Turning a Church into an Ideological Billboard

By lapsing headlong into partisan politics, especially on controversial matters such as “social issues,” otherwise known as “culture wars,” a congregation unwittingly, and, from a religious standpoint, arbitrarily (i.e., dogmatically) constrains (i.e., limits) its potential membership unnecessarily because people who would be open to and even relish the religious dimension but are opposed ideologically to the partisan stance on a political, or social, issue would not be likely to attend the ostensibly religious services. No one likes to feel ideologically uncomfortable or, even worse, despised. This is particularly likely when a congregation turns its building into an ideological billboard. I suspect that this is a distinctly American phenomenon (i.e., taking things too far). Behind the extravagance lies the sin of pride, wherein a person erroneously believes that he or she cannot be wrong ideologically. This presumption of ideological (or political) infallibility carries with it the erroneous perspective of one’s partisan stance representing a whole (i.e., truth) rather than being partial, as with respect certain values being privileged above others.

A Unitarian-Universalist "Church" wherein a few causes of political activism take pride of place, replacing religious faith and choking off tolerance. 

Perhaps it is only natural to prefer that other people line up with one’s own beliefs, whether religious or political/ideological. The presumptions of inerrancy and completeness, or truth, typically undergird this self-centered perspective. It is easy to conflate one’s own ideological stance on partisan “social issues,” such as abortion, gay marriage, and even stem-cell research, with religious truth even though the latter transcends human ideology. In other words, whereas truth has the property of wholeness, ideological positions are partial, hence partisan politically. Conflating the two, a congregation can even usurp its distinctly religious message by focusing on political issues of the so-called American “culture wars.” Beyond taking up space in sermons, ideological positions can become totalitarian, even in turning a church building into a billboard advertising the partisan stance on a privileged social issue.

A Methodist church smothered in ideological political causes that punctuate even the liturgy and constrain church membership. The photos below are of the same church.

In Christian churches, the emphasis on partisan stances can bring with it a certain intolerance, and even hostility if resentment of an opposing partisan position is fueling the importance being placed on the favored stance. Sometimes the hostility can be quite simple, as the partisans often are so fine-tuned to picking up on subtle cues on whether another person is in the same ideological camp. Even the words a person uses can be picked up by others who are bent on judging for themselves. By 2023, the politically-correct camp had been dubbed “woke,” and an “anti-woke” opposition had become more vocal in some American cultures. This in turn may have intensified efforts by “woke” congregations to go so far as to turn their church buildings into billboards.

In visiting one church, of the Methodist sect (or denomination) of Christianity, that had so many gay flags in the social hall that their sheer number seemed to imply an ideological vehemence: You had better agree with us! The excessiveness itself sent a message. The rainbow colors were literally wrapped around stone pillars on the exterior of the building, and during June several gay flags were flying on the church grounds. Again, the excessiveness itself sent a message, but at this level the message was as much psychological as it was ideological and partisan. The liturgy was not exempt, as the prospect of building up to a religious experience was broken up by commercials. One announced, “We are all in favor of reparations” going to a church of an unmentioned denomination whose members were Black Americans. How does the speaker know that everyone in the sanctuary agreed on that controversial, political issue? I was not surprised that most of the seats were empty. This is the true religious cost, which economists would call an opportunity cost: the benefit foregone by making a choice.

The choice to privilege partisan political issues comes at a cost in religious terms. People who might otherwise visit or even regularly attend a church whose liturgy, rooms, and building are placed in the service of particular political stances on “social issues” will bypass the church if those stances are not ideologically palatable, especially if the sense is that they are being “shoved down their throats.”

Presumably a faith message is important at Christian churches, and it does not reach those people who happen to hold the contrary partisan stance on a privileged social issue. Congregations that succumb to the hegemony (i.e., dominance) of partisan political issues unwittingly self-weaken faith-outreach. To believe that people must have the “correct” partisan stance on ideological issues to be saved by Jesus Christ is to use an exogenous litmus test, or “gate,” to arbitrarily (i.e., dogmatically) limit the saving of souls because in the Gospels Jesus does not specify that people must have certain ideological stances to be saved. In fact, Jesus distances himself from the zealots, who incorrectly interpret Jesus’ version of the Kingdom of God as coming forth externally, through conflict, rather than in individual transformations of the heart.

Because an orientation to contentious ideological issues tends to involve hostility towards people who disagree, and even anger simply because some people do disagree, a congregation oriented to partisan positions may not be conducive to the spread of the Kingdom of God. At most, the kindness or compassion of a partisan is usually limited to ideological compatriots, whereas Jesus preaches that kindness, and even love, be extended to a person’s detractors and even enemies. This is the true cost when a Christian congregation becomes unduly and overwhelmingly partisan, whether on the “right” or “left” of the ideological political spectrum. Partisan “love” is partial, whereas neighbor love is wholistic, as is truth itself.

Sure enough, after a month of being in the choir of a very ideological Methodist church, I ceased my association with that church. I had found that there were too many bosses in that choir, one of which apparently didn’t like me, for he said before we were to sing on a Palm Sunday, “Has anyone ever told you that you talk too much?” I countered that perhaps someone should tell me that I don’t talk enough when something needs to be said. He then ordered me to “line up” even though the choir was not yet lining up at the back of the sanctuary. That that member of the choir literally had keys to the building—but not to the Kingdom!—meant that I would be facing an uphill battle, and are Christian churches really the place for battles anyway? So I kicked the “dirt off my sandals,” upzipped my robe, and went grocery shopping rather than sang that Sunday. I had previously picked up on hostility from some other members, including two in the choir who had scolded me for not standing on a certain step during a practice. “You stand there!” one pointed. It was barely a step. That congregation was not fertile ground for a mustard seed to take root—too much stone draped in ideological flags.

At least for the Methodists the claim can be made that matters of faith can be distinguished from a social ideology, so there is hope that the adoption of a transcendent reference point could be used from which to view the dominant ideology and the related political activism as partial, and even as human, all too human. The litmus test for inclusion could therefore be based in religious faith rather than on a position on a “social issue.” One of the benefits of a faith-perspective is that human artifacts cannot be placed that the center of our existence. Humility can thus replace arrogance. This is not possible where the transcendent nature of distinctly religious faith has been vacated and replaced with the ideological content of political activism.

The Unitarian Universalist “religion” accomplished such a transition in the twentieth century. Originally, Unitarianism, as preached by Emerson, was a rejection of the Christian Trinity from within that religion. By 1980, humanism had become the dominant strain in Unitarian-Universalist societies. My parents were such humanists, and my limited exposure to a UU congregation as a teenager left me with the perplexing question of how a religious organization could survive without being religious. My mother later told me that I used to protest the hypocrisy as a young teenager. Later in life, when visiting UU congregations, I found that the rejection of religion had taken hold, and in its place, the human ideology of political correctness (or “woke”) had pride of place. One UU minister insisted that religious Unitarianism was in vogue. Unfortunately, he mistook the term religious. For example, he insisted that egalitarian economic systems are sacred. He quickly closed himself off from being open-minded when I suggested that to regard a human construction as sacred is self-idolatrous. This is the message of Moses when in returning from the mount he discovers the worship of a golden calf. So too, a person who “knows” that one’s political ideology on social issues is nothing short of truth is essentially engaging in self-worship. The evisceration of a transcendent dimension cuts off a means by which such a person can be humble with respect to one’s own ideology and thus open to the possibility that a person can be wrong, and is at most partial and fallible. In succumbing to temptation, the UU organization closed down a place for Christians who believe in Jesus’ preaching yet do not accept that he is the Son of God.

By 2023, much had been written about the ideological polarization of the American people. That divide had reached congregations on the “right” and “left,” just as segregation had taken hold. Religious faith is not reduceable to an ideological position; rather, the former transcends the latter. To the extent that ideological advocacy is salient in religious congregations, especially spread across their respective buildings, a dearth of religious faith can be assumed. In the most extreme cases, the ideological positions masquerade as the proper content of religious faith. The “faithful” become like gods on Earth, and the societal bipolarity becomes even more difficult to smooth over in reconciliation. 

Gay Pride and Evangelical Christianity

Taylor Swift, an American singer and cultural icon in 2023, spoke “out against anti-queer legislation” during a concert in early June. “We can’t talk about Pride Month without talking about pain. There have been so many harmful pieces of legislation that have put [gay people] at risk. It’s painful for everyone. Every ally. Every loved one . . . ,” she said.[1] So much hurt. The level of intensity on both sides of the moral, political, and religious issue motivated me to go to a parade to see for myself. When I arrived at the one in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the morning, I thought the issue was mostly political; by the time the parade began, religion had clearly trumped the political. A small but vocal group of evangelical Christians and a larger group of young women wearing and carrying gay flags (in part to hide the Christians) were shouting at each other in utter futility of noise. What if people would use religion to dissolve the religious and political anger and even tension instead of stoking them? I contend that both sides missed an opportunity for interpersonal peace that could have grown like a mustard seed to take hold among combatants in a variety of contentious issues in the world.

The tension in the "culture wars" had been building in the United States and by 2023 was palpable. The U.S. Supreme Court’s returning the matter of abortion to the States had given Republican legislators in conservative states the confidence to pass anti-gay laws. In early March, 2023, for example, the Tennessee legislature passed and the governor signed a law prohibiting “male or female impersonators” from performing on public property or where the performances can be seen by children.[2] They are too impressionable, so the assumption went, to see men wearing dresses. One concern voiced by opponents of the law was that the content of drag shows, in which gay men (typically) dress as women and sing and tell jokes as performers, was being labeled as sexual. This raises the question of whether men wearing dresses is sexual in nature. A prepubescent child would perhaps view the dresses as costumes rather than conveying anything sexual, for we adults are the ones so preoccupied with sex. Transsexuals were afraid that police might “enforce the law against transgender people walking around in public, falsely painting them as ‘male or female impersonators.’”[3] It was not this concern that caused a federal judge to temporarily put the Tennessee law on hold, however, or that drag shows are not necessarily sexual, but, rather, that the legal language, locations viewable by children, is too vague and broad, especially given the contrasting free-speech interest of the drag-show performers. Doubtless drag performers in Tennessee felt misunderstood, hurt, frightened, and even dirty.

Also hurt was a fifth-grade teacher in Florida who was fired after being accused of promoting homosexuality because the Disney film she showed her class has a gay character. That a gay character is in a film does not in itself mean that the film promotes homosexuality or constitutes the instruction of certain gay topics, which Florida law banned.[4] The teacher felt unfairly treated, not only because the film does not promote homosexuality, but also because she had received signed permission slips from a parent of each student in the class. Furthermore, Florida's government had not instituted a process by which films could be assessed. Nonetheless, the new teacher was fired. 

Meanwhile, some Roman Catholics, even priests, were castigating the gay charity group, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, as anti-Catholic and even Satanic. That the gay men who were in the charity group had been wearing the robes, or habits, of nuns is understandably prime facie insulting to Catholics. Unfortunately, the human, all too human urge to lash out without getting more information blocked the reason why the gay sisters were wearing the nun’s habit. Wearing the habits was actually a compliment. After the parade, one of the local leaders of the gay Sisters told me that the use of the nun’s attire was not to humiliate the Church, but, rather, because, she told me, “We do a nun’s work. We take care of sick people and feed the hungry. We value that.” It is a stamp of approval of what nuns do! The gay Sisters not only valued what Catholic nuns do in charity, but also actually did what nuns do. "We do what they do, so we wear their habit," the leader told me. The gay sisters were not anti-Christian even though they believed that criticism of the Church was warranted. Hypocrisy is fair game to be called out, such as in priests raping children and bishops, including Joe Ratzinger before he was a pope, covering up the crimes to protect the universal Church, and in hating one’s enemy (e.g., gays) instead of showing kindness and compassion as Jesus in the New Testament would. He is compassionate to a prostitute even though he views her job as a sin. He keeps her from being stoned, so would he not protect the gays from shouting evangelical Christians at a gay parade. Just as he goes to the home of a tax collector, he might even go to a gay parade even as his disciples shake their heads in utter disbelief. Would not Jesus volunteer to help the gay Sisters in caring for others, again at the consternation of his disciples? 

For their part, from a Christian point of view, the gay sisters could have gone "the extra mile" in not only doing a nun's work, but also caring for Catholic nuns, such in nursing homes. Catholic nuns, brothers, and priests for their part could have shown up at the charity events of the gay sisters to help them and do charitable work. To be sure, volunteering to work at charities only goes so far from a Christian perspective if enemies are hated and attacked rather than loved. For unless you have love (i.e., the root of charity is caritas, or sublimated love raised high), your faith is for naught, so writes Paul, and love of enemy, such as by helping and otherwise serving one’s enemy (and detractors as well as people one doesn’t like) is the highest manifestation of love, and the most difficult. For anyone naturally finds it easy to love one’s friends and thus volunteer to help them.

Were Catholic monastics and clergy willing to help the gay sisters—to be sure, without necessarily accepting the sisters’ use of the nun’s uniform—and the gay sisters willing to care for elderly nuns and volunteer at Catholic charities, the conflict would be transcended and both ends of the dispute might be able to sense God’s presence. This is none other than the Kingdom of God as described by Jesus in the Gospels. It is the goal, and it is open to be had now rather than only after death. It is clear that both parties to a dispute are not in God's presence when both sides felt insulted and hurt, especially when they are shouting at each other at the onset of a gay Pride parade. 

I did not participate in such a parade in 2023 because I agree with everything in the "gay agenda" and culture, but, rather, because gays in the U.S. felt attacked by the words and legislative deeds of conservatives in some of the American governments. Transsexuals and drag queens in particular seemed to feel hunted, and thus no longer welcome in some of the American States. 

To be sure, I have some reservations about the transexual ideological agenda, such as the use of the plural pronoun they for a singular antecedent, and the banishment of the words man and woman from public discourse. Flashes of anger meant to punish "infractions" and impose an ideological agenda are inappropriate and reflect a certain arrogance, for no human being has a monopoly on truth and ideology of whatever stripe falls short. The extreme lack of tolerance for ideological disagreement, as reflected in the flashes of anger reflect the wholesale dismissal of an ideological position that is not in lock-step with the political correctness, which goes well beyond the transexual agenda. 

The hateful claims that transsexuals are freaks of nature or even Satanic are in my view not justified by the transsexual ideological agenda with respect to language. Moreover, the claims detract from legitimate concerns that have not been given deserved attention. For example, I contend that a conflict of interest exists in cases in which the brain, or mind, is tasked with deciding whether that itself or the person's body expresses the person's authentic gender (i.e., whether the person is a man or a woman). This qualm is not limited to cases in which the person is mentally ill. The human mind is not unbiased with respect to itself. The assumption that the mind cannot be wrong in general or more specifically about its own thinking is false. Not even logic is objective, as certain assumptions are built-in. The assumption of objectivity or infallibility is, moreover, impious because only God is all-knowing (omniscent) and infallible. The assumption of human ideological infallibility is particularly egregious. The human mind is hardly an impartial decider between itself and the body, especially in a culture in which a mind-body dualism is held to be possible and perhaps even laudable. I've raised the point of the mind's conflict of interest with some transsexuals, who either dismiss the point or were stumped. These reactions give me reason to suspect that the conflict of interest has been exploited in a significant number of cases. Even so, I defend the freedom of transsexuals to express themselves and as they say, be the persons they are. To be sure, even the assumption that one's gender captures who one is may be reductionistic, if indeed several of one's roles go into one's identity. By the way, the singular pronoun one is gender neutral, and, if used, can obviate the problem of reduced linguistic clarity that comes with using a plural pronoun for both plural and singular nouns. 

I suspect that part of the struggle for transexuals is that societal notions of masculinity and femininity at least in America are too narrow. A man may assume that he is really a woman in part because some of his attributes fall outside of what society tells us are masculine. A young man with long straight hair might assume that he is feminine and thus not really a man in part because long hair is traditionally associated with women, or a man with a high-pitch voice might think that he is really a woman. Once while visiting a university, I said to such a man that the societal norms of masculinity are too narrow. “If that is your natural voice, and you have male reproductive organs, then that voice is masculine.” He smiled and I could see relieve fall over his face and down his long hair. Male lions, after all, have manes. Short hair may in fact emasculate a man (and who wants to see a person's skull).

In spite of my reservations, which I do not inflict on binary and transsexual people as they are insecure enough in American society, I have befriended some transsexuals in order to expressly convey empathy. I have found that they crave or at least greatly appreciate emotional support, as they have come to feel so hated and afraid due to the verbal attacks and legislation of conservatives. 

So on the afternoon of Easter Sunday in 2023, I stopped in at a gay bar to say hello to a transexual bartender whom I had met at a grocery store. Upon seeing me, she was so happy she gave me a hug. This told me that emotional acceptance was very much needed. It was not an easy visit for me, as young gay guys there made a point of giving me more than a cold shoulder because I was old. As I was leaving, one of them even said to his friends, "Oh good, he's leaving" so I would hear it. 

Again, while waiting to take my place in the gay parade’s line-up a few months later, I seized upon the spontaneous opportunity to minister to a transsexual, whose evangelical Christian parents had forbid him to take estrogen (i.e., the female hormone) and required him to undergo years of conversion therapy wherein he had been instructed to repress his gay instinctual impulses. He told me he felt isolated generally, and even fearful that he might be physically attacked attacked while walking in the parade. My opinion on transsexuality was not relevant; compassion does not hinge on ideological agreement. The professor in me did point out, however, that "they" is not a singular pronoun, and he went after that like a dog to a bone. At least our academic discussion got his mind off his fear. As we were talking, however, a small group of evangelical Christians walked through, announcing that everyone there was a slut and would go to hell. The clear message was that gay people are worthless. It did not take long for some of the gay young adults to reach a boiling point and start shouting at the so-called “Christians,” who fecklessly departed to across a street to take up their position. It did not take long for gay women especially to take their position directly in front of the "Christians." The battleline was set, and the lone policeman became visibly nervous and called for backup.

Shouting insults at one’s enemies is not loving them as if for their own good; such a rationale is extremely arrogant, and even self-idolatrous. Without love, especially where it is least convenient, faith is for naught. The evangelical Christians surely presumed that they were saved even as they hurled insults into the crowd rather than being kind and compassionate—yet without agreeing with the gay ideology or approving of gay sex. Perhaps people who consider themselves to be Christians hesitate to be kind and compassionate to adversaries in part out of fear that agreement would be assumed. Of course it is difficult to set the anger aside.

Attending to human needs even and especially of detractors or enemies can help a society transcend seemingly intractable conflicts of contending values. Attending to another person’s physiological needs, as well as the emotional needs from being emotionally hurt or afraid, can do wonders in relegating, or transcending, even very heated conflicts. Attending to pain-caused represents such a different orientation from the typical castigating of an enemy that a transformation of heart capable of moving such a mountain would be meteoric in its importance and power. 

At the location where the gay parade was set up, the shouting match between the “Christians” and the gay people could not be missed. I tried to model the silence that perhaps the divine is in shouting matches between groups contending for truth. I stood on stretch of raised cement and held the gay flag high while I silently faced the aggressors (i.e., the “Christians). Had bottles of water been for sale nearby, I would have purchased some and used one hand to give them to the “Christians” while holding a gay flag with the other hand. Rather than waving the flag to provoke anger, I would have sought quite humbly to attend to the thirst needs of the “Christians,” who were undoubtedly thirsty after having yelled so much on a hot day. I would have been modeling this to the gay women as much as being compassionate to people with whom I disagree ideologically.

I hope I would have said to the young gay women that only by helping one’s enemy can one get past the sting of the harsh words and thus the pain and anger. “Don’t you get tired of holding onto all that anger?” Jesus says in the film, Mary Magdalene to a woman angered by the physical abuse that women endured from their respective husbands. In that movie, Mary Magdalene not only is the first witness to the resurrected Jesus, but also understands that the Kingdom of God is a matter of transformed hearts rather than a military victory, a more just political or economic system, or something that will not happen until the end of time. Gandhi, who was very much influenced by Jesus’ preaching and serving others in the New Testament, grasped the nature of the transformation.

In the film Gandhi, a Hindu man whose son had been killed by a Muslim man in the religious conflict just prior to the independence of India killed a Muslim boy. There is a way out of hell, Gandhi tells the distraught man: Pick a Muslim boy whose parents have been killed in the conflict and raise him—only raise him to be a Muslim. This does not mean that the man must embrace or agree with Islam; rather, Gandhi’s message is that only by helping people deemed the enemy can a person be free from the hell that one has constructed around oneself by hating one’s enemy.

Without changing their interpretations of the Bible, the “Christians” at the parade could have helped the gays and their allies to get properly situated as to where to stand in the line-up. The reactions of at least some of the gay people being helped would probably have been a muted or stunned bewilderment, yet not to preclude a subtle willingness to be helped by people having a very different opinion on homosexuality. If the gays would have been too intolerant or proud to accept the help, the fault would have been in themselves rather than the Christians. Similarly, some of the “Christians” would likely have shown muted signs of appreciation for receiving cool water from a man, whom they would presume to be gay, holding a gay flag.

In shouting that gay people are worthless rather than helping them on a human level, the “Christians” missed an opportunity to preach to the gays. Destructive and short-sighted values and behaviors, rather than being gay per se, are rarely seen outside of the gay "community," which itself may be more of a wish than a fact given the salience of individualistic values that exclude that of other-concern. I’ve heard enough from gay men on how they treat each other and the bases on which they value each other to know that they really need some sermons on love thy neighbor as oneself. Obviously this does not apply to every homosexual, but my claim is significant enough that it characterizes the American gay culture (and perhaps those cultures in other countries). Rather than using a blanket Old Testament abomination approach in which homosexuality itself is deemed sinful, the conservative “Christian” preachers could urge gays to be more Christlike in how they esteem and treat each other. For in this respect gay culture had become ripe for constructive criticism by 2023. 

In the “dating” (really looking-for-sex) online sites, for example, gay men can be quite brutal to guys who are deemed old or ugly. How dare such an inferior even message “hi” to one of the self-determined gods on earth. The criteria for being of greater value include being thin, muscular, and "hung," which means having a big penis. Even though physical attributes can be expected to be given a lot of weight when the purpose is limited to sex, the hypertrophic emphasis can be seen in how gay men with more attractive physical attributes regard and treat other, inferior gays. Bluntly telling guys that they are ugly without provocation or that "fat" or "guys over 40" will be blocked just for messaging "hello" points to anger and extreme disrespect based on physical attributes. How dare you contact me! You should be contacting guys on your level. From the standpoint of kindness, the first are actually last. Furthermore, the obsession on seeing nude photos, especially of dicks, and the attached ultimatums on gay sex sites can also be good fodder for preaching. So too are profile statements such as, "No black men; just a preference." To be sure, I've been told that some black men have statements excluding Caucasian men. I've also been told that it is not uncommon for gay men under 35 to demand payment for sex from men over 50. The passive-aggression in demanding payment from men presumed to be out of shape or simply older is insulting to the latter. Perhaps guys who are into older men should be charged too. When the men actually meet for sex, after having "met" online, how a guy rejects another based totally on appearance can be brutal. A man might see the man walking to the door and refuse even to open it, pretending not to be home and instantly blocking the guy online and by phone number. The choice is as feckless as it is needlessly cruel. Alternatively, the host could open the door and say that he is sorry for the other's inconvenience the other isn't his type after all. 

The willingness to be unnecessarily cruel is a salient feature of American gay culture. This squalid quality should be isolated for criticism rather than flown over, whether in blanket condemnations of homosexuality as itself being a sin or in wholesale ideological defenses of homosexuality by conservative and liberal clergy, respectively. 

The cruelty itself is startling. In “threesomes,” for example, in which three guys meet to have sex, if two of the guys are more attracted to each other than to the third, the two feel no compunction to make sure the third is not treated as the “third wheel” (i.e., the odd man out). In fact, the two men may be just fine with not even touching the other man, even if he is the boyfriend or even husband of one of the two! In the song, Luck Be a Lady Tonight, Frank Sinatra sings that a lady doesn't "wander all over the room, blowing on some other guy's dice." I had a girlfriend once who did that, and I refused to marry her because of it. "Let's keep the party polite," Sinatra sings. It is not polite when two gay guys in a threesome text to each other while the third guy is in the room in order to plan out how to trick the third guy into thinking that the session is over. Tell him you’re leaving, then leave, and he will leave. Then come back. I've heard of cases in which a man will even participate in such a secret scheme to get his boyfriend out. 

Incredibly, no guilt seems to accompany such betrayal because the physical attraction of the moment is all that matters in that value-set. Such indifference to hurting another human being is nothing short of pathological; at the very least, such cruelty reflects a malignant egism or self-centeredness and the lack of a conscience. This is good fodder for sermonizing. 

I’ve also been told that on the sex sites, and presumably at gay bars too, it is common for boyfriends and even husbands to cheat on their partners. The gay men who have told me of the sheer extent of this behavior admitted that it is probably more prevalent among gays than straight couples. I suspect, moreover, that the importance of what the other gay guy provides sexually is elevated in the selection of a boyfriend and husband. A gay man in San Francisco said once told me that a gay guy typically does not return to the same guy for sex because it is generally believed in that gay culture that there are so many gay men that there is probably someone who satisfies more items on one's list of sexual "likes" list. Another gay man, who was married, told me that that city is not good for gay couples, as there is more temptation to cheat for the same reason. This can be expected in cultures in which sexual attraction is allowed to be be so important even in relationships. To be sure, there are exceptions. A good friend of mine from college told me decades later that sex is about 10 percent of his relationship with his partner. So I am describing a dysfunctional (i.e., superficial and too cruel) culture. 

Relative to heterosexual relationships, I believe that there are proportionally more “open” relationships, meaning that both men in a relationship agree that they can have sex separately with other men. Still other couples want to "play together" by bringing in a third man. The gay culture approves of both arrangements. I contend that it does so because of the overwhelming importance of sex in gay relationships generally. Given the importance given to sexual gratification, such separate sex risks the boyfriend or husband going to the other man. Gay men in couples whom I have spoken with seem not to understand why emotional intimacy is weakened in cases in which either man has sex with other men separately. Even in sharing a man, feelings can easily get hurt if the third man is more interested in one of the boyfriends or husbands and the latter lets himself ignore his partner during the session. Preaching is indeed needed and would be of great value to gay men in open relationships, as the perils thereof seem not to be known or respected among gays.  

One gay man told me that a man’s sex drive is such that expectations of monogamy are not realistic. I suspect that this opinion is widely held by gay men. An open relationship and even cheating have to be accepted, realistically. I beg to differ; the loss of emotional intimacy and the potential for hurting the other person are too great. I've been told it is common for gay couples to “play together” with a third guy. Astoundingly, a couple (e.g., boyfriends) might go to a third guy’s home, and one of the boyfriends may even participate with the third guy in excluding the other boyfriend from the action and even collaborate in secret with the third guy to get rid of the other boyfriend! At least in America, the gay "community" can be fairly criticized for being too comfortable with the infliction of emotional harm and even betrayal without any taint of guilt. Clearly there is a lot of room for preaching from a Christian standpoint wherein God is love, which manifests between people. Such preaching is not going to be done by conservative clergy who ironically miss the arrogance and meanness in the gay "community" by merely making the blanket statement that homosexuality itself is a sin, or by liberal clergy who refuse to criticize internal gay culture because those clergy are primarily ideological defenders of diversity.

How might conservative clergy reach gay men? Perhaps by volunteering in a HIV clinic, for instance, or at a gay parade or event, insight could be gained on where preaching is really needed from the standpoint of loving rather than betraying one’s neighbor. Furthermore, perhaps in showing compassion toward gay men, conservative clergy might come to value compassion to one another and thus not be so mean and hurtful. Perhaps feeling the kindness of Christian clergy (and laity) might rub off on the gay men who are so callous towards each other and so single-minded on immediate sexual gratification. 

Perhaps clergy who view themselves as allies of the gay community might divert their attention from ideology to religious experience. Such a pivot could provide a basis on which to assess the gay community critically and challenge it. Such clergy would urge gay people who are very compassionate to lead the way in extending their kindness to people with whom they strongly disagree. Perhaps at a gay Pride parade, for example, such gay people might be oriented to satisfying the thirst of even a shouting "Christian" on a hot day. 

At the gay Pride parade that I attended in 2023, the young gay women and their allies could have shown the “Christians” that gays are not all bad, worthless, or dirty. Perhaps the "Christians" would have discovered that in being cared for by the lesbians that sexual conduct does not exhaust the soul, and thus how God judges it. Perhaps the young gays could have acted in charity, whose value is greatly increased when the intended beneficiaries are people whom the young gays don't like or agree with. Seeing by example how the the way of Jesus could be applied, the angry "Christians" could perhaps have been healed, and thus been in peace rather than anger and arrogance. In the Gospels, Jesus accepts Matthew even though he is one of the hated tax-collectors, and Jesus goes to the house of the Roman Centurion, whose faith, Jesus says, has cured the man’s slave. It is significant that Jesus does not rail against Matthew or the centurion as being evil or impure; instead, he serves them even though they are outsiders, for even they are capable of being loved. Sometimes this has to be experienced in baby-steps, such as in offering water. It is water, after all, that often symbolizes purity or renewal in religion. Like a mustard seed, small acts of human-to-human kindness can have large impacts, whereas two contending parties voicing conflicting values are typically static rather than dynamic.

---

1. Shruti Rajkumar, “Taylor Swift Breaks Silence And Condemns Anti-LGBTQ Bills During Eras Tour,” The Huffington Post, June 3, 2023.

2. Matt Lavietes, “Tennessee Governor Signs First-Of-Its-Kind Bill Restricting Drag Shows,” NBC News, March 2, 2023.

3. Ibid.

4. Isabel Rosales and Jaide Garcia, “Florida School System Has Closed Investigation Into Teacher Who Showed Disney Movie With Gay Character,” CNN.com, May 23, 2023.