Pages

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Coming Out of the Closet


So this basketball guy, Jason Collins,  came out of the closet yesterday and announced he’s gay.  Why is that news? Given that he’s a professional basketball player and an African American male (neither demographic appearing to be a stronghold of gay affirmation), I guess his coming out was courageous.  When I read the statement, “courageous” wasn’t the word that came to mind; when I read his statement, “honesty” and “eloquence” were the words that came to my mind.

Before going any further, let me state that I am, to the best of my limited human abilities, devoutly Christian.  As such, and as a perpetual student of God’s Holy Word, I have come to believe that our designation of homosexual love as “an abomination” is a result of flawed translations of the Holy Scriptures, laid atop a variety of cultural factors.

So I’m the liberal affirming Christian in the room.  If you’re reading this and/or you know me, you probably already know that.  I’m not interested in debating or convincing anyone; I’m totally gay affirming, and very much aware of the fact that we have allowed our thoughts about sex and sexuality to relegate gay people to a perpetual state of “other,” one where somehow their humanity is assumed or implied to be less than or inferior to that of those who claim not to be gay.  Yes, I said it that way for a reason.

As a liberal affirming Christian, I was happy to see Mr. Collins come out of the closet, stand up as a Christian, and walk in integrity.  But as I posted articles about him, and about my friend welcoming him to Massachusetts for the Pride parade, I began to read articles about a newscaster, Chris Broussard.  Given the amount of hate on the first post I read, I assumed Broussard was some fundamentalist hate monger and those people were supporting him.

But a very reasonable person (Pastor JW) posted on the Broussard brouhaha, so I took a moment to actually read what Broussard said.  He stated that he thought homosexuality was sinful and that he didn’t agree with the gay lifestyle.  I thought it was a bit of an opportunistic move for him to state his religious views, but you know what?  HE WAS ASKED.  He was asked what he thought about Collins coming out.  True, he probably should have stuck with the statement (which he also made) that he wished Collins well.  Perhaps it could be seen as mean-spirited or irrelevant to talk about his religious beliefs – increasingly, America has become a place where we don’t speak publicly about our religious beliefs, as if we're all too immature or too stupid to acknowledge that we have different ideas.

OK, so I’ma go out on a limb here.  The guy spoke his religious beliefs, which were offensive to some.  But how different is that from those people who won’t touch me or dine with me because of their religious beliefs?  It’s a bit offensive, it’s a little odd, but don’t we tolerate that just like we tolerate all sorts of diversity?  Don't neo-nazis and skinheads exist, with our smug, self-satisfied pride that we are tolerant of everyone?  Broussard’s employer, ESPN, issued a statement that they “regretted” Broussard’s comments.  Why?  Because ESPN didn’t agree with them?  Because they’re not politically correct?  This “oooooh. Ooooh.  Let’s not say anything against gay people” phenomenon strikes me as being just as phony and as fake as the “my best friend is black” phenomenon.  While possibly built on good intentions, they are, effectively, a load of horse crap.

Gay people are people.  Who they love and how they express that love is no business of yours, mine, or anyone else’s besides their partner’s. They should be free to live and love as they choose, as long as they don’t harm anyone else.  (Note:  that sort of implies they should be allowed to marry and have survivor's benefits like everyone else, no matter what my religion says about it). Christian people are people.  They also should be free to live and love and judge as they choose, as long as they don’t harm anyone else.  (And that sort of implies that I get to love the Lord in public or in private, and to tell anyone who's interested in listening, no matter what my Muslim or Jewish friends' religions may say about that.)  Just like I think we’re collectively overusing the concept of “bullying,” I think we’re also overusing (or perhaps missing the point on) “diversity.” 

If you put gay or black or other people into a category where it becomes politically incorrect to voice opposition to them, that’s neither diversity nor inclusiveness, it’s protectionism.  It’s an implicit message that those who are protected are somehow weaker or less equipped to fend for themselves than everyone else.  It puts them into the category of “other,”  again relegating them to a place where somehow their humanity is assumed or implied to be less than or inferior to that of the dominant culture.  And if you put Christians into a category where every thing they say is always interpreted in the worst possible light, it sort of destroys any opportunity for dialogue.  True, we Christians have historically destroyed a lot of opportunities ourselves, but should we not at least be afforded the same amount of tolerance as the neo-nazis or skinheads whose heroes have historically made similar mistakes? 

As much as I don’t agree with Broussard’s comments, and as much as I think they were perhaps ill-timed, I applaud him, as I applaud Jason Collins, for coming out of the closet.  Although they are 180 degrees different from each other, each of them made the decision to come out of the closet into which they’d been shoved, either because of who they are or because of what they believe.  Each of them made the decision to come out of the closet and walk in the world as their authentic selves.

Now some might say that Broussard’s comments were hateful or intended to hurt.  I don’t think that’s the case; he wished Collins well.  The reality we're ignoring  is that people don’t always agree.  You may think your new yellow blouse is beautiful, I may think it’s hideous.  While good manners would dictate that I keep my opinions to myself, if we are to be a truly diverse society, we must tolerate my bad manners just like we tolerate the hideous yellow blouse, in much the same way we tolerate the people who cut us off in traffic or people who form lines and don’t know how to merge.    They are all expressions, or manifestations of who we are -- our diversity.  Some you’ll like, and some you won’t.  Some you’ll agree with, and some you won’t.  Some you’ll think are right and some you’ll think are wrong, but in a diverse country, we have to learn to respect the popular and the unpopular, and we have to learn to let people walk on their own two feet. 

I think it’s time to shake open the closet doors.  Perhaps when we do, when we don’t repress so much, we’ll find that a person’s religious beliefs or sexual orientation are of no more significance than the color of their eyes.  We’re not there yet, but I’m happy to see those closet doors slowly, ever so slowly opening, and people allowing their authentic selves to come out of the closet.

1 comment:

Lionello said...

Great post Cassandra. You have put this very well. We keep missing the dsappearing but significant middle ground between disapproving of something and wanting it eliminated. If we are really honest and, dare I say, moralistic, about it, there are many things of which I, for example, disapprove of, even quite strongly, but my strength of disapproval cannot legitimately or accurately be measured by the degree of intolerance which I decide to implement in its support. So I happen not to approve of some beliefs and some views but I will tolerate them even as I argue against them. There is very little that I wish to suppress, but this is what laws, generally speaking, are for, since suppression must be a decision made by the majority (even then, it can be a manifestation of intolerance). It is not for us to restrict but to see what we can allow.