An Argument for an Honest Church


by Naomi Nixon, CEO of Student Christian Movement

There aren’t a lot of blogs written by progressive Christians about matters affecting LGBTQ+ people which can open by declaring that their basic premise isn’t very controversial. But I really believe that honesty is something we can all agree on. Honesty, for most if not all Christians, is not a very controversial subject.

On a deep theological level we know ourselves to be freed by truth (John 8:32); it is one of the ways we understand our very salvation. Knowing that we are loved by the one who created us liberates us. There is nothing truer for us than the gospel.

Added to this is the imperative to share our truth: faith is not a private thing, it is outward. However, it manifests itself in each of our traditions. None of us want to hide our faith, instead we are compelled to show it and to share it.

In the practice of discipleship, we sit with each other, or just with our Bibles, and wrestle with difficult questions, because we are seeking God’s truth for us. Likewise, the reverse is true. It’s a widespread Christian understanding that hiding things is wrong: look at what the New Testament tells us about hiding a light under bushel (Matt 5:15), or at the problem of cloaking and dissembling described in the Book of Common Prayer.

Arching across all of this is the shared understanding that honesty is a virtue, a moral good. ‘Be honest’ is the positive contrast of the Old Testament’s repeated prohibition of lying. And here we get into where it can be tempting to split the difference: not to lie, but not to be fully honest either.

Not all honesty is comfortable. If a church doesn’t affirm LGBTQ+ people, that is hard for a queer person to hear, but they’d rather know before they join. Finding out later can be devastating. In this case, even if it isn’t nice, we need to know.

The Student Christian Movement’s Honest Church campaign is not everything we’d want to say about LGBTQ+ people’s welcome in church. In truth, we wish all churches were affirming and celebrating of queer people. But that’s not where we are, and we have to be honest about that. There are a lot of reasons why honesty in this area matters. But at its heart we grieve for every person who drifts away from church and sometimes from God because they didn’t find a congregation that communicated the boundless love of God in a way that met their heart and soul. At SCM we hear stories all the time of how this happens, and we don’t want to be the last refuge of rejected young people (though we’ll do that if it’s needed). We want to be empowering student and graduate Christians who are a full part of local churches, receiving and contributing as they worship God in community.

But here’s what happens all too often. An 18-year-old arrives at university, waved off by their church back home. They go along to freshers events including church pizza nights. People are fun and kind and there are other students, so they start going along on Sundays. A couple of months in they are feeling uneasy that cis/heteronormativity is everywhere, and they stop mentioning anything about their queer identity; they make themselves less fully themselves so as not to stand out. There is a call for people to volunteer for the worship group. Our student used to do that from time to time back home, so they volunteer. Someone takes them aside and says it’s not appropriate for someone with their ‘lifestyle’ to have a leadership role because it goes against the teaching of the church.

If we took this story as a case study, conservatives and progressives and everyone in between could argue back and forth about what happened and where right and wrong lie. But to the student it isn’t a case study, it is their church rejecting them. They had no way to know that the church which initially welcomed them would do that. They expected church to be a place of safety, and now they are hearing that they are unacceptable. Many LGBTQ+ people choose to worship in churches like the one above, and no one should tell them they can’t, but it is important to know what you are getting into. Stories like this happen in real life constantly. I wish those churches accepted people like this student, but at the bare minimum I want them to avoid hurting the student by making them think they belonged and then withdrawing their acceptance. We want to ask these churches to be honest: to use clear language about what they mean when they say ‘everyone is welcome’.

Let’s imagine that our young Christian here is bruised but not broken, so they pick themselves up and go looking for a church where the same thing won’t happen. There’s one next to where they work and another that they pass on their way to the bus. Their websites say nothing about inclusion, and they are nervous to try again. Inside those church buildings are worshippers who have gay children. In one place there’s a trans woman who was just quietly welcomed and no one makes a fuss. At another there’s a chap who frowns if the rather woke churchwarden mentions equal marriage. As it happens our student comes from a church just like these, and would have felt at home. But if you have already been hurt it is really hard to take a risk. We want to ask these kind of churches to be honest too. You don’t need to be the church in town that has a stall at Pride, just let people know something about where you honestly are in terms of LGBTQ+ welcome.

We agree about honesty, so why can’t church be honest?

 

Find out more about Honest Church here or follow the hashtag #HonestChurch on twitter

Comments

5 responses to “An Argument for an Honest Church”

  1. Susannah Clark avatar
    Susannah Clark

    Very good article, Naomi. Thank you. I believe it should be mandatory that churches truthfully state their positions on sexuality, gender transition, and recognition of women priests and bishops. After all, why should people be afraid of the truth?

  2. Clare Flourish avatar

    The trouble is, churches could only be honest if they knew themselves. What church thinks it is not welcoming?

    But, one says it condemns all sin. Anyone who is notoriously and unrepentantly sinful would not be suitable for a leadership position, not just a gay person.

    Another, the congregation thinks they are welcoming and accepting. But society is homophobic, homophobic attitudes in the congregation are unquestioned, and the gay person feels subtly unwelcome there.

    Another, there are lots of people who would be welcoming, and on the third week there the gay person just happens to meet the unrepentant homophobe- and then never talks to another member of the congregation, and just leaves.

    Another, the gay person has found themselves, become alive to their internalised homophobia, and is in reaction to it, judging everything. So they feel the congregation are homophobic even though most gay people really comfortable in their own skin would be fine there.

    A church might say it’s welcoming and it’s not. Or, someone might have a bad experience in any church- not just gay people. It’s just that homophobes often think their homophobia is righteous.

    1. Phillippa avatar
      Phillippa

      I think Claire has hit the nail on the head. I can’t think of a church that truly knows itself well. As I’m at a time in my ministry where I’m reviewing many church profiles I am struck by how blind many are to their character. Locally, I know many churches whose profiles bear no resemblance to what I’ve experienced working with and alongside them.

      Inclusivity is one thing, expecting universal acceptance is another, and I don’t think it’s realistic to expect the latter, even from churches that proclaim the former.

      If churchwardens cannot see the character of their own churches, how can we expect anyone else to?

      There’s also the matter of degree … a church can be inclusive in character, but that doesn’t mean everyone, or even the leadership, must be uncritically affirming of, for example, transgender self identification and the denial of the rights of women to safe spaces. If the definition of being inclusive is an uncritical affirmation of everyone then that’s in itself exclusive as it excludes anyone who might hold a different opinion….so we’re striving to achieve the impossible. It can’t exist.

      I do, however, believe it is possible to hold a leadership position of the middle ground….and simply not to hold a theological position either way, but to welcome and accept people as they are, without making comment positively or negatively on anyone’s own particular sexuality/identity.

      Re preaching on such issues? It’s really simple. In 8 years of ministry the solution I’ve found is simply not to.

  3. Stefe avatar
    Stefe

    Thanks for this article Naomi. I wonder if you’ve come across any theologically traditional churches who do this honesty really well?

  4. John Davies avatar
    John Davies

    Thanks for this, Naomi. I’ve been thinking about it for a couple of days before replying, as it seems to have a much, much wider application, in the way we present ourselves to the world around us in general.
    (Just as an aside, can I ask what on earth is cis/heteronormativity please, in everyday terms? Being a simple bloke, I’ve completely lost track of all these new terms.)
    Anyway, reverting to the theme; recently I helped with an Alpha course. The final episode, “After Alpha” paints so idealised a picture of ‘the church’ – positivity on steroids – that it is completely unrecognisable to anyone familiar with the debates on this site, or indeed a great many local churches. No mention at all of the issues you describe, or any of the very real issues we’re all too well aware of. Anybody who seriously believed that portrait was setting themselves up to have their heart broken – or their faith.
    We, of all people, should be the honest ones; we claim to have been set free by the truth, and yet cannot cope with being honest about ourselves. There’s an awful lot of sanctified pride within the church generally – at both ends of its spectrum. We pride ourselves on social respectability and doctrinal purity, so protect our ‘image’ by making sure anyone who doesn’t fit is ‘encouraged’ to either change or leave. The more radical among us are often faced with an attitude of “If you knows of a better ‘ole, go to it” but don’t rock our nice, tight little boat.
    We quarrel over the most trivial of things; fall out and divide into camps, just like the rest of the world around us, yet portray ourselves as the embodiment of the sole hope of mankind’s salvation. I’ve read letters in model railway magazines debating the shades of paint used on pre-war railway engines which were almost as acrimonious as some letters in the church press on vestments and doctrines, never mind more personal issues. So in what way do we differ from the unsaved world? Yet we still portray ourselves as a body of love, while somehow subconsciously perceiving ourselves as morally superior.
    Someone told me recently of a gifted young Christian musician and worship composer, who was totally destroyed by the evangelical world once she’d admitted to being a celibate lesbian. (Similar to way they treated Steve Chalk) Talk about throwing God’s gifts back in his face? It is very hard not to be seriously sarcastic at such times.
    Rudyard Kipling once said there are two kinds of Christian – those who worship the God of Things as They Are, and those who worship the God of Things as They Should Be – in other words the idealists. I still believe in the ideals I had as a young Christian, as tarnished as they’ve become. Inevitably the church, any church actually reflects the culture it is drawn from, with all it’s faults. But that shouldn’t stop us from recognising them and seeking to overcome them, should it?

Any thoughts?