© 1997 Mark Demma
In many religious denominations in our country, a debate is raging in many congregations centered around the issue of homosexuality. Congregants, ministers, churches and national organizations all are struggling with issues of whether they should take a stance of embracing or condemning gay people, or might be somewhere in the middle. The Judeo-Christian-Moslem traditions have all historically condemned same sex relationships. Perhaps not all the practitioners at all times, but for much of their recent history same sex relationships have been shunned. Religion has often played a part in the spread of prejudice in our western culture, whether it be against gays or Jews or any other minority group. This study examined the correlation between faith development as defined by James Fowler (Fowler, 1981) and attitudes toward homophobia as well as the role that a person's religion plays on attitudes toward same sex relationships.
The criteria used to determine the stage of faith was the basic form that James Fowler describes in Stages of Faith (Fowler,1981). Briefly stated, Fowler's six stages of faith development are as follows: Stage 1 is Intuitive Projective Faith, usually a child hood stage in which highly imaginative fluid thought patterns are not restricted by logic. Stage 2 is Mythic-Literal Faith and is very one dimensional and very literal, symbols are important and things are usually very cut and dry, there is good and bad- and you are punished for doing bad. Stage 3 is Synthetic Conventional Faith and in which a person gathers and falls in love with the personal myth of self. In this stage one still has conformist values and would not step outside the system. Stage 4 is Individuate Reflective Faith and is marked by a start to question and look beyond simple black and white answers, an interruption of reliance on external sources of authority and the beginning of a self identity outside of others. Stage 5 is Conjunctive Faith in which a person integrates into self and looks at much that was suppressed or undiscovered. It is marked by the rise of ironic imagination, by recognition that things are relative. Finally, stage 6 is Universalizing Faith. The transition involves becoming a disciplined activist incarnation, making real and tangible the imperatives of absolute love and justice.
The second part of the interview involved an assessment of the respondents level of acceptance of same sex relationships. To classify the level of acceptance, I devised a scale that puts people into categories according to a continuum developed by Unitarian Universalist Minister Rev Douglas Morgan Strong and printed in The Welcoming Congregation (Alexander, 1990). The scale starts with repugnancy, e.g. someone that might say they feel physically nauseous at the mere thought of homosexuality. Then comes toleration, e.g. a person who may know some of "them" and feel as long as "they" don't flaunt "their" perversion that they can live with it. Acceptance is marked by someone who has a "live and let live" attitude. They may have gay friends and intellectually realize that it would be OK for a person that is gay to teach their children, but wouldn't want to be identified as gay (Rev. Strong refers to people who are afraid that too many gays in a congregation would result in a reputation as a 'gay' church.) The last category is affirmation- those people who embrace and celebrate the unique gifts that gay, lesbian and bisexual people bring in their midst.
According to my hypothesis, people who are further along with their own faith development as defined by Fowler would be more likely to fall with in the categories of accepting or affirming of gay and lesbian people and same sex relationships. It is also hoped that the answers given might also shed some light into the base reasons behind homophobia, at least in so far as it stems from a religious standpoint.
Method
Subjects
The subjects for this study were members of different local congregations in the Asheville area. Four congrations were used: a Reform Jewish Synagogue (Group 1), a Unitarian Universalist Church (group 2), a Reform Presbyterian Church (group 3) and a Presbyterian Church (group 4). It was hoped that this would provide a cross section of responses from different religious perspectives. Due to the length of the survey, respondents who participated generally had some strong motivation to answer the questions. This lead to some polarisation of the results. Those who responded to the survey tended to have strong feelings either for or against rights for same sex couples. The Church that could best be described as the most "moderate" of the four, the Presbyterian, yielded the poorest return rate, only one response. It was hoped that there would be a motivation for members of the Warren Wilson College Church, which is mostly comprised of retired staff members and members of the Swannanoa community (according to the Church's Pastor) to fill out the survey in order to help out a student. One church member when asked responded that he would have perhaps filled out a quick multiple choice survey. The best response was from the most conservative of the Churches, seven responses. These surveys were delivered to the congregation by another student at Warren Wilson that attends that congregation. Respondents knew that the survey was not being conducted by the student who was a member of their congregation. All of the Respondents from this congregation seemed to have strong opinions on the subject matter. Both the Reform Jewish and Unitarian Universalist congregations yielded 6 responses. I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist congregation and this was most certainly a motivation for the Unitarian Universalist Respondents to fill out the survey. I visited the Reform Jewish congregation three times, two Friday evening services and one Passover Sedar before handing out surveys members of the congregation. The Rabbi wanted to look over the survey before distribution, and had concerns over the length of the questionnaire. At each congregation, twenty surveys were distributed. It was hoped that between five to ten surveys would be returned.
I chose to use members of specific religious congregations rather than using a random sample of respondents from the community to be better able to compare how attitudes differed according to the religious affiliation of the respondent. It was hoped that by proceeding in this manner, I would be able to compare and contrast how attitudes might be affected by one's religious affiliation. I hoped that respondents from each congregation would span a range of faith development stages in order that I might be able to compare effects of faith development as compared to religious affiliation in the attitudes of same sex relationships, but I realised that it would be possible that respondents from one religious congregation might well be in similar stages of faith development and thus had joined a specific congregation in order to explore the issues that are faced by persons in similar faith stages.
Materials
I used a survey for this study that was divided into two parts. (see appendix #1)
Part one was derived from a series of questions that where developed for Fowler's study concerning Stages of Faith (Fowler, 1981). I left the questions in almost the same form used by Fowler, with some deletions for the sake of brevity. I wished to get information similar to that which Fowler collected in order to make his assessment of faith stages. I hoped that with this information, I would be able to make a similar assessment of what faith stage each respondent might correspond according to Fowlers theory. I realised that I faced certain drawbacks in turning Fowlers oral survey into a written one. A written survey does not allow for the respondents to be probed for further information. This meant that I had no control over the amount of information received from each respondent. This format, however, was chosen to allow for more respondents to participate than would be feasible had the study been done orally and face to face as was done with the Fowler study.
The second part of the survey asks questions specifically
pertaining to attitudes toward same sex relationships. These questions were
developed for this survey and are all fairly simple and straightforward.
Part of this section of the survey asked the respondent to pick one of four
categories of tolerance level to same sex relationships. These were based
on Rev. Morgan Douglas Strong's letter "Ministering to Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual People" in which he describes stages of understanding.
(Alexander, 1990).
Procedure
For each of the subject groups, the respondents were solicited at their place of worship during regular services. In each, an announcement was made that a student from a local college was asking for volunteers in a survey that was being conducted on the subject of faith and attitudes toward same sex relationships. Respondents were given the surveys in a pre addressed stamped envelope to be mailed back to an anonymous box number at Warren Wilson College. Included with the survey was a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and information on the course (Research Methods in the Social Sciences), the instructor, and how to obtain a copy of the completed study. It noted the source of the questions in the first section of the study.
Results and Discussion
The original intent of this study was to use the Fowler stages of faith (Fowler, 1981) framework in order to classify the respondents according to perceived faith stage and contrast that against a measure of acceptance or non acceptance of same sex relationships. It was hypothesised that the acceptance of same sex relationships would correspond to the stage of faith the respondent was categorised into, regardless of religious affiliation. After initial examination of the surveys, I felt uncomfortable with the assignment of numerical values to the faith development of each individual respondent, concerned with my own objectivity in this very personal subject. I instead chose to include a summary of each of the responses grouped by the religious organization in which the respondent received the survey materials. I discovered several patterns that emerged: First, that the attitudes toward same sex relationships were very similar among members of the same religious congregation (excepting group 4, in which there was only one respondent). Second, that members of each congregation tended to answer the faith development questions in a similar manner. The answers from Group 3 were the most similar to each other, with the answers from Groups 1 and 2 often having similar themes. Third, the group that showed the least tolerance to same sex relationships (Group 3) responded to faith development questions in a way that would indicate a more Mythic-Literal Faith, whereas the groups that showed the most tolerance for same sex relationships (Groups 1 and 2) exhibited more characteristics of Individuative or Conjuctive Faith. Finally, some evidence suggests that attitudes toward same sex relationships may become more positive by having contact with gay and lesbian people.
Group number one consisted of a Reform Jewish congregation. Answers to faith development questions were varied, but some common themes emerged in the answers given. When asked what gives your life meaning, most respondents included family, other responses included health, membership in Synagogue and community theatre. Important relationships where mostly family members, but also included women friends for one and colleagues for another. Peak experiences included a myriad of life experiences, as did experiences that shook sense of meaning in life. The overall impression was that the experiences that shaped their lives were simple "down to earth" experiences of life. Family members where most often seen as the most important relationships in each of their lives.
Beliefs and values seemed to be formed internally within each of the respondents, and included: be good to others, kind, thoughtful, tolerant and friendly; all humanity is connected, each person do their part to take care of the Earth, people should respect, care and be honest with each other; belief in ethical values and leading an ethical, honest life; belief in value of others; universality of humanity and loving, caring, honesty. One respondent wrote that his belief system was based around the concept if everything depends on you.." The answers suggest that the value systems of these respondents was within themselves rather than from
This would seem to be indicative of the change into Individuative-Reflective Faith in which, "there must be an interruption of reliance on external sources of authority" and there is "a relocation of authority within the self." (Fowler 1981, 179) When asked about the purpose of human life, half of the respondents simply responded that they did not know, one responding, "Don't we wish we knew?" and two others indicating that we do not need to know. Others answered that is was to: "Do something worthwhile, hopefully lasting acts of kindness and good" and "To be a blessing to all mankind, be a legacy of good things, to do right, to love justice, conduct self in God like manner, loyalty to family and friends, strong moral code, for me it is the Torah." One respondent simply answered, "Continuity."
Respondents from the Reform Jewish congregation had many different groups which they indicated supported their beliefs. Most mentioned their congregation, but also mentioned were family members and friends and also social justice organizations and the League of Women Voters. Some respondents showed some traits of Conjuctive Faith that, "suspects things are organically related to each other" and "attends to the pattern of interrelatedness in things..." (Fowler 1981, 185)
When asked what holds you up when life most hopeless, one
respondent replied:
I see my life as a continuous circle with highs and lows. When I feel hopeless,
I trust that the cycle will continue and I'll eventually come back to a more
positive outlook
Evidence of an outlook which can discern these patterns
of interrelatedness can also be seen in responses to why some groups suffer
more, a question that this group of respondents are probably uniquely qualified
to answer considering the heritage of the Jewish faith. Respondents attributed
suffering to "power of one group over another, sometimes greed, inequity,
or our economic system," to bigotry and ethnocentrism and also to mean
spiritedness and jealousy of aggressors. One respondent answered:
To suffer is to "struggle" and to "struggle" is to be
human. Suffering comes from intolerance from other people. But suffering
comes also from inner struggles. It is hard to be "different."
The Jewish tradition is a tradition of suffering and struggling. Without
suffering and struggling, we might not have survived for 5700+ years.
None of the respondents indicated a belief in any sort of
afterlife when they died.
When asked if they believed that their religious outlook was true, all respondents
responded affirmatively, but they also answered that other outlooks could
be true as well. One responded, "Yes, so long as one is good and loving,
what does it matter what the label is?" This also a feature of Conjuctive
faith, which is characterised by, "a capacity to see and be in one's
or one's groups mot powerful meanings, while simultaneously recognizing that
they are relative." (Fowler, 1981 198)
The respondents all where somewhat favorable towards equality
for same sex couples and gay people in general, with some reservations.
Of the acceptance levels that could be checked, (see appendix A) they all
chose the third or fourth statement or both. When asked if same sex relationships
morally wrong, none answered that they believed that they thought that they
were morally wrong, although some added qualifiers. One respondent wrote:
No, they are unfortunate but not immoral unless you want to consider all
indiscriminate homosexual or heterosexual behaviour immoral. A committed
homosexual relationship based on love and fidelity is no different than a
heterosexual one. People do not choose to be gay, nor do we choose to be
heterosexual.
Another respondent wrote:
Depends on the depth of the relationship and whether it is based on need
for sexual encounters. Since some people are born homosexual, it cannot
be morally wrong.
One of the respondents did have some trouble understanding
homosexuality, he wrote:
I believe that same sex relationships are not "morally" wrong.
They are outside of acceptable community standard set by our society (majority).
I don't fully understand homosexuality, but believe it has to do with biological
factors. If this is true then it is not morally wrong. But it is not morally
right either. I guess it is just amoral. I am uncomfortable judging what
is moral or immoral.
The same respondent wrote about why he was uncomfortable with same sex relationships
when asked if his religion had played a part in his attitudes toward same
sex couples:
Judaism is a family centered, parent-child-grand parent centered tradition
oriented religion. Family centered events ... are the life blood of our people.
Procreation is extremely significant, especially now in light of the holocaust.
... I believe there is a code of acceptable behavior and that behaviour
sets a "norm" and that norm sustains us as a society. People who
go against the norm can not expect everyone else to make it easy for them
by changing the accepted norm. If you have no norms, you have no standards
and pretty soon you have chaos.
The respondents were divided on the issue of legalisation of same sex marriage. Some agreed, saying it would "stabilize the lives of two persons" or that "sexual preference is not a choice and it seems wrong to discriminate against homosexuals." One respondent does not condone same sex marriage, but writes, "If people want to marry, why not, there are more important issues to deal with in this world." Others thought that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but other legal partnerships could be offered. All believed that same sex couples should have legally protected rights, with one noted objection to that including marriage.
Attitudes of support for same sex couples, even if it is
something that is not completely understood or condoned seemed to be shaped
by the strong Jewish heritage of striving for justice. Justice issues were
mentioned often in the faith development section of the survey, and I believe
that they helped to shape attitudes toward same sex couples. Many of the
respondents wrote about justice issues, one wrote:
Belief that my religion is right for me and yours is right for you parallels
belief that my sexual orientation is right for me, yours is right for you.
I respect people's rights to have their own beliefs, values, and sexual
orientation. I also believe that no one has the right to force his/her beliefs,
values and preferences on anyone else.
Another wrote:
Most fundamental and/or Orthodox religions are intolerant toward gays.
However, they harbor bigotry and ethnocentrism in their hearts toward many
minorities or different religions. My religious beliefs help me to be tolerant
to all of God's children.
Group 2 was the Unitarian Universalists, which had many responses which were similar to those of the last group, although perhaps more "liberal". Of the four groups, Unitarian Universalists (UUs) would be considered the most liberal in their ways of thinking. UUs also gave the most diverse and varied answers to the faith development questions.
When asked what gave their life meaning, about half responded that relationships were important. Also mentioned were: smelling the roses, seeing a child's face, reading, movies, writing, taking classes, dancing, love, passion, family, health, home and comfortable life-style, traveling, church, spirituality, friends, nature, weaving and living in now. When asked what relationships were most important to them, all answered family, and half added friends. Losses experienced included death, WWII, divorce and a lesbian daughter coming out. Peak experiences included things such as giving birth, marriage, work, nature, work, finding self after divorce and "Spontaneous love of self, bliss of oneness."
The most important beliefs and values were also varied,
they included:
Treating fellow man kindly.
Honesty, care for all life, responsibility, desire to learn and creativity.
Freedom to be, think, talk, write, laugh, love and be happy.
Integrity, honesty, defending one's beliefs and respecting others beliefs.
Pay attention to grace, conscience and intuition; align with universal energy/inner
light; honor and integrity.
I'll leave this planet when breathe fails me and until then I'll do what
I can to ease the burden of man and all other life forms of creation.
The last respondent wrote about easing the burden of man. Fowler's Universalizing Faith is described as a person who is, "heedless of the threats to self, to primary groups and to the institutional arrangements of the present order that are involved, Stage 6 becomes a disciplined activist incarnation." Now, further probing into the level of commitment towards these noble aspirations would be necessary to determine if the level of dedication to them is as strong as those indicated in the description. It does appear that this may be a direction that this person is headed if these are the most important beliefs in a person's life.
When asked the purpose of human life, again no single answer
prevailed. Respondents wrote the following:
- I'm not sure there is a purpose.
- To understand who you are and what you can do to make life have meaning
by understanding others, being reverent of all life and being tolerant and
respectful of others.
- To be of use, of help; to love, laugh and cry. To find work. To share -
to help and forgive; to appreciate, to thank, to create.
- To live, not harming or hurting others. To appreciate differences and
goodness in others. To not support "evil" in others or acts that
will harm others. To enjoy. To appreciate. To love and understand.
- To live it well
- Make your own purpose in the way you daily live your life (moment by moment).
Many of the respondents seem to have traits of Fowler's
Conjunctive Faith, which:
Knows the sacrament of defeat and the reality of irrevocable commitments
and acts. What the previous stage struggled to clarify, in terms of boundaries
of self and outlook, this stage now makes porous and permeable. Alive to
paradox and the truth in apparent contradictions, this stage strives to unify
opposites in mind and experience. (Fowler 198)
Except for one respondent believed that the golden rule could be considered a belief that is "more true" than others, respondents were unwilling to say that any one approach was more true than others. When asked if without religion morality breaks down, only one respondent from this group agreed. Some believed that some people may need it but others insisted that this was "Nonsense, religions do not create harmony or morality" or that "some dogmas have caused the break down of morals." About half said that they did not struggle with doubt, but others said that they are struggling with, "forgiveness, not be critical of others" or "learning tolerance and acceptance of others with different views."
Ideas of what comprised mature faith also were varied:
- Faith not a word in vocabulary. I have faith in others to the extent that
they, as I try, respect and act compassionately to my fellow man, other animals
and all forms of creation.
- Trusting in the light and discernment of mu center. Lack of inner conflict.
Awareness that everything is richly connected in a vibrating holographic
life force which I am a part.
- I have a basic faith that life is usually good - it has been to me. However,
I have never been in a war, never lost a child, sibling or husband. The
future is unknown, but I am living life in the present and loving it. My
faith has not been tested. Obviously, life does not treat us all the same
and I don't understand that. I believe if one helps ones self, one will
receive help.
- Loyalty and complete trust in the One Mind, the Creator, God.
- A person who is not a fanatic in his or her faith and thinks everyone must
follow these beliefs. A person who through his or her beliefs grows in understanding
and becomes a better person because of these beliefs.
- My father who lived life to be worthy of entering heaven upon his death.
When asked if same sex relationships are morally wrong, every UU respondent replied no. One replied that "love is love, love is a gift from God" and another did write that they "used to not understand, but changed" their attitude after knowing some gay people. All but one UU respondent supported the idea of same sex marriages, with one preferring laws be amended to allow for same sex partners rather than using the emotionally charged word "marriage". All agreed that laws should be passed to protect same sex couples. All respondents stated that the fourth statement in the list of attitudes best described theirs, with one preferring the provision for partnerships rather than marriage.
When asked if their religious beliefs shaped their attitudes toward gay and lesbian people, half say that their religious beliefs have shaped these attitudes, one sites the golden rule while another insists that they "haven't adopted 'religious' beliefs."
Group three, respondents from a Reformed Presbyterian congregation, took polar opposite positions to that of the last group in almost every way. Unlike the UUs, this group's answers were remarkably similar to each other.
When asked about what gives life meaning, all responded God or Jesus, with one also mentioning the people around them. Again, God or Jesus was mentioned as one of the most important relationships in the respondent's lives for all but one respondent, along with Church, family, other Christians, friends and "the world". In the question concerning peak experiences in life, most respondents included an experience with God or becoming a Christian except for one who insisted that Christian life is one of stability rather than peaks. Other peak experiences included crushes on girls, good meals, good music, getting married and when first son was born.
The respondents in this group experienced many different types of suffering in their lives, including: divorce of parents, becoming pregnant out of wedlock, loss of the dream that parents are perfect, loss of comfort, loss of grandparents, suffered because of immoral life, horrors of war, holocaust, man's inhumanity to man, two oldest sons turning to homosexuality and dying of AIDS.
The beliefs of this group of respondents seemed to exhibit
many of the characteristics that Fowler describes as Mythic Literal Faith
in which:
Beliefs are appropriated with literal interpretations, as are moral rules
and attitudes. Symbols are taken as one dimensional and literal in meaning.
Those in Stage 2 compose a world based on reciprocal fairness and an immanent
justice based on reciprocy. (Fowler 149) reciprocity
For this group, truth is absolute. All respondents believed
that some approaches are more true, responding:
- God's word is true and right, it is absolute, man is wrong to not obey
it
- Absolutely, the Bible is the complete revelation, the words are true
and should be used as a filter.
- Yes, there is an absolute truth and God tells us how is his word; Romans
2.
- There can be only one truth, the Bible is trustworthy in all its parts.
- All people should hold on and act on the word of God.
- Yes, yes, believe in objective truth.
- Yes, I believe in absolute truth.
All respondents from this group believed that their religious outlook was true and that all other outlooks that do not follow the Bible are false. When asked the purpose of human life, each respondent recited the exact same creed: "To glorify God and enjoy him forever." When asked about death, all respondents had a strong belief in an afterlife in which they would go to heaven to be with Jesus. They all believed also that each person would be judged and all those who did not believe in Jesus would go to hell. Several wrote that they believed that death was not a natural process, but was result of the "Fall", referring to the mythical account of the first sin being committed by Adam in the Garden of Eden.
This myth of the "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden is a very important one to each of the respondents and formed a central core of their belief system. In this system, human nature is basically sinful due to this "original sin". Every respondent in this group referred to this belief several times and the belief that they are also sinners. Salvation and eternal life in heaven are obtainable only by accepting Jesus who died on the cross to atone humanity from sin.
When asked about experiences that shook their sense of meaning in life, there was some difference in responses. Some felt that "situations do not change meaning because God is constant" or that "no experience has shaken sense of meaning". However three of the respondents did indicate that they have had some experiences that shook their sense of meaning. It is possible that these three may have started to experience "the implicit clash or contradictions ... that leads to reflections on meanings" that Fowler considers "a factor initiating transition to Stage 3." (Fowler 150)
One respondent wrote in response to the doubt question:
"I still sin so I still do not trust fully in god and his word."
Another respondent wrote this about experiences that have shaken or disturbed
meaning in life:
Everything! Last spring , I came up with this theory of human joy that had
to do with intimate friendships. It disturbed my relationship with God thus
it fell apart. Also, college. I'm in a secular liberal arts state school
- new ideas, actual relativism, etc. Stuff I've never experienced in my
sheltered life.
Another respondent who expressed doubt was also the only
one to reply "I don't know" to the question that asked why do people
suffer, writing:
I know that I grow from suffering. It builds character, makes me
stronger and helps me to see my weaknesses and God's strengths better.
This particular respondent also hinted in other places some introspections
nestled in with the standard answers that typified the survey responses in
this group. When asked if morality breaks down without religion, this respondent
did write that, "we have some goodness in us" which is further
than any of the other respondents would go. The prevalent belief being that
people had no inherit goodness, that: "Without God, man is a hopeless
sinful creature and there is no good in him." This respondent also
noted that there are "many nice people who aren't Christians".
Further evidence that this respondent may be moving toward the "implicit
clash" toward Stage three is the fact that in the question that asked
if they were changing, growing, struggling or wrestling with doubt this respondent
was the only one to express outright doubt: "I doubt my love for God,
I doubt God's love for me." A possible trigger for this doubt is also
mentioned in response to this question when this respondent wrote, "I
doubt my own sexual orientation sometimes" but is quick to dismiss these
feelings as being caused by "being in an environment in which [homosexuality]
is so often promoted."
The responses to questions about same sex relationships were not surprising: a virtual Greek chorus of condemnation. All respondents replied that same sex relationships were morally wrong because of Biblical condemnation. All respondents were very opposed to the idea of allowing same sex marriages, citing again that it is against the Bible. None of the respondents seemed to like the wording of the four statements that I provided for them to choose from to best described their attitudes toward same sex relationships. None of the respondents simply circled one choice, and several made many modifications to the wording. Many added notes that indicated that they too were sinners.
I noted that three respondents, while mirroring the rest of the group in general condemnation of same sex relationships, were the only ones to write specifically that they did not think that homosexuals should be discriminated against. Interestingly enough, these three are the same three respondents that had shown that they may possibly be moving toward Stage Three.
The respondent that indicated they, 'still sin so I still do not trust fully in god and his word" wrote that, "homosexuals, lesbians should be allowed to work, though not in places where they promote their lifestyle." The respondent that attends the "secular liberal arts school" wrote that: "same sex relationships are morally and ethically wrong, these people, however, are not to be discriminated against." The respondent that indicated some doubt in God and their own sexual orientation wrote: "I don't think that they should be persecuted" and did circle the second statement to describe attitudes, but changed the sentence "I might know a few gay/lesbian people" to "I dearly love a few gay/lesbian people."
Another factor in the attitudes of the latter two respondents
mentioned above is the fact that they both indicated that they both have
friends who are gay. These two are also the youngest of this group of respondents,
both college aged. The only other respondent to indicate explicitly that
they have known gay people was the respondent that indicated that he had
two gay sons. This respondent, who I feel was the most articulate and thoughtful
of this group, did make a positive comment about gay people, responding to
the question about how religious beliefs shaped his attitudes:
Because of my religious beliefs, I view gay/lesbian people in the same way
that I view any sinner. I view them as being under the bondage of a particular
sin, and in need of release. I would have no difficulty in fellowshiping
with them and in welcoming them into my church or home, not to say that they
should become members of the church. Many are extremely talented, kind and
giving. Some are intolerant, vicious and hateful. I suppose the latter
have responded to hateful treatment by others.
It is interesting to contrast the feelings of this parent
of gay children to the Unitarian Universalist that wrote about the difficulties
faced by finding out that a child was homosexual. This respondent's reply
to the same question was:
Our church believes in gay/lesbian rights and their support helps my attitude.
Because I have a lesbian daughter, I struggle with my inner feelings all
the time. I really believe what I have stated in this report- but still
struggle with some feelings about gays/lesbians. My mind is open to all
of this. So is my heart - but it is still difficult.
It would be difficult to draw conclusions by comparing just
these two respondents, but it is interesting to note how very different
the attitudes of these two people are concerning gay and lesbian people.
It seems clear that both of their religions have affected these attitudes.
In fact, it would be beyond the beyond the scope of this study, and perhaps
any study, to try to pinpoint the exact origin of a person's homophobia,
or any other form of prejudice for that matter. A complex connected web
of religion, history, personal issues, feelings, media, interpersonal contacts
and many other factors as well I am sure have played a part in shaping a
person's attitudes toward same sex relationships and gay and lesbian people
in general. I would like to think that this study has helped to shed some
light on the way that both religious institutions and a person's own inner
faith development can shape these attitudes. I think that I have learned
a great deal personally about the inner workings of the minds of people who
are homophobic, although I must admit that I am at a loss to really comprehend
how they can actually believe some of the things that they do. For example:
the concept that death was not part of the cycles of the earth until some
guy ate an apple. It makes me, ask, how could the earth, whose rhythms and
cycles are intricately connected to this cycle of death and new life, have
possibly functioned otherwise? (And how darned convenient that large carnivores
such as Lions, etc., just happened to have these big canines all ready, just
in case.) What has become more clear to me, even though I may fail to fully
comprehend that mindset, is that some people simply are at the developmental
level in faith and morals, etc, in which not only this can be possible, but
than can also really conceive that people would choose to become gay, and
so forth. I just wish that if they are going to be seeing a mythological
system in a literal manner it would have been something less downright frightening
and damaging to the psyche as the fall-redemption theology. But now at least
I think I have a clearer understanding that when dealing with homophobic
people that there will be many who simply will not become tolerant until
they have made a faith and moral development leap. I think of how I should,
when I deal with people who feel so very differently about life and sex and
the all that is than do I, so much so that I feel as though we stand on opposite
sides of a great canyon looking at each other across a great chasm that just
I should try to understand them as I would with for them to try to understand
me.
As I draw to a close what has become an undertaking much larger than I realised in a daze from too many chemicals pumped into my body to keep going and too long without sleep, struggling to come to an understanding of this issue, one I have cloaked in just as thick a haze of terms and theories and faith developmental models and big words and due dates and APA style I sit back and realise that I have not even mentioned the most important responses that anyone gave in this survey. It comes not from my fellow Unitarian Universalists, though I am so deeply blessed that they are here and standing with me and behind me. It comes from those who stand on the other side of that chasm. One respondent who wrote, "I love you even though I do not know you". And from the person who took these surveys to his own church and wrote on the envelope that he missed a Modlins concert to fill out the survey: a big smiley face and words of love. In the end I must realise that if we are to come to an understanding with each other, those of us who stand at either end of this great chasm it will not be through Faith development or reasoning or facts. The bridge across this chasm is love, which is older, deeper and stronger than any theologies we believe, religions we have created and adhered, psychological theories we developed or arguments and reasoning we so carefully craft. It is love that drove at least some of the respondents to spend a few hours of their lives pouring out their deepest feelings and beliefs to be torn apart and analyzed by some unknown student who supposes himself wise enough to study these things and make meaning of it. In the end if we are to come together it will be through love. I have no data to back up my hypothesis, no theories to support my claim, no references to sight. All I have is my own faith. A faith in which there exists inherent worth and dignity of every person and a faith that inherent goodness dwells somewhere within every person and a faith that love dwells within every person. With that faith comes hope. I know within my heart that the materials exist within each of us to start building that bridge across the chasm, the tool is love and is siting in our tool chest-heart ready to be used. I have to ask the question of myself, do I stand on my side of the chasm and formulate theories and expose theology and formulate arguments. Or do I reach into my tool chest and start to build.