To Welcome or Affirm: Black Clergy Views About Homosexuality, Inclusivity, and Church Leadership

Abstract

When the subject of the Black Church and homosexuality is broached, research often focuses on homophobia and correlates with HIV/AIDS. Fewer studies examine other problematic issues germane to gay and lesbian involvement in Black congregations. In this analysis, Black clergy dialogue during focus groups about inclusivity and church leadership by gays and lesbians. Informed by Cultural Theory, of equal interest is whether discourses are influenced by Black Church cultural tools, as well as cultural dynamics, from the broader Black community. As anticipated, findings suggest the tendency for clergy to promote welcoming church spaces, but to be reticent about affirming homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Furthermore, although clergy are generally supportive of involvement by closeted gays and lesbians as lay leaders, most do not support their involvement in the clergy, particularly as pastors. However, views vary based on denomination and gender, and are informed by Black Church cultural components such as scripture and the call-and-response tradition.

Keywords:

• Black Church
• clergy
• sexuality

Notes

1. “Black Church” refers to the collective institution, and “Black church” refers to individual congregations.

2. The first stigmatized group includes persons with physical deformities. Goffman (1963) suggested that most stigmatized persons consider themselves no different from other human beings, although they and others define them as “different.” He contended that stigma can function as a means of formal social control and to exclude groups for societal competition for scarce resources. Finally, Goffman's following observation informs the experiences of Blacks, gays, and lesbians, as well as a broader dialogue regarding stigma and diversity: “In an important sense there is only one unblushing male in America: a young, married, white, urban, northern, heterosexual Protestant father of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight, and height, and a recent record in sports” (p. 128).

3. For example, Methodist ministers Rose Mary Denman and Elizabeth Stroud lost their clergy credentials in 1987 and 2005, respectively, for being openly gay. Debates surrounding membership acceptability appear to center around discretion.

4. Focus groups are appropriate here because the research objectives are to gather information about sentiments and experiences regarding a specific issue, gain insight on varied views about the issue, and possibly uncover shared experiences. And, because the goal is specification, rather than generalization, the focus group is a viable data-gathering method. Furthermore, given the nature of the subject, focus groups can help create a safe, non-threatening atmosphere to discuss potentially difficult topics (Morgan & Krueger, 1993; Zeller, 1993). Such groups make it possible to garner beliefs, reactions, and feelings in ways that are not feasible using traditional survey techniques. Finally, the focus group approach can become a forum for change, and results are often more accessible to lay audiences than complicated statistical analyses—important applied dimensions here (Marczak & Sewell, 2006; Race, Hotch, & Parker, 1994). As noted by Morgan and Kreuger, focus groups are useful when one is interested in examining the use of language and culture of a particular group, which is a central objective in this research. Focus group experts suggest that most focus groups consist of between 6 and 12 people, and should reflect a size to facilitate participation by most members. The number of participants will depend on the objectives of the research; smaller groups of about four to six people are suggested when participants have a great deal to share about a subject or have had substantial experiences with the subject of discussion. Groups that are too large may undermine participation. Although the number of appropriate groups is variable, most experts suggest three to four groups to help insure that the necessary population segments are included and to minimize conflating valid findings with group-specific dynamics (Kreuger, 1988; Morgan, 1993; Morgan & Kreuger, 1993; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1998). The number of groups included in this analysis (3 groups) and the overall number of participants both fall well within these generally accepted guidelines.

5. It is a consortium of six denominational seminaries. The theological stance broadly reflects a bible-centered, social, action-oriented focus on the study of Black religion, including churches of Africa and the Caribbean. Its specific mission is to educate Christian leaders committed to academic discipline, justice and peace, an appreciation of diversity, a transforming and liberating spirituality, and a desire to engage the public arena for the common good. To accomplish this mission, students are trained for the pastorate and church work, and also encouraged to become public theologians prepared to facilitate alliances among congregations, secular institutions, and other academic entities. More than 35% of all trained Black ministers worldwide and 50% of all Black U.S. military chaplains matriculated there. In 2006, the predominately Black enrollment of over 450 students represented more than 15 denominations. Fifty-four percent are men. The seminary offers master's degrees, as well as divinity, doctor of ministry, and doctor of theology degrees.

6. None of the participants were friends or family of mine or known to me prior to the focus groups. Participation appeared to be influenced by clergy interest in the subject, as well as the scheduled days and times of the focus groups.

7. A seminary administrator served as a key informant and helped gain access to potential group members. Participants were provided a $5.00 stipend for their involvement. I served as a moderator. I was introduced by the key informant as a graduate of this same seminary and a long-time volunteer in Black churches. I expect that this introduction increased my credibility as a moderator and positioned me as more of an “insider” than an “outsider” in this project. I cannot gauge whether or how this introduction influenced participants. However, the candor they exhibited suggests that they were comfortable speaking openly and honestly about the study topics. During the project introduction, I explained that I wished each person to be as honest as possible, and that there were no “right” or “wrong” responses. I also reminded participants that they should not feel compelled to participate; could elect to respond to any, all, or none of the questions; and could leave at any time without forfeiting the stipend. Finally, persons were informed that pseudonyms would be used when the project was published. As is typically the case during focus groups, I was responsible for asking each question, probing responses, transitioning the discussion to insure that each question was discussed, and asking more quiet participants to speak. I considered these dynamics part of the role of a facilitator, and do not think they unduly influenced the tenor or content of discussions. In general, I endeavored to position myself as an objective researcher, unwedded to any particular stance, and most interested in cultivating a receptive space for honest, candid dialogue. I hope participants felt this was the case.

8. The five questions were developed based on my long-time interests in studying Black Church responses to social problems that impact a disproportionate percentage of Blacks, as well as how Black Church culture can be transformative or stymie change (Barnes, 2004, 2005, 2006). Most of my previous research reflects quantitative analyses; this study enables me to assess these same pressing questions using a qualitative approach.

9. Content analysis is an iterative process during which the researcher scours and cross-checks the data for common concepts, themes, and phrases. Yet, the process differs from the use of a computer identification program because candidate themes are based on both frequency of occurrence and the context in which they emerge. Moreover, the process relies heavily on my knowledge and expertise of the subject matter, the specific research context, and insider dynamics of the data collection process. For example, during the conversation included under the initial theme, “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” Lester and Loretta's comments were representative of those from Group 3. Based on the commentary pattern, this primary theme emerged. My skill is required to provide a succinct thematic title that does justice to both the content and the spirit of the conversation. However, during the conversation, several people spoke about the Black Church's need to address “appropriate” church attire and demeanor and not to be afraid to do so. Although these comments (i.e., clothing and behavior in general) were part of the conversation about the importance of unabashed truth-telling and were tangentially associated with sexuality (e.g., instructing people against wearing sexually revealing clothing to church), after examining the entire conversation, they were coded as part of a secondary theme. Primary and secondary themes were determined and reviewed in this fashion. Although potentially valuable, by virtue of their less direct ties to primary themes, minimal discussion by participants, and publishing page constraints, secondary themes were excluded from this article. This analytical process relies heavily on lengthy, continual reviews of words and phrases, as well as the considerable use of this method by me to substantiate the existence and validity of primary themes. However, I acknowledge the inherent difference in this analytical process, compared to approaches that are dependent on more traditionally quantifiable measures of reliability and validity.

10. In addition to being verbally devalued or “put down,” anecdotal information suggests that being “sat down” or formally prevented from holding a position and actively engaging in church work is a particularly extreme, embarrassing sanction in the Black Church tradition.

11. I have performed research with a cadre of Black churches that are either predominately gay or that have predominately heterosexual memberships, but are inclusive, offer ministries for sexual minorities, and have openly gays people in key leadership positions. Such churches could serve as models.