By Cody J. Sanders
In October, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law. It extends existing federal hate-crimes laws (which already include protections for racial and religious bias) to include protections for crimes that are motivated by bias against the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition to a brief stint in the national spotlight, this news has been a focal point of attention for many churches and Christian organizations as well.
Many “open and affirming” churches, supportive of the rights and inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the life of the congregation, have supported this law vocally.
More conservative churches, meanwhile, have feared that greater protections for LGBT people under the law would encroach upon the freedom of churches to speak against homosexuality as a sin. It seems that these diverse groups of churches could not be further separated from one another in their views regarding sexuality.
But even though they now have greater legal protections, the fact remains that LGBT people will still be attacked, maimed and killed in bias-motivated crimes. Laws, even strong and well-worded ones, do not stop violence from occurring. Just last month, at least two more gay teens were killed in bias-motivated crimes in Puerto Rico and Baltimore. Prompted by this grisly reality, perhaps some churches may be able to find a bit of common ground amid ongoing sexuality debates.
This common ground might stem from a basic recognition that LGBT people are created in the image of God coupled with the faith commitment that God desires life and health, not violence and destruction, for all of God’s children. This commitment to life and health for all may serve to bring both affirming and non-affirming churches together for the purpose of ending senseless violence against LGBT people. It wouldn’t necessarily mean that these diverse churches change their theological perspectives on sexuality — that is up for ongoing debate. It would, instead, mean coming together around an issue about which diverse churches may be able to agree: namely, that violence against any human being is wrong and should be stopped, and that stopping it is important to the church.
Beyond mere theological words, however, this common ground might take a more creative and constructive shape. It would take brave and creative pastors and laypeople to bring about such an alliance of diverse churches. It would mean temporarily setting aside theological differences on issues of sexuality in order to achieve unity in a theological commitment to end violence. It may mean partnering with other organizations within local communities to think critically and creatively about what it would take to educate others in the quest to end anti-LGBT violence. It’s a small, but meaningful, common-ground effort.
The witness of churches with divergent positions on sexuality coming together for this purpose may also have a profound effect upon the wider society. For affirming churches, seriousness about eradicating violence against LGBT people would be a move to put one’s money where one’s mouth is. Moving beyond a welcoming stance that invites LGBT people to come in, it would be a sign of a church’s willingness to go out into the world to stand in solidarity with their LGBT neighbors. For non-affirming churches, it would be a sign to a skeptical world that they really did care about lesbian and gay people. For all of the bad press non-affirming churches receive on the issue, seriously speaking out and acting to end violence against LGBT people sends a positive message. It says, “Notwithstanding our theological and ethical beliefs regarding a person’s sexuality, we care about gay and lesbian people because they are fellow children of God.”
The act of affirming and non-affirming, liberal and conservative, big and small, urban and rural churches standing together for the life-giving ministry of opposing anti-LGBT violence sends another message, too. It is a message to the on-looking world around us that, despite a history filled with disagreement and division, our churches can find common ground upon which to make the world — God’s world — a more livable place for all people.
The question is, will churches be able to summon the humility and bravery necessary to work with sister churches across theological lines of division for a purpose that is larger than theological difference? For all of the LGBT lives touched by violence, let’s hope the answer is, “yes.”