How Hillary’s Coming Out Brought Me to Tears
We call it “coming out” when lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people share their full selves with others. The actual moment is often years in the making as we waken to, and then accept, ourselves enough to let the world know who we are. This is true for our loved ones and allies, too, as we have seen so dramatically this week in the public coming out of Senator Rob Portman and former Senator Hillary Clinton.
It was former Secretary of State Clinton who brought tears to my eyes by her clarity about the path she has followed to support marriage for same-sex couples and her witness to the journey our whole country is on toward a more perfect embodiment of liberty and justice for all. Always toward, we know, never arrived.
Hillary Clinton acknowledged forthrightly that there are many Americans who think differently than she does about the freedom to marry. Even though, for the first time, recent polls show a majority, 58% of the people, favor the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, this still means that 42% in the United States do not. This is especially important to keep in mind as the Supreme Court hears the legal arguments on the constitutionality of bans on marriage for same-sex couples next week. Whatever way the Supreme Court goes this spring, our public conversation will, and must, continue.
What Secretary Clinton highlighted for me is that every single one of us is on a journey regarding the place of LGBT people in our families, in our community and in the heart of God. And none of us walks a solitary way. We all have the company of both public figures like Anderson Cooper or Wanda Sykes, Clinton or Portman, and of our children, our neighbors and our friends who sit by us in church.
Whether our own child or our President jolts us to search our hearts, we can all come to the place, like Secretary Clinton, where we know what we want for ourselves (celebration of our child’s marriage to the love of her life) we also surely want for others (the parents of LGBT children). Clinton claims this as a step on her journey and invites others to take this step with her. This brought tears to my eyes.
And when we meet those who, like Speaker John Boehner, are at a different place on our national journey, the challenge is to pull alongside them, to sojourn with them for a bit. We can do this honestly because we know what it is to be in the minority. We know what it is to lose, to fear for oneself and one’s worldview. When we have the compassion to walk in their shoes, see the world with their eyes, miraculous possibilities abound. Hillary invited us to do this. That brought tears to my eyes.
Secretary Clinton said she trusts we will find “common ground and a path forward.” Yes. Those are places we all share on the road to a more perfect union. Does her trust in us bring tears to your eyes? Does it inspire you, as it does me, to come out and get going? I hope so.
20 Responses
…I rue, rue, I tell you, that she is not President…
Dear Donna,
There is a good chance she will run, I think, and, if we work hard for her, she has a good chance of winning. And she will have been blessed that President Obama received the mess handed to him in 2009, not her.
He presided over recovery from the brink of economic collapse and over the return of international respect for American foreign policy. And he enhanced Secretary Clinton’s chances by including her in this success.
They are both good people and good Christians who have given their lives to better the world. I hope she is the next president, Donna. I expect you do to.
Peace, Janet
Hi Janet,
I think Hillary did more for US foreign policy than did Obama…and I disagree that Obama has done anything good for the country’s economy.
As for 2016, I’d be elated to see a Clinton/Romney ticket quite frankly.
Donna
I pray my time on earth will be over before another liberal wins office. They are destroying America……………
Dear Donna and Bill,
The good news for me is that you are both still engaged here enough to share a thought.
The bad news for me is that your comments are not really helpful in furthering a conversation which is my desire here.
For one, your comments are not to the main point I meant to make about appreciating the way Hillary Clinton wants for others what she wants for herself: her child being able to marry the love of her life. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
The other thing is that your short comments do not lend themselves to a thoughtful response. While all your considerations that lead to your words here would not be helpful, one or two of them could start a valuable conversation.
Keeping these pillars of a good conversation in mind will help us find “common ground and a path forward” together which I think is the only way the church and the world will survive. Thank you in advance for doing that.
Peace, Janet
Janet, You called Clinton and Obama “good Christians”, I’m confused. How does a person that supports abortion and gives military weapons (fighter jets and tanks) to a nation that has promised the destruction of Isreal earn the title of a Good Christian? I notice that you always ask the same set of questions to the people you interview. Perhaps instead of asking questions that encourage division in the church, why not ask questions that unite the church, unless of course thats the real agenda ( which I believe it is). I was reading about liberals and Christianity and have come to the conclusion as do most followers of Christ that the two arent compatible. ” Liberal Christianity or Theological Modernism is a broad term which basically refers to a movement within American Protestant denominations to stress the social role of Christianity, as in the Social Gospel of the early 20th century. This movement is characterized by a lack of emphasis on or denial of the plenary Divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, and commitment to doctrinal purity. Prevalent Biblical themes such as repentance from personal moral sin, hell and damnation for those who reject Christ, His blood atonement and His future literal reign are minimized, or militated against. In 1937, H. Richard Niebuhr summarized their basic gospel message as preaching that “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”[1][2]
Theologically, Liberal Christianity stresses a basic continuity between man and God, emphasizing the immanence of God rather than His transcendence. It tends to see religious knowledge emerging from research and the use of reason, as superior to Biblical revelation. Thus the liberal idea of religion as a personal relationship with God is one which is not necessarily bound to a Biblical doctrinal basis. This stands in in contrast to salvation resulting from faith in the Biblically substantiated gospel of grace, and in conformity with orthodox theological beliefs.” I challenge you to ask then a real question. One that is at the heart of the matter. We evangelicals believe the Bible to be “Holy” It is correct in what its says in every way. It is Gods heart and mind and is easily understood. Liberals believe its well…..not so much. More of a good read with some truth and a few lessons that might come in handy someday but maybe not. So here is my challenge. Include the question: How do we convince evangelical Christians that the Bible IS NOT “HOLY” and doent come from God? The way I see it , its the only way you will ever convince and get universal support for gay ordaination. Your thoughts?
Hi Janet & Bill,
Sorry I didn’t see Janet’s response from 4/4 until today…
Bill, let me say this: Over the past almost two years now, I’ve returned to my “fundamentalist” roots, or rather, let them flourish and believe much the same as you do. I believe in the need for a personal relationship with Christ as Savior and Redeemer of sin – and a striving on my part to keep that salvation intact. However, I’ve come to an impasse on the idea of “homosexuality as a sin” because 1) the same Bible that says being gay is a sin also condones slavery (Leviticus), and 2) relies heavily on the writings of Paul (Romans) who, while a great teacher of Christ and theologian, did not know Jesus when He was here on Earth. Nowhere else in the New Testament writings do we hear anything like Paul’s history of sexual immorality as given in Romans. The result is that I cannot say whether God judges homosexuality as a sin or not. I trust rather in Psalm 139 that says God knew me before I was born and knit me in mother’s womb to be exactly as I am – it guides my belief that being gay (or of color, or of other physical attribute) is a natural course of creation, and it guides my belief that abortion is wrong. That being said, I would like you and other conservative Christians to consider that gay people can indeed live holy lives according to a Holy Bible. Gay marriage as being pressed for in the Church is not about marrying gay couples who come in off the street, claim they’re Christian but have no life of Christian substance. At least I hope that’s not what it’s about. I would hope (and Janet can clarify) that gay Christian couples, who live in relationship with Christ and godly principles, who seek communion with God, and God’s blessing on their lives, are those who are seeking a “church” marriage. Otherwise, I would hope that even though we both regard the Bible as Holy, we can both think critically about it to recognize that it very often contradicts itself: Thou shalt not kill (Exodus and elsewhere), but “a time to kill” (Ecclesiastes), for example. And that society, hopefully through the Holy Spirit, has revealed that some of the rules are no longer acceptable, like slavery, eating shellfish, and so on. For 1800 years, the Bible was accepted “as-is,” but something has changed and that is intellectual level of the masses. So, too, must our faith that what is Holy will always be Holy.
Janet, I can’t and won’t over-contemplate my statement that I hope for a Clinton/Romney ticket – it either ingenius or laughable, whichever way you choose to see it. However, my faith and continuation of keeping up with current events leads me to believe that we are headed in the wrong direction. If we do not end up with a despot in Obama and are fortunate enough to have another election (hopefully without a corruptible electoral college domination), then my hope is for Hillary and Romney or Hillary and whoever has shown themselves wise enough to be able to lead this country back to economic prosperty. I’m sorry you didn’t take my comment and think seriously about its implications. I certainly expected that you would.
Donna
Dear Bill and Donna,
Once again I am glad you both continue to come to this site and are inspired to share your thoughts. I hope there are others who want to step up to address your concerns.
I confess, I can’t muster much interest in addressing your words as I have come to expect, based upon past experience, that we would come quickly to a dead end and I don’t want that. I don’t need you to agree with me but I do desire that you engage with me. My experience is that you will smack down what I ask or share and there we will be.
Bill, I am not interested in making an intellectual defense of liberal Christian thought. What I want is to engage honestly with you about the place of LGBT people in God’s heart because (and I am hopeful we can agree on this) the church is destroying itself over this. What do you see as the best way for you and me to actually engage?
Donna, I did think some about your proposal of a Hillary Clinton/Mitt Romney presidential ticket for 2016. It seems to me so unlikely that I did not go too deeply into it. I can see that it reflects your deep desire for unity in our country. What I would dearly like to hear from you is what concrete first steps might lead to your dream ticket for 2016, in other words, to a unity in our country which is slipping away from us.
Thank you, Donna, for your thoughtful response to Bill. I hope you two continue your dialogue here. And I hope I hear from you both again.
Janet, feel free to express yourself as you wish in my regard. I will endeavor to not “smack down” any offerings.
I will think about the question you have put forth and answer in more detail sometime this weekend, but for now, begin with a concept that moves beyond “party affiliation” to actual ability. Why Hillary? She’s qualified and gifted. Why Romney? Becuase he’s qualified. Why both together? Because it’s time for a woman president and it’s time for an experienced business-minded person for vice president. Between the two, there is more common ground than not, but more importantly, both have a passion for this country greatness that is beyond party definition.
More at a later time…my eyes are weary…
Donna
I was listening to Dr Stanley and in my opinion this is what the new “liberal” churches are doing. The are creating larger and larger divisions…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfVoa1sJd-E
Janet,Donna, Interesting thoughts on Liberalism within the church. Why is this important? Because it is the basis for our disagreement on homosexuality. JMO.
Hi Bill,
I very much like and agree with Dr. Stanley in that clip. I have stated here often that while I agree with the end (inclusion of GLBT in the church), I do not agree with the method. There are two things you cannot force upon people: acceptance of others and charity.
But what can be done instead is to engage with non-GLBT in all of the ways the church worships and serves others, and in the going let it be known that GLBT people are as willing to serve and glorify God as anyone else.
Admittedly, I don’t belong to any church right now, so the topic isn’t as impoortant to me as it once was. And I’ll likely never return to seminary…sad though that reality is.
But one thing you must know if you’ve read through these postings, and that is that I’ve done exactly what Dr. Stanley suggests (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIHDNtL_trQ). And God’s answer to me is that I am no different than anyone else that is born, even as people are born of color, different shapes and sizes, whole or handicapped – I am as He made me.
I don’t expect you to believe that. I do expect you to accept it and me as part of God’s answer for me and His family, just as I accept that you find a different answer. And so unless or until one or the other of us does some truly hateful or sinful thing to one another, why can’t we walk along together in serving Christ?
Donna
Hi Donna
If we we lived in the same town went to the same church, in all likelyhood we’d be friends. Homosexuality doesnt frighten me like it does some. I’m not afraid it’ll rub off onto me. But the point I have been trying to make, mostly with Janet, is she says she wants conversation. That isnt true IMO,what she really wants is for thos of us that oppose homosexuality as normal to just listen to her say its ok and then except it. it wont work like that. The one and only reason I’m opposed to it is that God says not to do it. Keep in mind, I’m a Bible believing Christian.The PCUSA is NOT a Bible believing church. If its not a Bible believing church then it isnt a Christian church.We are told the day will come when churches and teachers will teach a new and wrong gospel ( I think thats Janets new wind she talks about). The Bible is very clear about that, both in the NT and the OT. There is no way around it, unless,you add to or take away from. And we warned against it. The only way it can be judged “right” is if the PCUSA can convince evangelicals and lost people that the Bible is NOT the word of God. Funny as it might be, she teaches from a book she doesnt believe in. Which means a person believes themselves and not God.
God bless
Bill
Bill, it’s interesting that you say that about the Bible being taken as it is as God’s true word. I’m just finishing reading a couple of books on the “lost” gospels/books, and wondering why some were not included. I think what’s important is, as Dr. Stanley stated, that we seek God’s revelation of the word to us as we study. I have a difficult time with Romans (the anti-gay scriptures) not because it is convicting, but because there’s no foundation for it. And yet, as a gay woman, I want to attend a church that preaches what I was taught to be pure in heart and mind (and body if you’re not married), and one that is as Pentecostal leaning as the church I grew up in. I’ve not found that in a “gay” church (here, but did in a different state). So please understand that I know how you feel, but trust that Dr. Stanley is correct in saying prayer goes along with study. Also, I’m not saying that Bible is not true, but when it comes down to it, the writers and the people I believe were anointed of God, hence, so is the Word, but just as there are preachers today who are anointed, there are times when their own thoughts are expressed. Sometimes I think that to be the case with Paul, and so the word is true, but was it delivered with God’s anointing? I’ve prayed about it and I am, as I said, at an impasse. I lean on Psalm 139 and God’s answer to my earnest prayers those many years ago.
Dr. Stanley relayed that the Bible is a book written many years ago by a different people in a different time, and we have to look through that to understand what God intends for us. I don’t believe God intends for us to have slaves. I don’t believe that many of the rules from say Exodus or even Paul’s statement about women being silent in the church, apply today. Is it because of feminism? Perhaps, it is. But perhaps God spoke through feminism so that the role of his women children would be realized at its full potential.
I can’t say that Janet is right or wrong, only that I don’t agree with the method, which is what I hear you saying. An agenda, overt or not, will always show itself one way or the other. The agenda, in my mind, has to be Christ and salvation.
On the other hand, if feminism hadn’t been a wave through our culture, women wouldn’t not be reaching the full potential God intended for them. So, how can we say that Janet’s work will not end being the way GLBT people reach their full potential in Christ?
The Bible and Paul speaks contrary current views on slavery and the role of women, and yet that is not what churches preach today. Why is that? Is it because we are wrong and the Bible is right? Or was the moving of the Holy Spirit to bring people to their full potential in Christ?
I think one last piece that’s missing here is that it is God’s work to bring people to Him, in whatever way He chooses. To some that means the age-old “death bed” salvation after a life of raucus living. To others it means a life spent wandering until they come home to a church. And to still others, some loss or tragedy, and so on. No matter how God brings people to Himself, He does it and then begins working to bring them to their full potential in Him. In all of this, we have no place or call to judge, because God brings us all to the opportunity and to a place where we can reach and be the best we can for Him.
I hope this makes sense, Bill. And I think you and I would be friends, too, if given the same place and chance.
God Bless,
Donna
Dear Bill,
I hope you and Donna continue your dialogue. Of course, I am listening in and have some thoughts on your comments regarding your opinions of me.
You have every right to have your ideas about me and to make judgments based upon them. I do think it would be honest to say that you do not know me. You know only what I have written here. As, I say, you can judge what you read here. You can not with any certainty say what God’s judgment of me is.
I think we actually agree on a great deal, Bill. The most important thing we differ on, as I see it, is this:
I acknowledge a separation between what I believe is God’s will and God’s will itself. This is faith.
As I experience what you write, I see a fusion in your mind between what you believe is God’s Word and God. You claim direct and complete knowledge of God’s mind, which, as I see it, is not faith. Correct me if I am wrong about this.
Yes, I want to persuade because people kill themselves–especially young people–when they hear the kind of thing you say God thinks about them. I do think that you should want to persuade me of your convictions if you know it is God’s Word. We both want to persuade–right?
Please try to persuade me. I invite you to. What is clear to us all is that simply insisting your are right is not sufficient to persuade me or many others any more. You need to make a case and I invite you to. But we now know just claiming being right is not enough to persuade.
I hope I hear from you again and that you and Donna continue your rich conversation here.
Peace, Janet
Janet,
I would like to add that if you came from the same background as me, you would have likely been told directly 1) you are an abomination to God, and 2) that even if you repent and do not “act” on the homosexuality, your salvation is in jeopardy. To those who came to Christ before coming out, the response, probably 99% of the time, is a response like: “I am the same person I was before I came out and I still love Jesus the same …how can it be that God loves me less now just because I am out?” It is a burden young people struggle to reconcile, and, yes, too many are unable to successfully navigate it alone, and choose death rather than deal with the pain of spiritual turmoil and a society- and church-taught hatred of self.
Bill, Dr. Stanley mentions that disunity is not of God and the result of disunity are the many different Protestant denominations. The PCUSA is not the only church to struggle with acceptance of GLBT people, but the one example I find amazing is the way the United Church of Christ dealt with it. In seminary I spent an entire course studying the UCC and several weeks on just its struggle with GLBT “issues.” It decided to leave to God what it cannot pronounce judgment on and to love and welcome “all the people.” Some UCC churches are not welcoming, very many are, and it is free to use that wasted energy on doing more for Christ.
I think very often, Bill, we see change in the church as “of the devil,” but when it comes to bringing unity and more people to Christ, what is the deterrant? Insistence on being right? The refusal to unite?
Salvation, spirituality, even theology is not a hard, measurable science. We can’t tie God’s will to only the Bible, because as mentioned in the previous posting, God has moved in ways that are beyond the Bible. (God is alive and moving today, yes?) Rather, the Bible is a guide to God’s limitless ways of relationship with us, for our growing to our full potential with and in Him.
Blessings,
Donna
PS I will hearken back just once to politics as they are today because there is a difference in my religious and political beliefs: what is happening today in the political arena is different. Politics is neither of nor for God, but for the advancement of humanity. And under Obama, I see a nation shifting from one that once reaped what it sowed to one that no longer sows what it reaps. We’re living on borrowed time.
Dear Donna,
I so hope you and Bill continue your exchange. I have only one thing to add.
As far as I know myself, I stand fully with you in the conviction that Christ and salvation are the heart of this matter and of life, really. What I have tried to express to you already and try again now is also my conviction that Christ expects us to give these words real and practical meaning in our lives. That is what I do, as best I can.
So, yes, I have an agenda. I see Christ as having an agenda. He expects us to work at building the beloved community, the kingdom of God in our lives, here and now. He gave Himself to teaching the disciples and us how to do that. He said God is God of the living, not the dead.
As I look back, my agenda began with and continues to be making the church a place that welcomes the marginalized. This is what Jesus did. Out of the host of such people, I chose to give myself to advocacy for LGBT people, I guess, because this has been the sore point in my church from the time I became an adult.
At the same time, ministers in my presbytery since I was examined and ordained will tell you that I have always sought out collegial relationships with those who disagree with me. Jesus includes everyone around Him in the beloved community. Nicodemus is there. The powerful in His world, the Roman centurion, the Pharisee and priest, came to Him.
The powerful in my church, especially in my presbytery have been those who disagree with me. Though they may not feel so powerful now–and may not be as much now–they still have a great deal of privilege. Jesus requires me to reach out and be in meaningful relationship with them which, for me, must include engaging about those things over which we disagree, just as Jesus did.
I would add with Bill in mind: I know there are liberal Christians who have no interest in this kind of inclusion. I am not one of them. There are differences among liberal Christians just as there are among conservative ones.
“Having an agenda” is not the problem for me that it seems to be to you. If Christ and salvation are your agenda, then I want to hear what that means. I hope you find your way to share that with us.
Peace, Janet
Hi Janet,
Please know that I know why you work so tirelessly for GLBT inclusion and do not criticize you for that. It’s likely I’m at fault for thinking a more passive way is a better way, because I know all too well what it is like to be a part of a group that doesn’t want you to be a part of it. Just went through another spell of that (again, and what’s that bring me up to 30-some times in my life?), and it just seems such a waste of effort. Thankfully it’s not really all that important to me because I found I am still fragile in some ways, but still not as fragile as I used to be. Janet, you don’t have to justify yourself to me…your battle with the church is one I fight everyday just by being who I am and being out, though in everyday circles, with everyday people, but people who mostly hide their hatred or divert it in other ways to express it. I know the battle, what GLBT person doesn’t?
Admittedly, I am quite stuck on the thought that if both sides wish for unity, and only one side is refusing to unite, then one has to wonder whether that one side truly wants unity (I almost wrote a Bush-ism “unificated” to prompt a smile and take the edge off that statement). Only Bill can tell us, or whoever else is out there.
I’m also stuck on the thought that if you tie knowing God’s will only to the Bible, then God is restricted and as good as dead. Hence, my pointing out in a gentle, more round-about way that civil rights and feminism were movements used by God to bring more people to Him and bring them to their full potential in Him.
How is it that Presbyterians can co-exist at a distance with other denominations and other brands of Christianity, unite in aiding others in times of disaster and strife, but within the church co-existence is an impossibility? I thought all things were possible for those who know Christ.
Blessings,
Donna
Dear Donna,
I have two comments on your earnest thoughts and one answer to your final question.
I am struck by your language of “criticize,” “justify,” “fight” and “battle.” As long as we conceive what we are about in this way, we are sunk. And, of course, perhaps we can all agree that this is the way we have understood it for forty years (really 150 years since historic criticism in Bible Studies introduced a different way of approaching the Bible and the disagreement over LGBT people is a facet of this difference in the church). And many still see what we are about that way. You seem to.
We may make progress in being together as Christ’s body when we reframe what we are doing. I hope you can see how I try to do that. I try to be very careful with my language and disciplined in seeing this as a discussion that can build relationships among those who disagree. In that regard, I did not understand myself to be “justifying myself” in what I wrote. I was explaining myself so that you and anyone else reading can understand me so as to respond accurately with what you and they think on the same topic. Do you see the difference?
I agree with you completely that building relationships with people who seem to have no interest in being in relationship with you is a huge challenge. And unity is another word for relationship–right?
It makes me very sad every time someone holds me responsible for others leaving the PCUSA. What I believe may be a consideration in their leaving but they are making the choice to leave and that is their responsibility not mine. My responsibility is my choice and I choose to stay because I know Jesus wants me to. It also makes me sad when some say they want me to go. I can’t, obviously, because Jesus wants us to be one.
All I can do is continuously hold out the invitation for relationship and work at that when the invitation is accepted. This clearly does not mean that I dilute my convictions about God’s will or how to follow Jesus. I am committed to listening to those who disagree with me with a readiness to change my views if something touches me. This does happen regularly though, obviously, not in a way that leads me to take a different position on God’s love for LGBT people. I don’t think Bill trusts me in that willingness to change but that is really for him to say, not me.
Finally, I would say, Yes, all things are possible for those who know Christ so there are a few answers to your question about why Presbyterians are so bad at unity (and we are terrible at it; that’s a historic fact). For one thing, it probably is a fact that we do not know Christ very well. If we could see our disagreement as a way to come to know Christ better rather than “a fight” we might improve in that regard.
My other thought is that God wants us to differ so that we find our unity in Christ not in agreement.
God’s Spirit is inspiring the “sides” in our disagreements and wants us to live out the basic Presbyterian wisdom of unity in essentials and freedom in non-essentials. Our great challenge now is that some of us consider sexual orientation and practice to be an essential and others, like me, do not. That God may want our disunity on this is a mystery to me, so I bow before that possibility, watch, and continue to seek to do God’s will as the Spirit inspires me.
I hope those thoughts are helpful to you. I know I will appreciate your response.
Peace, Janet
Hi Janet,
I use words like that because for me, it is a daily battle, surviving is. And I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any GLBT person who doesn’t at some point experience outright discrimination, but more often it’s the other kind, just beneath the surface. The kind in the workplace where hatred is channelled in other ways – like making your job harder, holding you to a different performance standard, and distancing you from the group.
Then there’s the blatant prejudice – on the bus or in public – making fun of a trans person, or commenting loudly “Is that a woman or man? Go ask. I dare you.”
It’s everyday and it’s real. If you’re working poor like me, it’s a battle, a struggle, and it’s everywhere. At work, in public, and, as we know, in church, from coworkers, family, strangers, even other minorities.
So forgive me my poor choice of words; when injustice is everywhere and survival is the only option, it’s a battle to me. I don’t want relationships with people like that anymore, because, in my experience, the hatred submerges for a while and then comes back, usually to bite you.
So, there you are. Forgive me. But there is no need to explain yourself.
Donna