Group discussion
Shutterstock Photo
Engaging in transparent discussion about LGBTQ inclusion is a painful process for congregations but almost always worth it in the end, according to one of the most extensive surveys of congregational practices yet undertaken.
A research team from Baylor University’s Garland School of Social Work interviewed 97 members of 21 Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian congregations who had been through discernment processes or considered discernment processes. The researchers also surveyed nearly 350 printed sources, including books, articles and podcasts relevant to the topic. Many of those resources were created by congregational leaders who had walked through discernment processes about LGBTQ inclusion.
The four-year study was funded by a grant from the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation and did not set out to advocate for or against any outcome in congregational decisions.
The Baylor study was the second academic research project published this summer about church relationships with LGBTQ persons. In July, Reconciling Ministries Network announced the results of a study by sociologists affiliated with Georgia Southern University and Valdosta State University in collaboration with Reconciling Ministries Network.
Process lessons learned
To date, the Baylor team has published its findings in eight academic journal articles. One of those articles summarizes process lessons from the 21 congregations studied.
“The opportunity seems to outweigh the challenge, and the impact of lessons learned is one of growth and benefit,” the researchers summarized. “Congregations and their leaders and members can find in these narratives the opportunity for change, which never comes easy. In this case, participants reported that change comes with significant growth benefit; that was true regardless of the decision of the church. The overarching message from most participants was that, while the process is difficult and often painful, it is important and worth it.”
The researchers added: “The difficulty and pain were already there in the church … in the youth who grew up and hid who they were and eventually left the church or their faith … in the parents and family members .. in the unspoken differences. So, one lesson repeated often was, have the conversation and make the decision as a church and then live into it.”
“One lesson repeated often was, have the conversation and make the decision as a church and then live into it.”
Those interviewed from the front lines of these hard congregational conversations consistently said that “the pain of hidden and hurting members is often replaced with the pain and adjustment of disagreement and, in some cases, with members leaving a church deciding to be inclusive or deciding not to be inclusive,” the researchers said.
However, those losses are mitigated by “the importance of having an intentional process in which everyone’s voice is heard. Most significantly, participants recommended transparency, focusing on the stories of individuals and families, and living with decisions at the pace best for the congregation. While processes varied from short to long, formal to informal, and across outcomes, there was general consensus that having a process is important. Remaining consistent with the identity of the church and seeing this discussion as consistent with other social justice issues were both strong experiences.”
In short, the researchers found no overarching common process in congregations discussing LGBTQ inclusion.
“While many of the congregations engaged in intentional conversations, there was no pattern on leadership, time frames or elements like speakers or readings that consistently were part of processes or models,” the researchers said. “Processes occurred in periods of time ranging from a few meetings to a few months to several years. Leadership of the process ranged from ministers to deacons/elders to lay leaders elected by the church. In some cases, the pastor or ministerial staff were central both to the process and the decision. In other cases, the pastor or ministerial staff took an advisory role, particularly about theological matters such as the understanding of Scripture. Some congregations developed an intentional process which they followed, while others allowed the process to emerge over time.”
However, “the one constant across the 21 congregations, including those who decided not to have a formal process, was that congregations experienced differences of perspectives and even conflict.”
How the conversations began
The Baylor researchers found that most often, conversations about LGBTQ inclusion were instigated by pastors who then involved deacons or a leadership council.
“In some cases, the minister responded to expressed concerns by congregants; in others, the minister experienced an internal unction to explore the position of congregants,” they explained. “Pre-process discussions often centered on whether to have a conversation or not and if so, what the process would include. For some churches, the pre-process included a task force, church survey, and development of steps in the process.
Another impetus for church dialogue on inclusion was the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
Another impetus for church dialogue on inclusion was the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
As one survey participant explained: “Then the Supreme Court made a decision legalizing gay marriage in all states, and so churches were left to kind of scramble.”
That court ruling in turn created “a new or growing awareness” that there were LGBTQ Christians already in the churches.
One participant told the researchers they thought they didn’t know anyone in the church who was gay or lesbian “until I realized I had been sitting next to and helping bring up a child who now calls herself a lesbian. I have loved this child since she came out of the womb, and to say that I don’t accept homosexuality is excruciatingly painful to think of how I have been.”
Commonalities in process
While the researchers found no single most-common process in congregations, they did identify some common elements: speakers, readings, discussions of Scripture, and guided small group conversations or roundtables.
“The variable most often mentioned as essential to a successful process was that of transparency,” they said. “Many participants noted that it was essential that the leadership selection, process element decisions and discussions needed to be open and accessible to everyone in the congregation. The opportunity to participate fully and be heard was essential, as was the need for a process that was created and lived out openly.”
Storytelling was found to be a key ingredient, turning the conversation from an “issue” to a “person.”
Likewise, storytelling was found to be a key ingredient, turning the conversation from an “issue” to a “person.”
One participant said: “Honestly, people told their stories. They told stories of their children. They told stories of gays in this congregation.”
A pastor said: “The thing that changed everything for me was preaching the funeral of a gay man who committed suicide whose parents never accepted him. His parents were beautiful people and deep. They have deep faith, and they didn’t accept their son because of what they had been taught by the church for most of their lives. And when I preached his funeral, I’ve never felt the judgment of God upon the church more than I did at that moment.”
Almost always, the conservation or discernment period led to a congregational vote, the study found. “In many cases, the vote was on a diversity statement crafted by the group leading the process.”
Those statements also varied from church to church but “in many cases, the processes resulted in decisions expressed as recognition and belonging. “
One participant explained: “The decision was, ‘If you are a member here, there is one class of membership. Every member is entitled to all the same privileges and duties and obligations and rights of every other member, period.’”
Role of senior adults
A common misperception is that all senior adults are opposed to change toward LGBTQ inclusion in their churches, the researchers wrote in a paper focusing exclusively on attitudes of senior adults.
“The perceptions of many congregants that older adults will be an impediment to change, holding on to lifelong stereotypes, came up a number of times but were mitigated by those participants who noted that in some cases, it was older adults who pressed for change,” the researchers said. “Many times, that perspective came from experience with other civil and human rights issues, and most often, it was attributed to the personal experience of older adults who had, in recent years, known a young person who identified as LGBTQ, who realized that a long-term church member was gay, or whose friends were grieving that their LGBTQ grandchild felt unwelcome at church and was no longer attending.”
Disclosure: The author of this article, Mark Wingfield, is the author of a book cited as a primary source by the Baylor researchers, Why Churches Need to Talk About Sexuality. He was not among the interview subjects, although other members of his congregation were. This article is republished with permission from Baptist News Global. To reproduce this content elsewhere, please contact the author via the BNG website.