So, I am trolling for opinions amidst an online community whose values align with my own. I am a straight but queer-friendly feminist with advanced degrees in gender studies, and I am currently teaching at an accredited evangelical university in the US. To provide a little background: I was raised conservative evangelical and attended a Christian university myself (mainly at the behest of my parents). During college, I experienced a feminist awakening, largely thanks to the influence of beloved feminist professors at this Christian university. I became a feminist evangelical, then a liberal feminist mainline Christian ... and then finally entered a liberal feminist slightly-reverent agnosticism. And that's where I am now, pretty much. I have accepted that Christianity will always be a part of my background and therefore of my identity, but I am not actively a Christian anymore, really. Or at least I'm on the fence, trying to sort things out. How's that for hedging?
Anyway, I am constantly wrestling with the question: should I be a part of Christian Higher Ed or not? On the "pro" side, I believe that people like me can exert a positive and progressive influence on Christian campuses. The evangelical movement is such a powerful political force in America, and it is crucial that young evangelicals encounter progressive ideas as college students. After all, it was at a Christian university that I first encountered feminism and was given the tools to evaluate and move beyond the "fun-gelical" mindset. I was raised evangelical; I know the world and can speak the language, so I am well-equipped for subtle subversion.
On the other hand ... the main qualm I have about being a part of this world is the anti-gay policies and rhetoric. Feminism, though controversial, is nonetheless represented on campus. There are women's studies courses and prominent feminist professors. Queer studies, however, is taboo. The campus lifestyle agreement bans vaguely-defined "homosexual behavior" among students (and professors, too, of course). Even an attempt to designate certain professors as "safe places" for LGBT issues was rejected by the administration. I have a really hard time aligning my name with an institution that endorses homophobia, especially in the name of God. Yet what has kept me there is the fact that, in the short time I have been teaching there, I have befriended and mentored a handful of closeted gay students, some of whom have only ever come out to me. That is the crux of my dilemma: there are gay students on Christian college campuses, whether the administration recognizes them or not, and these students need nurturing and accepting mentors (especially ones that understand all that religious sexual shame shit). But I am embarrassed, frankly, to be part of an institution that is openly antagonistic to my core values.
So, feminist friends, tell me what you think. Am I selling out or what?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Queer-friendly Feminist in Christian Higher Education: Compromise or Opportunity?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15630
You can't sell out unless you change your beliefs for personal gain. The potential danger in a position like yours is that if you're constantly surrounded by a culture that doesn't agree with you, it can drive you to bend your ideals to some degree because it feels like you have to give that inch for anyone who doesn't already agree with you to listen to what you have to say. That is, no matter your good intent, personal gain- you want them to listen to you despite the fact standing strong could do more in the long run, although you might be vilified and off campus before the change you seek takes hold. But you can be mindful of this and generally avoid it.
Anyone in a position of definite minority belief can do good, assuming there are people around who disagree but are capable of listening (college campuses are obviously a good place for this). The one thing you have to understand, and which has frustrated many a good person, is that because this cause is not specifically yours, you are not going to be able to directly lead it. You can offer a lot of support. It may be critical that you lobby on behalf of the LGBT community when you get a chance (doing it constantly would be the preaching- I've always viewed that as unhelpful, though it may work better amongst evangelicals- but in any case, you're almost certain to find times when you can speak up naturally). If you become known as a friend to gay students, some may begin to take chances and open up to you, and in turn be heartened by your support. But eventually, if anything is going to change, they have to be the ones to do it, because they're taking the real risks.
If you're ok with that, though, then you at least have the benefit of being able to speak out without facing all the same risks. That's not insignificant. And if you don't accomplish as much as you hope, you'll almost certainly come to understand why that relative failure occurred and use that knowledge in the next phase of your life.
Short version: Good luck.
That is a really big question. If you figure it out, could you please let me know the answer?
Two years ago I was living in a conservative Jesuit (catholic) part of the university. Living there was frustrating and at times alienating. It was whilst living there that I discovered feminism, and the more strongly I began to feel about feminism, the less inclined I felt to participate in the religious aspects of life at the residence. That doesn't mean that I stopped believing, but rather I didn't like the way religion was being practiced. Eventually when I decided to leave, feminism was one of the contributing factors. I could no longer bare to be associated with an institution that was not welcoming to everyone.
With all of that said, the Catholic Church needs to modernize and become more inclusive of all segments of society. Such a modernization is never going to happen if there are not people actively trying to change it from the inside. As such, you should (imho) stay and do what you can for as long as you can stomach it . . .
Good luck
I think you'll appreciate this:http://www.religiousscience.org/ucrs_site/philosophy/believe.html
It's a different way of identifying spirit/god/universe/goddess/energy/unconditional love
as a practice, it's not about looking outside of oneself for "help" from god, but, being aware of self as a unique emanation of god (as all are) and being so bold as to realize one's purpose (as you choose).
A lot of people who are spiritual but not religious, from many diff denom.s come together in this thought process. check it out.
I think by working there, you might be doing a lot of good. It will always be a challenge to be the safe place for LGBTQ college kids in that environment, but you can help them come to terms with their sexuality in the context of their religion. I don't know if you have seen the movie "For the Bible Tells Me So" but I recently watched it and have been recommening it every time this topic comes up (I should probably write a community post about that- added to the to do list). It is possible to be Christian and not homophobic, and maybe you can help educate the Christians about that.
Good luck.
I think what you are doing is amazing. You're in a place where you are needed, and I imagine you must be an incredibly positive influence in some people's lives.
All feminists are working to change destructive systems from the inside to some degree - you're just doing it in a particularly hostile environment. That may mean that any structural change that occurs will be in very small, even unnoticeable steps, but it definitely means that you are in a position where you can do a whole lot of good for individual people.
I come from a different perspective than many on this board, in that I am a devout Christian and a feminist.
Personally, I think you can likely do a lot of good in a professorial position. For instance, as someone above said, it is possible to be a Christian and not homophobic. It is even possible to believe that homosexuality is a sin, and not be homophobic.
It is all about how you broach the subject. Changing the core beliefs of Christianity is less important (and less possible) than changing how devout Christians interact with people who disagree. In addition, attempting to change beliefs would likely be seen as hostile by some, and may damage your credibility with others. Attempting to influence interactions between Christians and non-Christians is an important aim of even the most devout, and is unlikely to offend anyone.
Evangelizing without attacking or accusing is an important skill that many Christians unfortunately lack. It is not possible to stop Christians from Evangelizing, as it is a requirement of our faith, and, to the mind of a Christian, an act of genuine love and concern. It is possible to teach a Christian that obnoxious Evangelism is unlikely to win converts, and that there are more appropriate and more effective ways to approach a non-believer than to bash their every sin.
It is also important for a Christian to understand that it is not your job to win converts to the Faith. It is simply your job to profess your faith and answer questions. You are required only to plant the seed. Whether someone truly converts is between them and the Almighty.
kbz
". It is even possible to believe that homosexuality is a sin, and not be homophobic."
Thats really not possible unless you view homophobia as a literal fear of being gay or/and people who are GLBT. However, if you view homophobia as another way of saying heterosexism then that's really not possible. Your still viewing heterosexuals and cissexuasl as morally superior, which needless to say is wrong.
To me, homophobia indicates a hatred of homosexuals. One can believe that another is choosing the wrong path without hating them.
Tolerance is the simple acknowledgment that people have the right to live by a value system which differs from your own. Tolerance does not require that you change your value system to accept behaviors which do not comport.
People are entitled to think that their value system is "morally superior". In fact, I would guess that most people do -- that's likely why they chose the value system in the first place. Environmentalists think their system is superior to the capitalists, and vice versa. Feminists think theirs is morally superior to non-feminists, and vice versa. And, Christians think theirs is morally superior to non-Christians, and vice versa.
In fundamentalist Christianity, homosexuality is a sin. But, it is one among many -- and, according to the Christian belief system, every man, woman and child has their weakness. For some, it is homosexuality. For some, adultery or lust. For others, pride and pretension. Greed. Sloth. Gluttony. Lack of empathy. Idol worship. Dishonesty. Pious judgmentalism. For most, there is a laundry list -- and any Christian that doesn't admit to struggling with more than one is fooling themselves or lying (another one).
Tolerance does not require that fundamentalist Christians consider any of these traits virtuous, it merely requires that they acknowledge that each has the right choose his or her own path, and the right to be treated with dignity regardless of the path they choose.
kbz
There's that word again.
"Choose."
You would have to be a fucking moron to choose to be gay in modern America. I know one or two women who are bi, and maybe would have stuck to men if lesbianism were horribly frowned upon, since they'd still be content. Maybe, and only then because it wouldn't be worth the trouble. That's as close as you're going to get to this being a choice for anybody. Nobody flat-out chooses this.
More than the actual homophobia, this is what makes me want to bang my face against a wall. If you (general) don't like homosexuality because it flies in the face of human reproduction or whatever, that's fine. We can agree to disagree there, because our beliefs are based on different interpretations of fact.
But this concept of homosexuality as a choice is what really needs to change. If the OP can convince people that LGBT people are that way because that's how they are, and not talk for a second about the importance of actually tolerating it, she would still do a world of good. Maybe more than if she worked to increase love and tolerance for this "choice".
Um, some people do choose their sexual orientation. And those people deserve just as much respect and love - not just shallow 'tolerance'! - as those who do not.
I never liked the whole 'but sexuality isn't a choice!' argument against homophobia. LGBT people aren't doing anything wrong, and therefore our actions don't need to be justified by biology or anything else. It comes across as far too 'they just can't help themselves!' for me.
If you actively decided on your sexuality, you're the first person I've met to do so, even online. I'm sincerely curious how that works. (If you didn't and you're just pointing out some people do, I'm still curious, as I have obviously never heard of it.) I'm straight, and it was always just, I'm into girls. That's it. The bi people I know, it's the same way- they like it all, and it doesn't really matter to them why. I've only met a few completely gay people in my life, but when this topic has come up, they've all shown frustration and said, in some form, "It's so stupid, it's not like I picked this for myself."
I should point something out- there are certainly people who choose to try different things and then discover that they like this or that. I don't know even some of my good friends well enough to say if their experimentation grew from desire or vice versa. That's not what I'm talking about, though. People can choose to experiment to see what they like, but I don't know anyone whose sexuality is ultimately based on something other than what their inner desire is telling them. The idea that someone looks themselves in the mirror one day and says, "Y'know, I can totally see myself as gay, I think that's how I'm going to be," that's what I've never heard of and would be somewhat stunned to find people have done (or at least more than the very rare individual- you can find a few people who have done literally anything).
Also, something that isn't wrong doesn't need to be justified, you're right. But it's not simple justification, and it's not only "they can't help themselves". What makes it (or should make it) a pretty compelling argument is the fact it directly refutes the religious concept of sexuality as active, changeable choice. That's much more solid footing.
But sometimes sexuality IS an active, changeable choice, and the argument that proving it's not is crucial to dealing with the religious right does little good for queer people who celebrate the fact that their identity is fluid and changeable.
I think our different viewpoints might come from differences in how we interpret the word "sexuality". If "sexuality" means nothing more than the people you can physically be attracted to, then I think it's fair to say it is not a choice. But it doesn't just mean that to me. It also means what situations turn you on, what sorts of sexual behavior you practice, how you understand your own identity, what forms of relationships you will be in, even sometimes what communities you identify with and your political or ethical beliefs.
I try (although often fail) to live my life in a way that aligns with my politics and ethics, on every level. That includes my sexuality. I am not comfortable with thinking of my sexual identity as something that just magically "happens" - it's something I live, work with, and transform all the time to be more healthy. It's not just what or who I am, it's something I create.
You could say that I was born a heavily-lesbian-leaning bisexual and that's all I will ever be, and you would probably be right on a certain level, but I think it's much more complex and purposeful than that. Obviously, everyone will have a different experience, but my own sexual identity is deeply intertwined with many other identities, beliefs, and experiences, and thus goes far beyond any biological predisposition.
Apologies for going on so long about something not relevant to the post!
We're thinking of sexuality so differently that you think we're going off topic and I don't. :)
That's a pretty killer explanation, so props for that. I get where you're coming from now. And you're right, I'm speaking solely of who and what you find attractive.
The reason for that, however, is mainly because of the OP and the dealing-with-religious-people aspect. If you're naturally a heavily-lesbian-leaning bisexual, that's the end of it to them. None of the rest matters. You should only be chasing boys or you're chock full of sin. For all the things you can choose, it's the unchangeable part that they're calling a choice, which is the mindset that needs to get curbstomped with all due haste.
It is absolutely true that one does not choose their urges. However, as this relates to the Christian doctrine of sin, one may argue that one chooses whether to act on those urges.
Sin in Christianity is almost entirely about resisting urges, sometimes compelling urges, to engage in forbidden behavior. In this respect, homosexual urges are no different than unmarried heterosexual urges. The ultimate difference is that Christianity does not allow for a sinless outlet to act on homosexual urges, as it does with heterosexual ones.
kbz
So let 'em get married. Problem solved.
the patronizing "I love you cause I love all gods creatures, even though you are a _________(sinner/evil/bad/wrong/stupi/etc)
-
is a superiority complex generated by a misguided approach and interpretation of god.
It's not love or peace, it's passive aggressive hate.
a spiritual center that says, "God love you because your gay."
"Homosexuality is a gift from God"
is not homophobic.
One that says, "We love you, even if you are gay (or a murderer, rapist, thief) is homophobic.
You basically just said what I was going to say.
Your definition of tolerance appears to require all of the accomodation to come from the other side -- i.e. you demand that devout Christians accept your choices, while you refuse to accept theirs. It seems to me this should be a two-way street. They must acknowledge your right to live as you desire -- and you must acknowledge their right to believe as they desire (without hurling epithets like "homophobe").
I am an active Christian, and fairly involved in a relatively conservative mega-church. Though I am more liberal than most of my fellow church-members, I do speak from some knowledge of their thought-processes.
First of all, for the most part, these are genuinely good people. They may disagree with certain activities that you and I have no problem with -- but they do not hate anyone. However, the majority of them do believe homosexuality is a sin.
Posters above have spoken about the lack of choice in sexual desire -- but we also must acknowledge that there is some lack of choice in religious doctrine. For Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the rules included therein are not particularly negotiable. They are not permitted to simply jettison a doctrine because it doesn't fit with their view of tolerance or diversity.
There is also a distinction between how they see homosexuality, and how the true homophobe sees homosexuality. Most of these Christians see homosexuality as a behavior, not an identity. Thus, it is possible to condemn a behavior without condemning a person. And, each of them has experienced exactly the same behavioral condemnation in their own lives (with whatever sin(s) they struggle with).
Furthermore, they believe that, as Christ has forgiven their sins, He can forgive everyone else's. Thus, they do not believe those engaging in homosexual behavior are necessarily hellbound -- they simply believe that it is one sin among many, and that we all have our failings.
kbz
There is absolutely a choice in religious doctrine. People shift what they believe all the time. Some flat-out quit or change religions because their beliefs and those of their current faith don't mesh. A Christian who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God can stop believing that for any number of reasons. The fact such a person can't pick and choose which Bible passages to like or dislike and remain true to the faith doesn't mean they can't change their faith. It is not analogous to sexuality.
More importantly, you have to understand that this lack of two-way acceptance doesn't stem from pro-gay people refusing to accept the opinions of Christians. It's that the evangelical sector of society is working so hard to place or keep limitations on the rights of gays.
I truly defy you to find anybody who will say Christians don't have the right to believe in whatever they want. The beliefs are not the problem; the actions based on those beliefs are. Because the religious right is working so hard on affecting the way our society treats the gay community, both in law and in state of mind, that necessarily creates a massive backlash from those who are seeking equality. When legal equality comes to pass and gays stop being the victims of targeted violence, almost no one is going to give the first shit what Christians think of them. I promise.
whoops. Forgot to make it a reply.