• Some Bisexuals are Christian (and there’s lots of them)

    Bisexual

    Today is designated as Bisexual Visibility Day and it seems to me that it is about time that I said something about the B in LGBT that is so often silenced or invisible.

    Some Christians are bisexual. In fact rather a lot of Christians are bisexual. Rather a lot of people now describe themselves as bisexual and their experience is very often missing from discourses about sexuality and particularly missing from discourses about faith and sexuality.

    I must admit that there was a time when I’d never really considered bisexuality at all. It didn’t seem to speak to my experience (though more of this later) and had not really thought about it until I met and got to know someone on a retreat. Now, I’d signed up for this retreat on the grounds that it was a retreat for gay men. (There was a prominent gay author leading it and that had signified to me that this was what it was). And so I was puzzled when the person I met told me that he was getting married (in those days marriage could only mean between a man and a woman) just a few weeks after the retreat. “But how? But what? But why?” I can remember thinking. And indeed, I remember someone else muttering that the person in question didn’t know who he was at all. In fact the opposite was true. He knew exactly who he was and remains very articulate about being a settled bisexual person who happens to be married to someone who happens to be female. He just happens to be someone capable of falling in love with both men and women.

    The thing is – if you listen to what young people are telling us about the way they think about themselves, there’s a huge increase in the number of people identifying as bisexual. But what does that mean? Does it mean that young people are different to the way young people used to be? Is their behaviour different or is it their perceptions? And for those who see sexuality as being fixed and God given (and you do hear such things being said these days) what does it mean? And, you can hear the conservatives mutters, if everyone is really bisexual isn’t that a cue for a revival of the idea that being gay is a choice and that everyone should make straight choices in order to please God who prefers things that way just because he does?

    Let’s start with the recent statistics.

    A YouGov poll recently showed that nearly a quarter of people in the UK identify themselves as not being completely heterosexual and the figure is far higher if you restrict the survey to those who are between 18 and 24. Thus they found that of that age group, 52 % identified themselves as exclusively either straight or gay with 43% putting themselves on a continuum whereby they experience feelings for both men and women which might vary from the occasional notion whereby someone unexpected catches their eye, to the experience of actually having relationships with both men and women. If you are looking for the lost 5%, don’t forget that some people identify as asexual, some don’t identify as either one gender or another and some just won’t say.

    Now there is clearly a huge change since I was young. I’m not convinced that younger people are actually behaving that much differently to the way people behaved when I was younger but they are clearly feeling very differently about themselves.

    When I was speaking recently at Greenbelt, one of the questions at the end came from someone who seemed a bit puzzled by what I was saying and said simply, “But everyone I know is bi anyway?” He seemed to imply that coming out as gay (or indeed straight as I was trying to argue straight people need to do) was in fact a bit alien. It was one of the comments which really made me think.

    In my days of being 18 – 24 there was a strong narrative, supported by the churches, of young people who might end up identifying as gay being “confused about their sexuality”. It seems to me that this narrative is now diminishing and is being overtaken by the narrative that “very many more people are bisexual and what’s wrong with that?”

    I tend to identify as being a gay man even though I don’t particularly think sexuality is immutable and am far from certain that I’d ever say that it is God given. My loves and cares are certainly tied up in what I believe about God’s loves and cares but that is a far cry from believing that God made me gay. I hesitate these days in the face of the oft repeated argument that “God makes people gay and God doesn’t make mistakes”. I do accept that this is how it feels but I’m not prepared to say that it is ontologically true. And it is a useless argument if we then move on to talking about the T in LGBT, but that’s for another day.

    I do know that as the “everyone is really bisexual” way of thinking about things becomes more established there will be a resurgence in the “well you should make straight choices then” argument from conservatives. Faithful Christians who identify somewhere under the rainbow flag need to have arguments all ready for such conversations because I think they are coming our way.

    I have a different take on human sexuality to many people. I think looking at the different sexualities is like looking at the night sky. If we look at the stars for long enough we start to see shapes and we begin to recognise these shapes as they move across the night sky. Now, the stars themselves have been used by human beings for different things – some more legitimate than others. Sometimes we use the stars and the shapes they make to navigate around the world. It is a joy to recognise the pole star and know one is heading true north if one is driving home late at night from the south. The stars and what we make of them are useful and there’s all kinds of good science to be enjoyed in learning about the universe that we live in. We make the constellations in our minds though and people have used the constellations to make myths which have been rather less scientific and seen meaning where there’s no intrinsic meaning there. Orion or Cassiopeia only make sense to me from my perspective here on earth. The patterns would be lost from other places in the universe. The meanings that human beings have imputed into the shapes of the stars are only human attempts to give meaning to where we find ourselves in the universe. If we stood in a different place in the universe we would see different shapes and patterns.

    So it is with sexuality. The L, G, B, T, Straight, Asexual and other claimed constellations of sexuality may simply be our ways of trying to understand who we are in the universe that contains far more possibilities than we currently know. People in different times and in different places have understood human sexual activity radically differently which is why it is rather silly to think that the bible or any religious book contains the sum of all that should be known about human love.

    We are developing in the West a way of understanding sexuality that argues that legitimate relationships are those which cause no harm – or rather relationships are legitimate which are mutual, consensual and lead to the flourishing of both parties concerned. This is the basis of marriage in my church these days and it didn’t used to be.

    In that context, thinking of people as being essentially bisexual – filled with the potential to make either a male or female partner flourish makes complete sense and is completely legitimate. (And we need to fight off those who still mistake bisexuality for polyamory – the two are not the same).

    However, all of that depends on there being an understanding about self determination. It cannot be legitimate for one person to coerce another person into a sexual relationship that they don’t want. Neither, and here we have the argument against any conservatives wanting bisexuals to make straight choices, can it be legitimate to coerce someone into a sexual identity with which they don’t identify.

    So on this Bisexual Visibility Day, I’d say that in the future, expect to hear rather more about bisexuality than we’ve heard in the past. And look out for arguments about self-determination for LGBT people.

    That’s the territory we’re headed towards.

    Anyone wanting a badge like the one depicted above can buy one (or a pack of 10) via the St Mary’s website here:
    http://thecathedral.org.uk/store/products/some-bisexuals-are-christian-badge/

7 responses to “The BA Cross Story”

  1. Tim Avatar

    Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

    Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
    A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

    It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

  2. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

    It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

    When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

    Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

    Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

    Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

    All the very best,

    Clyde Lad

  4. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

    For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

  5. Ali Avatar
    Ali

    I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

    I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

  6. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    “A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

    I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

    This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

    But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

  7. Mysterious stranger Avatar
    Mysterious stranger

    I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

    Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Busy, Opinionated and Gobby

    Am spending time today gathering material and writing stuff for inspires, the printed magazine of the Scottish Episcopal Church. I’m the editor of the mag but for complicated reasons not to be gone in to here, I’m being a more hands-on editor this month than I have been hitherto and will be commissioning articles for…

  • All Hail Sir George Gilbert Scott

    All Hail Sir George Gilbert Scott who would have been 200 years old today had he lasted. Sir George was the architect of St Mary’s Cathedral and many other buildings including some of those at the University of Glasgow, the Albert Memorial in London, St Pancras Station and a couple of dozen other cathedrals and…

  • A Reputation for Romance

    From what I hear around the West End, St Mary’s has quite a reputation as being one of the best places to find true love. Particularly at Evensong. Who knew?