely stressful. As the conversation at the beginning of this chapter indicates, many of the interviews were difficult to sit through. From the assumptions of interviewees about my beliefs and sexual orientation to the continuous attempts to devalue the lives of gay and lesbian people—including my own life—because of our sexuality, I found this project to be simultaneously rewarding and emotionally draining. As Erzen (2006) explained, once qualitative researchers begin to study groups they disagree with, they have to “grapple with conflicting emotions and expectations when the social and religious conservatism of the people or groups they study reflect moral and political ideals that are distinct from their own” (7). She continued by explaining how these studies of conservative groups in the United States “highlight crucial questions about what it means to have a fieldwork agenda when one’s research subjects are conservative Christians with their own conversionary agendas for the researcher” (7). As the conversation with Angela at the beginning of this chapter highlighted, some of the evangelical Protestant interviewees indeed had their own agenda in mind when agreeing to participate in this study. They used this opportunity to evangelize—try to convert me to Christianity, specifically their version of Christianity. In addition to Angela, nine other evangelical Protestants from Mississippi agreed to be interviewed for this study.1

In contrast to the evangelical Protestant interviewees, and despite living in the Deep South, many Mississippi Christians were very supportive of gay and lesbian people. They spoke of Christianity’s mandate to love one’s neighbor and spoke of a God who was nonjudgmental. A growing portion of Mississippians, specifically mainline Protestants and more liberal Catholics, wished to open church doors to gay and lesbian congregants and leave the judging to their God. About half (nineteen out of forty) of the Mississippi Christians who agreed to participate in an interview identified as mainline Protestants.2

Mainline Protestants’ more liberal theology and beliefs about homosexuality fit more closely with secular society’s growing acceptance of gay and lesbian rights. In fact, these beliefs could be part of the reason for stagnation in mainline Protestantism. Smith et al. (1998) reveal how evangelicals’ embattled status with society enables them to continue to thrive, while mainline Protestantism is on the decline. According to Smith et al. (1998), evangelical Protestants thrive because of the boundaries and distinctions they create between themselves and secular society. Mainline Protestants do not attempt to set themselves apart from society in the same way; rather, they engage with society and are more open to differences in beliefs and ideology. Smith et al. (1998) suggest that by not distinguishing themselves from the larger society, mainline Protestants lose their distinctiveness, which leads to decline. A recent study conducted by the Pew Forum (2015) found that mainline Protestants declined by 3.4 percent as a share of the U.S. population between 2007 and 2014. During this same period, evangelical Protestants declined less than 1 percent.

Eleven out of the forty respondents attended a Catholic church.3 Catholics’ beliefs and attitudes fell between those of evangelical and mainline Protestants on many issues. This makes sense because unlike Protestants, who divide into different denominations based on specific theological and social beliefs, Catholics pride themselves on remaining one officially united church (Konieczny 2013; Manning 1999). This means when differences in beliefs occur, Catholics do not splinter off into separate churches in the same way Protestants might. Granted, in more highly populous Catholic regions of the country, some parishes develop reputations for being more conservative or liberal, which may attract specific Catholics. However, in Mississippi and other areas of the country that are not heavily Catholic, the inclusion of conservative and liberal Catholics in a single parish is more common. Clearly this leads to a wider range of beliefs and opinions within Catholic churches in the region, as both liberal and conservative Catholics work side by side within the same church organizations (Manning 1999).

As previously mentioned, most Catholics in the United States today no longer feel that it is necessary to rely on the Vatican’s teaching authority. In fact, D’Antonio et al. (2013) found that only 35 percent of Catholics indicated the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage was very important to them. (It is important to remember that D’Antonio et al.’s data were collected before the election of Pope Francis in 2013.) This minimization of distinctiveness could explain why the Catholic population in the United States is declining at a similar rate to mainline Protestants. Between 2007 and 2014, the proportion of Catholics in the United States declined by 3.1 percent (Pew Forum 2015).

Religious Beliefs and Prejudice

Though different denominations interpret the Bible differently, each denomination strives to uphold what they believe the Bible mandates. It is also true that the more conservative the denomination’s approach to understanding the Bible—that is, the more literally they interpret the text—the less likely they are to accept anything that contradicts their understanding of their religion. Thus the more members of a denomination believe their religion holds absolute truths, the less likely they are to change their positions on issues.

Specifically related to the issue of homosexuality, the more a person believes that their religion holds absolute truths, the more likely they are to hold negative views toward gay and lesbian people (Rowatt et al. 2006). Research has demonstrated that of those who identify as Christian, evangelical Protestants are most likely to condemn homosexuality and express prejudice toward gay and lesbian people (Duck and Hunsberger 1999; Hill et al. 2010) and are least likely to support gay and lesbian rights (Sherkat et al. 2011). Overall, people who belong to conservative religious groups hold more traditional religious views, attend church more often, and have a greater likelihood of holding negative beliefs and attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals (Hinrichs and Rosenberg 2002).

The link between religion and prejudice is not only based on specific religious beliefs but also linked to a person’s overall worldview and fear. Research points to three important aspects that influence an individual’s prejudice toward gay and lesbian people: first, a person’s overall belief systems; second, a person’s specific beliefs about the origins of an individual’s homosexuality (as a choice, a biological trait, or caused by the social environment); and finally, a person’s perception of a threat to their beliefs or worldview (Baker and Brauner-Otto 2015; Hill et al. 2010; McVeigh and Diaz 2009; Whitley 2009; Wilkinson 2004). Since many religions condemn homosexuality, individuals within these belief systems often internalize these negative views toward gay and lesbian people (Hill et al. 2010). Because some Christians’ overall belief system indicates homosexuality is sinful, these individuals translate these beliefs into action—prejudice and discrimination—against gay and lesbian people. If a Christian interprets the Bible to prohibit same-sex sexual activity, as many do, and labels this behavior as sinful, then this overall belief system will be translated into how they interact with people who identify as gay or lesbian. Christians who interpret the Bible in this way often demonstrate prejudice toward gay and lesbian people because they believe gay and lesbian people are knowingly sinning and defying God’s will.

David, a sixty-one-year-old white evangelical Protestant from the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demonstrated extremely prejudicial views toward gay and lesbian people during his interview. His responses clearly showed how his religious beliefs have influenced his overall belief system. David believed the Bible clearly prohibits homosexuality and that gay and lesbian people are knowingly defying the word of God. When I asked David how homosexuality should be handled within the church, he stated, “Just as I would [handle] adultery or any other sins in the Bible, because it’s not any worse, it’s not any better. God considers sin, sin. And what we consider small sins or large sins—God says if you violate any part of the law . . . then you’ve sinned. And if you sin, unless you’ve found grace through Jesus, you end up not where you’d like to be when it’s all over with.” Clearly David held a very black-and-white understanding of what the Bible teaches. The Bible says homosexuality is against Christian law, and so Christians must do everything they can to deter this behavior. According to David, it is his Christian duty to make sure that gay and lesbian people do not go to hell. David felt justified in his condemnation of homosexuality and in denying rights to those who defy the will of God, because in his mind, he was trying to help them.

The second important mechanism of prejudice toward gay and lesbian people is a person’s belief about the nature of homosexuality. Whether someone believes that being gay or lesbian is a choice, a biological trait, or caused by the social environment has a tremendous influence on prejudice toward gay and lesbian people (Baker and Brauner-Otto 2015; Whitley 2009). The belief that people choose their sexuality, a belief promoted by some Christian churches, is strongly connected with antigay beliefs and attitudes. If a person believes a behavior perceived to be deviant can be controlled, they generally hold more negative attitudes toward people who engage in that behavior (Whitley 2009). Take, for example, alcoholism, which some respondents in this study compared to homosexuality. Many conservative Christians believe that drinking alcohol is sinful and that alcoholics can choose not to engage in this behavior. Accordingly, levels of prejudice against this group increase because the behavior is perceived to be controllable.

For instance, one evangelical Protestant, Candace, a sixty-year-old white woman from the Mississippi Gulf Coast, explained that she believes homosexuality is a choice and everyone is prone to certain weaknesses. Because homosexuality is viewed as a choice in her perspective, she argued that gay and lesbian people can and should attempt to change their sexuality. She continued by comparing homosexuality to drug and alcohol addiction:

It would take the person desiring to be free . . . because I think there’s spiritual stuff going on there and it’s like a drug addict. Can a heroin addict be free? And I do think the answer is yes. Is it easy? No. And so, can an alcoholic be free? Yes. Is it easy? No. Because their mind is constantly wanting to draw them back to what they knew. . . . You know, some people are set free like this; God just sovereignly moves and takes that desire away. Some people have to constantly walk putting God first in their lives every moment, every step of the way, and asking him for strength and help to walk in a way that is pleasing to him.

Because Candace believed that homosexuality is something a person chooses, or at the least something they struggle with because of family situations, she believed gay and lesbian people must attempt to overcome this “sin.”

Lastly, if Christians perceive gay and lesbian people to be a threat to American or religious values—as many evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics do—this perceived threat increases negative attitudes (McVeigh and Diaz 2009). For example, many conservative Christians view same-sex marriage as a threat to their religious beliefs concerning the meaning of marriage. Conservative Catholics, specifically those who continue to uphold the authority of the church on social issues, view those acting on same-sex desires to be in conflict with the church’s teachings, as the Vatican has historically been completely opposed to homosexuality. Acceptance of homosexuality is viewed as a threat to the foundation of the Catholic faith and the teachings of the church. For instance, as of 2011, the majority (52 percent) of Catholics continued to agree with the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage (D’Antonio et al. 2013).

Many people also feel same-sex marriage is a threat to American values, specifically what is often referred to as the “traditional” family. Based on the view that men and women complement or even complete one another in marriage, conservative Christians often feel as if marriage between two partners of the same sex threatens the entire foundation of society, which they argue is the nuclear family. Seeing gay and lesbian people as a threat to American and religious values greatly increases negative beliefs and attitudes toward this population.

Andrew, a middle-aged white pastor at an evangelical Protestant church along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, is one of the interviewees who expressed this sentiment succinctly. When I asked Andrew if gay and lesbian people should be allowed to legally marry, he explained that although homosexuality had existed forever, this did not mean that we should now begin to call it marriage: “I think that when we redefine terms of basic societal relationships, I think that you’re losing the foundation for society.” He went on to explain that calling same-sex unions marriage undermines our entire basis of community. Andrew felt that using the label “marriage” was a threat to his religious beliefs and to America’s societal values.

Subcultural Identity among Mississippi Christians

So why do some Christians, especially evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics, continue to hold prejudicial views against homosexuality and gay and lesbian civil rights? Is this merely an issue of biblical interpretation? How do Christianity and the Bible lead different respondents to such varied beliefs about what is right or wrong? One important element to answering these questions is subcultural identity. Based on feelings of similarity and likeness, individuals develop a sense of membership in groups (Hogg and Abrams 1988). In order for groups to form, there must be some “other”—there must be other groups to whom people do not belong (Hogg and Abrams 1988). Theories of group identity suggest that through the process of forming groups, members often develop negative attitudes and stereotypes about those who do not fit into their own group. Additionally, individuals develop identities and a sense of self based on their group memberships (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995; Stets and Burke 2000). Therefore, the stronger and more closed-off the boundaries around a group, the stronger the group will become. Weak or open group boundaries suggest anyone can come into or leave a group at any time. Groups with weak or open boundaries do not foster the same degree of commitment and buy-in as groups with stronger boundaries. Strong or closed boundaries make it easier for group members to compare themselves to the “other.” This leads to a higher degree of commitment to the group and a stronger sense of identity based on group membership.

Originally, Smith et al. (1998) used subcultural identity theory to demonstrate how evangelical Protestants used religion as a primary mechanism to form their social identity. Through this theory, the authors show that evangelical Protestants rely heavily on social comparisons between themselves and others for the construction of their identity. According to subcultural identity theory, evangelical Protestants develop a more salient religious identity and thrive as a religious tradition because they distinguish themselves from others (Smith et al. 1998). While mainline Protestants and Catholics also compare themselves to other groups, Smith et al. (1998) show that evangelical Protestants stressed distinction far more than other Christian traditions.

For example, when I asked Erica, a sixty-three-year-old white evangelical Protestant from the Gulf Coast, her opinion of other churches who do not agree that homosexuality is always sinful, she explained, “I think [the other churches] are deceived. I think that it’s not the full word of God, if you just pick and choose what parts of the Bible you accept.” She clearly separated her faith in God and understanding of the Bible from other Christians who disagreed with her interpretation. Erica established the importance of sexuality as a boundary around evangelical Protestantism. This evangelical Protestant boundary is built and supported by the Bible and moral accountability. As Manning (1999) explains, evangelical Protestants’ “emphasis on moral accountability reflects a characteristically Protestant emphasis on moralism: the designation of a strict code [outlined in the Bible] combined with the expectation that anyone who violates the code deserves to be punished” (219). Violating the Bible is dangerous not only for those breaking the code but also for the world. The evangelical Protestants in this study clearly demonstrate their fear that gay and lesbian people will be punished for breaking the code of moral accountability and that the nation and world will also suffer for their failings.

Understanding theories of identity is important when considering Christians’ beliefs and attitudes toward gay and lesbian people, because gay and lesbian people constitute a group that conservative Christians set themselves apart from in order to create their Christian identity. In fact, evangelicalism “is strong not because it’s shielded against, but because it’s—or at least perceives itself to be—embattled with forces that seem to oppose or threaten it” (Smith et al. 1998, 89). Gay and lesbian rights are one of many “forces” that evangelical Protestants believe they must fight. As Smith et al. (1998) show, American evangelicalism “thrives on distinction, engagement, tension, conflict, and threat” (89). Overall, evangelical Protestants base their identity on how they differ from certain mainstream values, such as support for same-sex marriage and adoption.

While subcultural identity theory was created to explain the strength of evangelical Protestantism, I expand the theory in this book in two ways. First, I examine how different religious traditions distinguish themselves to diff...