State of the Movement Report (2003)

A report on interviews with (white) leaders in the "welcoming movement"
by Chris Paige
July 2003

1. Introduction

I claim no specialized credentials for this project. My expertise in race studies, anti-racism, theology/ethics, sociology, and community organizing carries no particular differentiation from the next white, professional class 31-year old mainline Christian with a heart for justice.

My primary credential is that I am a child of the LGBT liberation movement and the other justice movements in their church-based manifestations. The elders of this movement are my elders. The pioneers of this movement have made a way for me. I am the recipient of this legacy. Indeed, I was born into a world where Dr King had already been assassinated and Stonewall was already history. I grew up in integrated schools and was taught to love all people equally. I came out into a world that had already begun to grieve the loss of Audre Lorde.

What I mean to say here is that engaging this process is a privilege. Both a grace-filled blessing in my life – and a responsibility made possible by the burdens of injustice that others have borne. I stand not only on the shoulders of LGBT and other justice-loving pioneers, elders, teachers, mentors, friends who have empowered me and shaped my understanding of the world. I also stand on the privilege born of my college education, professional employment, U.S. citizenship, Protestant affiliation, and white skin privilege.

In denominations and organizations that are well over 90% white, it seems that at least that same percentage of the burden of responsibility for racial struggle, education, activism should lie on white shoulders. I have heard often enough the directive from people of color that we, white folks, need to do our own work on race and stop relying on people of color to do it for us. I take that injunction seriously and hope that this process will help us to begin to do more such work in more collective ways.

Meanwhile, I have also been influenced by the notion that racism and white supremacy has to do with the systemic control of resources, priorities, norms and standards by white people. As such, in the interest of full-disclosure, I must note that this process is a considerably racist process. Several historically white-dominated organizations (Witness Our Welcome, the WOW partners, and The Other Side) have determined that dealing with concerns of racial diversity are important at this time in our history. A white person has been appointed to control decision-making and filter strategizing. No matter how collaborative a process I engage in, no matter how inclusive my goals, no matter how good my intentions, the fact remains that white people are in control yet again.

After consulting with a few colleagues of color in the movement, I decided that participating in this racist process was nonetheless the most responsible thing I knew to do with my privilege at this point in history. In doing so, I am sure to become a target and lightning rod for both racist outrage and righteous indignation – and rightly so. But if in the process, I can redirect some small part of that volatile charge to be grounded through me rather than through my sisters and brothers of color, then I will consider this project a success and my time well-spent. If I can redirect some small portion of the burden from the shoulders of people of color to the shoulders of white people, then I will be pleased with the project.

By way of introduction, I want to specifically thank Irene Monroe, Tolonda Henderson, and Marco Grimaldo for their encouragement and their trust in me at early stages in this process. I am especially grateful for Irene Monroe’s articulation of “racial responsibility” as a framework for considering my actions, my thoughts, my grieving about the deep racial divide within our movement, church, and society.

2. Methodology

As a child of this movement, I have been fundamentally shaped by the notion that truth-telling is a powerful and empowering strategy in activism. Moreover, that truth-telling is a necessity in creating and empowering healing processes. Thus, this project is an attempt to help the movement get to the truth of how race divides us.

I also believe that as justice-loving Christians, we hold tremendous collective wisdom and experience around race, racism, and the welcoming movement. In my experience among white people, this valuable wisdom is thinly veiled behind layers of silence, fear, and isolation. Thus, my methodology is primarily anecdotal – listening to questions, listening to experiences, listening to wisdom – and then reflecting it back for all to hear.

Such a process of reflection will obviously be influenced by my own limitations and thus necessarily imperfect, so I have also sought to be accountable to allies in this process – most especially people of color.

Both in collecting the variety of experiences and in discerning how to move forward from a given set of experiences, I believe that examining our questions are even more foundational. Our questions are formulated directly out of our past experiences and thus people from different backgrounds and experiences may ask very different questions. The questions reflect a variety of assumptions both about our context/reality and about our goals for the future. Too often we focus on how we have arrived at different “answers,” before we’ve really examined whether we are answering the same question or not. Thus I have tried to pay particular examining the questions underlying conversations about the past, present, and future of the welcoming movement.

My questions to the white welcoming movement leadership:

How would you describe the mission of your group? Examples might include being focused on individuals, congregations, advocacy in denominational politics, education on sexual orientation, network for support of LGBT folks, coalition with straight allies, all of the above?
How large is your group's membership? What is the racial/ethnic make-up of that membership? What is the racial/ethnic make-up of that leadership?
What efforts are you aware of to support racial diversity and multiculturalism within your group? How have these efforts been successful? How have these efforts been problematic?
How has your group been allied with racially diverse constituencies outside itself? How have these efforts been successful? How have these efforts been problematic?
Who else comes to your mind as a critical stakeholder in the movement who should be involved in a racial dialogue initiative about the welcoming movement? Are there particular people of color in your denomination that might be especially helpful or interested in being involved?

----- if time and energy allows! -----

What short-term or long-term efforts or developments (not necessarily related to any specific event or organization) do you think are necessary to build multiracial momentum in the welcoming movement/church/LGBT movement?
What specific cultural and contextual differences do you think inform our ability to be in multiracial coalition with one another?
What other thoughts, ideas, or tangents does this conversation raise for you? Please share any other initial comments you have as we begin this dialogue process.

3. Segregation and Denominational Identity

The first truth I encountered in conversations about race in our movement is that our churches are overwhelmingly segregated. Most of the denominations involved in the movement are constituted of at least 90% or more white people. This figure represents something well beyond the color of our skin. Most of the WOW affiliated denominations have their roots in European history – which is to say that English, Swiss, German, Russian, and Scandanavian cultural norms and standards influenced the formation of these institutions. Indeed, some of the denominations continue to be significantly dominated by particular ethnic white cultural realities.

Exceptions to this minimum 90% white constitution included Roman Catholic Church, American Baptist Church, Unity Fellowships.

Meanwhile, even within such white dominated constituencies, interviewees described highly segregated configurations. Significant portions of the few people of color within these denominations affiliate with ethnically specific congregations – Korean-American or -Canadian, Chinese-American or -Canadian, Palestinian-American or -Canadian, African-American or -Canadian, etc. Thus opportunities for interaction across lines of race and ethnicity are extremely limited within the denominational context.

This reality leads me to ponder whether questions about “diversity” within our “community” are in large part misdirected. Perhaps we should instead be focusing our attention on dynamics of entrenched segregation within our coalition work.
Commitment to anti-racism and anti-oppression work at the denominational level varies from denomination to denomination. Some denominations have made commitments to anti-racism principles, training, etc at the national levels. Others have not.

4. Structural issues and movement priorities

While examining the structure of the various WOW affiliated groups is not the primary goal of this process, the stated goals and objectives of each organization fundamentally influence who associates with them and in what way they associate. While every group defines itself differently, there are several clusters of mission and vision focus that present themselves.

Sanctuary/support/community – Focuses on providing safe space for refugees from denominational exclusionary policies. Ministry with LGBT people and our allies. Creating an alternative and inclusive community. Creating a network of allies can often become a social endeavor.
Advocacy/prophetic – This is a political, activist set of goals, focusing on changing denominational policies and making the broader church more inclusive. Also in some cases on making change in society at large.
Education/dialogue – This set of objectives is closely connected to advocacy, but focuses more on ensuring that conversations about LGBT concerns are occuring and are adequately resourced. Such efforts may not have an explicitly political change agenda.
Evangelism/nurture/training – Providing spiritual grounding to LGBT people. Training leaders. Proclaim the Gospel.
Anti-oppression work -- Work to overcome a variety of barriers including racism, sexism, classism, ableism.

These varied clusters of goals and objectives overlap significantly in terms of tactics and are mutually supportive in many ways. However, each shows its own emphasis and can shape and focus both membership and activity in very significant ways – and can be enacted very differently in varied contexts.

In particular, dramatic differences in structure/context mean that Catholic, Quaker, and Metropolitan Community Church constituencies do not focus significantly on denominational activism or on “welcoming church” style strategies. Rather the UFMCC is a denomination of explicitly “welcoming” congregations by definition. Meanwhile the power structure of the Roman Catholic Church does not lend itself to the same style of activism as Protestant structures do. In contrast, Quaker consensus decision-making shapes activism more in a education-minded direction than in an advocacy mode. Indeed in each of the examples, the relationship to denominational power brokers is substantively different than in most of the WOW affiliated groups.

It is worth highlighting the overwhelmingly Protestant nature of the WOW coalition means that most groups focus rather narrowly on their denominational context and power structure both for prophetic/activist efforts and for defining their constituency in other areas of activity. While some of the WOW affiliated partners include some similar but more conservative denominations in their scope, the focus of each group tends to be primarily on mainline denominations in terms of activism. This institutional scope tends to preclude or dramatically limit significant collaboration with groups and individuals in historically black denominations or other contexts where people of color might more commonly associate. Indeed, the parameters of the group identity and constituency are fundamentally defined by the denomination in which they focus their work.

By contrast to the denominational groups, the WOW agenda has been shaped with a particular attention to the welcoming church movement – which is primarily a Protestant phenomenon. This initial focus has proved to be an obstacle towards collaborating with groups like Dignity, Integrity, Metropolitan Community Churches, Unitarians, and Quakers – none of which have similar “welcoming” programs. In addition, the explicitly Christian focus of WOW is something of a barrier to working with Quakers and Unitarians who collectively represent a more diversified spiritual practices and beliefs – even though they also include significantly Christian elements both historically and among their constituencies.

While denominational groups and the WOW movement share similar constituencies and similar goals, limitations on time, resources, scope limit the success of this collaboration. While the usefulness of such a collaboration seems self-evident, clarity about the goals and structure of such collaboration continues to be vague. In particular, the following question keeps emerging: “Is the focus on supporting 'us' or on forging activist coalitions?”

5. A question of identity

Cultural differences are another factor mentioned frequently as obstacles to working across lines of racial difference. Some interviewees recognized that some communities of color use language other than “gay” and “lesbian” to identify sexual minorities. For instance, some men of color identify as “men who have sex with men” rather than as “gay.” Such fundamental differences in self-identification and self-understanding create barriers to collaboration.

At a more fundamental level, interaction across language differences can be difficult. Most groups are not prepared to translate materials, resources, or presentations into any language other than English. And groups that have attempted, for instance, Spanish translation have found themselves unprepared for the nuanced politics of such an endeavor.

More generally, the reality of well-developed, but mostly unexamined white cultural norms makes conversations about alternate norms, standards and expectations difficult and often volatile. White people tend to speak more easily about anti-racism credentials (e.g. attendance at the 1963 March on Washington) than we do about our own day to day experiences of white culture.

Finally, white privilege simply makes it easier for white people to be out of the closet about our sexuality. Insofar as organizations depend on public LGBT spokespersons to “person” the “issue,” people of color are simply less frequently in a secure enough position professionally and personally to be able to engage in a public level of discourse about their sexuality.

6. Competitive diversity

Most interviewees described a trend towards “competitive diversity” within their context. Within LGBT groups, concerns for racial justice and inclusion compete for attention with other diversity education, especially in terms of bisexual and transgender concerns. Within denominational contexts, concerns for racial justice and inclusion compete for attention with LGBT issues at large. Within both contexts other power dynamics also redirect attention -- including intergenerational difference, traditional male-female gender differentiation, clergy-lay distinctions, and matters of sexual propriety in terms of sexual harassment. However, the competitive constellation between race and sexual orientation seems particularly volatile.

In some denominations, some church leaders of color have issued publicly homophobic statements -- sometimes including ultimatums that if LGBT people are fully welcomed into the church communion, the ethnically specific congregations would leave to affiliate with some other denomination. The leadership of white-dominated LGBT groups indicates that these experiences reinforce stereotypes about the conservatism and homophobia of communities of color.

In some denominations, LGBT concerns have been alienated from other work for justice as the more generalized justice groups have been hesitant to add explicitly anti-heterosexist work to their mission for fear of alienating more conservative elements in the denomination (sometimes explicitly people of color). Meanwhile, white-dominated LGBT groups have taken a variety of approaches to racial justice. Some have added anti-racism and anti-oppression commitments to by-laws, mission statements, vision statements, community values. Others have not.

One interviewee was clear that she walks on eggshells to avoid comparing racism to heterosexism. This particular group focuses only on LGBT concerns and does not include anti-oppression work in its mission – i.e. intentional effort is put into including people of color in the most public forums, but not in its grassroots efforts. The competition for attention between racial and LGBT concerns is clearly understood to be an obstacle to effective activism. And actively avoiding conversation about race is understood by this leader to be a political necessity.

Meanwhile, in a denomination where there has been significant interaction between justice movements for people of color and for LGBT folks, this competitive diversity manifests in different ways. While the collaboration between different groups is explicit, establishing a lasting level of trust has still been difficult. Managing the time, resources and attention given to each set of concerns is difficult. The fear of “watering down” one or the other set of concerns with the other gets in the way of positive collaboration.
Through many different manifestations, work for racial justice and work for sexual justice are often experienced as being at odds with one another – in competition for time, attention, and resources. In a related manifestation, all “diversity” concerns are sometimes lumped together as one “issue.”

Likewise, assertions of sexism in communities of color, and the Unity Fellowship in particular, have been noted as an additional barrier to collaboration.

7. Strategies and struggles

Diversity is a hot topic among the WOW and related constituencies – including both racial diversity and other forms of diversity. WOW 2000 evaluation forms indicated that the experience of diversity at the event was valued very highly – that the event was more diverse than most attendees may regularly experience and that this experience was highly educational and enriching. Meanwhile the still limited level of racial diversification and related conflict was also noted as a prominent weakness.
In general, explicitly integrating racial concerns into the agendas of WOW-related groups has been a recent addition – within the last decade or so. Many groups have made some intentional efforts to affirm and expand racial diversity and/or deal with racism within their organization. A variety of strategies were identified in interviews:

Adding anti-racism and/or anti-oppression language to bylaws, mission, and/or vision statements for the group
Including people of color in the leadership of events as speakers and facilitators
Including white anti-racism speakers and facilitators in events as speakers and facilitators
Including workshops on racial diversity in event programming
Including workshops on anti-racism in event programming
Newsletter articles on related topics
Establishing anti-racism task force to help provide anti-racist strategy and accountability
Establishing a people of color caucus to provide safe space for people of color
Recruiting people of color to be involved in leadership capacities (i.e. council, task forces, etc);
Establishing a set of community standards that highlights power dynamics across lines of difference – and seeking to educate and dialogue about such standards
Targeted outreach to communities of color (e.g. Latina/Latino Catholic communities through ads, special festivals, Spanish mass, Latino led HIV/AIDS education, etc)
Alliances with other groups in the denomination, including racially oriented activist groups.
Required anti-racism training for national leadership
Hiring a diversity consultant
Hiring a staff specialist in diversity or racial outreach
Organize anti-racism support/trainers for grassroots levels of the organization (i.e. chapters, congregations, etc)
Informal education and advocacy around racial identity and marginalization
Strong, integrated leadership from people of color

In general, the constellation of matters of racism and racial diversity are well known to be contentious/conflicted and also important in the movement. Yet action beyond discussions seems hard to come by. In some cases, rhetoric of concern stands in for action. Planning groups are often conscious of their monoracial homogeneity – yet seem unable to do anything about it. When confronted with the specific task of racially diversifying the group, the racially segregated reality of our lives takes hold. Feeling unable or unwilling to bridge the divide personally, sometimes groups hire racial diversity specialists either as consultants or staff. Beyond our good intentions, many white people feel disempowered and trapped by our own sense of guilt and ignorance. With the best of intentions, white people look to people of color for leadership on issues of race. But this deference is less often accompanied by a strong sense of progressive white empowerment and action around issues of race and anti-racism. Thus this deference risks becoming a kind of surrogacy process rather than an empowering one.

Sometimes a significant minority of people of color are recruited for a particular endeavor, but then drop out for a variety of personal reasons. The head-counting can be a trap of its own that quickly results in tokenism.

Dealing with these concerns is challenging in part because attendance at various events varies significantly from year to year. The national gatherings are often populated by a significant percentage of new attendees, so continuity from year to year is difficult to maintain. Meanwhile, constituents have widely varying experiences and understandings in regards to these topics – the realities of racism in the 21st century are not a matter of consensus or significantly shared assumptions among WOW-affiliated constituencies. Often initial overtures to discuss race with white people are met with resistance, denial, and anger.

Meanwhile, many participants are so broken and wounded by interactions with the broader church community that they have limited interest in reaching out beyond the safe boundaries of the caucus group. Sorting through the complex mix of emotions generated when hearing about someone else’s oppression seems too challenging for them on their own.

Where there has been success in racially integrating various leadership roles, there often remains continuing homogeneity in the general constituency and culture.

The accusation of “political correctness” is used to trivialize educational conversations about race and other forms of diversity.

While we recognize the benefits of diversity, we often struggle to own the costs and challenges as well. We expect to get the benefits after minimal investment in the process. Maintaining consistent motivation to be vigilant on topics of race and racism is difficult for white people.

8. Conflict and alienation

WOW 2000 attendees noted that the conflicts over race at the event were both painful and challenging.

Dynamics of rage and guilt establish a background of fear, grief, and alienation which tends to discourage deep and productive conversation and dialogue around issues of race and racism. People of color raising related concerns are often met with white defensiveness and disempowerment. On average, white people in these organizations tend to be unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with conflict or even conversation around issues of race. White guilt is identified as a powerful factor in negotiating such conversations and interactions. Just as insidious is a cultural norm emphasizing conflict avoidance.

Some white people who have experienced such conflict, find it so discouraging that they subsequently avoid both conversations about race and people of color themselves. Naturally, such conflict is also deeply painful and isolating for people of color -- who are already outsiders to the majority culture. Furthermore, the cycle of conflict reinforces stereotypes of emotional and angry people of color (esp. African-Americans).

A different dynamic was also identified where white people become so guilt-ridden that we seek to overfunction in regards to racial dynamics. We stumble over ourselves in trying speak in “politically correct” ways in an effort to avoid conflict. We may become overly accomodating to people of color involved in an organization in ways that are perceived by some as enabling problematic behavior.

White people are often very concerned that their “good intentions” be affirmed. White people tend to be quite uncomfortable with generalizations about whiteness – preferring instead to be considered on an individual basis. When this affirmation is not provided, a sense of white victimization is often evoked. One individual expressed a weariness from being cast as “the white enemy.” In reaction to this experience of being categorized, white people often participate in a credentialing process where we seek to affirm our credibility and trustworthiness through a laundry list of racial or justice oriented experiences, such as attendance at the 1963 March on Washington or other MLK related activities, racially integrated friendships/activism, or other justice work.

In conflicted situations, other diversity factors such as generational, gender, class, nationality, sexuality and other differences can further complicate matters and sabotage productive dialogue. Sometimes a sense of competing victimization can develop where a charge of racial marginalization may be met with reactive assertions of sexism, elitism, violence, etc

Some white people feel caught in the crossfire of a conversation they just don’t understand. But one respondent noted that this reality is part and parcel of race relations in the 21st century. Part of the journey for white people in this day and age is confronting the depth of the brokenness, the lack of space for white self-righteousness, the inability to find a quick fix – and learning to keep on going, keep on working, keep on struggling for reconciliation.

9. Impact on movement goals/success

Racial division undermines community and activism within LGBT church-related communities. Segregation is a dominant reality. In many circles, racial conflict has resulted in avoidance behaviors. The resulting silence around issues of race and racism are occasionally punctuated with further conflict. In any case, a foundation of grief and alienation is well laid across lines of difference within our communities and coalitions.

On the political scene, this fault line and the related conflicts between LGBT concerns and racial concerns play out by weakening activist coalitions that might otherwise support one another among common enemies. Resources are divided instead of pooled together for deeper impact. Rhetorical options are further limited by the uneasy silence – or directly conflicted by strategically placed opposition.

10. On asking the right questions

Layered within our many experiences of race and racism, there are many questions – both explicit and implicit. Each question frames a conversation or quest in a slightly different way. The following clusters of questions represent a variety of questions I have heard expressed through these interviews.

Racial Diversity
One set of questions revolves around how to bridge the realities of a deeply segregated church. Instinct suggests that the Body of Christ, if it is on target in its inclusive vision, ought to include all kinds of people. The failure to adequately manifest such diversity results in anxiety over our values and righteousness. Such questions tend to follow the following pattern:

How do we overcome our racial homogeneity (to become more fully representative of the Body of Christ)?
Where are all the people of color? How do we reach them? How can we be more welcoming and supportive? How can we integrate them in our work?
How can we better handle conflict around diversity? How can we better understand cultural differences?
When is racial segregation acceptable?

A critique of this line of questioning revolves around the way it assumes white dominance/control. Meanwhile, the foundations of this line of questioning are grounded in an overall set of goals relating to overcoming segregation and becoming an integrated community.

White Anti-racism
Another set of questions revolves around white identity and an interest in changing the basic understanding of race and racism among white constituents. Such questions tend to follow the following pattern:

How can we better understand and undermine white privilege? How can we be better allies to people of color? How can we fight racism?
How can we redistribute power across racial lines? How can we manage our power more responsibly?

While this approach adds a significant power analysis, it continues to place white people at the center of attention. It is grounded in an activist approach, focused primarily on white people and power structures. Thus people of color continue to be marginalized in these conversations – whether by exclusion from the conversation or by their being drafted as race experts.

People of color questions
As the first two sets of questions focus on white people, it’s worth noting that an entirely different set of questions may exist, grounded in the experience of people of color. Due to the white dominated reality of the WOW affiliated groups, these questions are rarely considered in the central conversations of our organizations. Certainly, they were not adequately expressed through these interviews with white movement leadership.

What questions are people of color asking? What questions are being ignored by white people? How might an agenda driven by people of color differ from the existing white-dominated agenda?

Community norms
A less common approach seeks to bring together a critique of white cultural control and power dynamics, with other diversity concerns, in the context of community life. This begins to get more substantively at structural concerns within organizational life. Such questions tend to follow the following pattern:

Who establishes cultural norms for a community? How do we establish appropriate cultural norms in our community? How do we educate ourselves about them? How are they enforced?
How can we nurture and support marginalized and/or disempowered voices within this community? How can we maintain group norms in a flexible and adaptable manner?

While this approach intends to include people of color as partners in looking at structural concerns, it continues to focus on a predefined institution and group identity with already established boundaries and membership.

Coalition goals
This set of questions moves beyond limited organizational analysis to look at multiracial coalition and how that fits into a broader movement for LGBT justice.

How does racism undermine the success of the LGBT justice movement? How can we build a more multiracial, integrated, anti-racist LGBT justice movement?
How can we build more multiracial momentum within the LGBT movement? How can we better understand and overcome the racial divisions within the LGBT movement? How can we antidote the competitive dynamics between different kinds of diversity in the church and LGBT movement?
How can we build synergy between anti-racism and anti-heterosexism work and constituencies? What are the most empowering and strategic approaches to managing racial differences within the LGBT movement?
How can we be in proactive and effective coalition with groups whose identity and mission are substantively different than our own? Under what circumstances is coalition useful and worth pursuing? How does identity differentiation serve us?

Spirituality/Empowerment/Etc

What is the relationship between movement leadership and movement constituents? How do leaders empower constituents to become more articulate, empowered, activated?
How can the movement be better positioned to support those who are deeply isolated within church settings where sexuality is not being debated and public affinity groups are not politically expedient?
How can we nurture and support personal agency by individuals and groups who are marginalized in society and in our movements? How do we build trust, solidarity across lines of oppressive experience and power differentials?
How do we create healing contexts for the deep historic wounds of racism in our society and churches? How does our advocacy work relate to our work to educate and disciple and grow as individuals?
What are our motivations for doing justice work? How is anti-racism work related to white self-interest? How is interracial coalition related to self-interest of white people and of people of color? Is oppressive experience transferable?