CLGS

LGBT people have been a significant presence on the American religious landscape for decades, yet the extent of their influence and impact on congregations, faith communities, denominational structures and seminaries has not been "mapped" in any systematic or comprehensive way. Similarly, LGBT theological projects (in academic institutions and faith communities) have been mostly episodic and reactive in response to attacks from the "religious right." Theologians and clergy rarely meet together to coordinate these projects or to engage in proactive, agenda-setting work to sustain the movement for LGBT social justice and civil rights.

The Mapping Conferences project of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry has been designed to address and bridge these gaps in the field of sexuality and religion, and to articulate a clearer agenda for moving forward in that field that can be shared among and utilized by scholars, activists and foundations.

Phase I of this project, a two-day conference at Emory University in Atlanta in February 2007, addressed the future of LGBT-theologies in Christian traditions and communities. Phase II of this project (projected for the summer of 2009 will broaden out the scope considerably to include inter-religious and multi-disciplinary approaches and will also include not only scholars but activists and foundation representatives.

Phase I: Executive Summary

CLGS is grateful for our funding and organizational partners who helped to make this first phase of the mapping conference project possible:

* The Gill Foundation
* The Human Rights Campaign
* Emory University
* Chicago Theological Seminary

Religion scholars and clergy in Christian traditions met at the Emory Conference Center in Atlanta, February 23-24, 2007, to discuss the current state of LGBT theologies and to articulate an agenda for future work (the full list of participants is included below). The agenda for this meeting itself was left relatively open and designed with broad parameters for the sake of open-ended conversation and without the pressure of meeting external demands for a particular kind of "product." To that end, the participants gathered in both plenary sessions and smaller working groups over the course of two days.

The smaller groups on the first day were organized generally by academic fields and disciplines or particular questions in those fields. The smaller groups on the second day were organized around "activities" or affinity groups for action steps.

Day One Working Groups:

* Theories of Gender, Sexuality, and Embodiment
* Scriptural Authority and Exegesis
* Diversity of Theological Sources and Voices
* Ethics and Social Justice
* Liturgies, Communities, and Spiritual Practices

These same groups met in the afternoon but the membership of each was intentionally mixed to encourage interdisciplinary conversation.

Day Two Working Groups:

* Writing and Publishing
* Seminary and Theological Education
* Research and Scholarship
* Preaching and Community Education
* Public Advocacy

General Summary of Findings

The group identified some key areas of ongoing concern and significant gaps that need to be addressed at the intersection of religion and sexuality with respect to Christian traditions and public discourse. Critical questions were raised, for example, concerning the links - or the absence of such links - between academic research/teaching and congregational ministry/community activism. It also became much clearer that ongoing theological research, writing and teaching needs to be much more intentionally informed by sociological studies, the "hard sciences," and political/economic analysis.

In addition to the substantive content issues that were identified and discussed, it was also significant simply to gather this group of scholars and clergy together in the same room. The perceived and sometimes real gap between the work of religion scholars and clergy (not to mention activists) requires further "bridging" and this meeting facilitated some important moments of connection between academic projects and congregational/community activity "on the ground" concerning LGBTQ communities and religion.

This was also significant for the scholars themselves as many of them had not met before or had met only briefly in the context of other professional society gatherings. Over the course of the two-day meeting, it became increasingly apparent that only cooperative and joint projects will be able to address the issues of critical concern that were identified. One of the results was a commitment to create similar occasions in the future for building networks and coalitions for furthering this important work.

A key aspect of this gathering was its diversity and sharing multiple perspectives even as critical areas of overlap emerged. As such, a general summary of findings from this meeting risks erasing some important differences. Nevertheless, several themes and commitments did seem to recur with some regularity, such as:

* Nearly all the participants agreed that doing this kind of theological work is essential, if not for immediate, short-term political gain then for long-term sustainability and thriving. While some participants preferred to think of "queer theory" as a tool for social analysis in that theological work, others seemed convinced that it can deal just as well with theological content; that difference is worth pursuing.
* Everyone also agreed that the complexity involved in imagining the future of LGBT-related theologies demands interdisciplinary work engaged in by networks and working groups rather than individual scholars.
* Participants returned regularly to the importance of developing a "counter imagination" in doing this kind of theological work and of recognizing the significant barriers (cultural, professional, and financial) in doing so.
* Serious theological gaps continue to emerge in making the critical connections among the full range of social, cultural, economic and political issues faced by the communities that the participants are seeking to serve.
* Given the pressures from the academic, publishing, and institutional church contexts in which this work is undertaken, those individuals, groups and organizations working on the future of LGBT theologies will require serious and sustained funding from a variety of sources.

Phase I Participants
James Alison, London
Marcella Althaus-Reid, Edinburgh University
Victor Anderson, Vanderbilt University
Randall Bailey, Interdenominational Theological
Michael Brown, Emory University
Wendy Farley, Emory University
Robert Goss, MCC in the Valley (CA)
Sharon Groves, HRC Foundation
Mary Hunt, WATER (DC)
Jay Johnson, CLGS / Pacific School of Religion
Mark Jordan, Emory University
Harry Knox, HRC Foundation
Kwok Pui-Lan, Episcopal Divinity School
Dale Martin, Yale University
James Mitulski, Regional Elder, MCC Region 2
Irene Monroe, Pine Manor College (MA)
André Musskopf, Escola Superior de Teologia (Brazil)
Penny Nixon, San Francisco
Eugene F. Rogers, Jr., UNC / Greensboro
Laurel Schneider, Chicago Theological Seminary
Ken Stone, Chicago Theological Seminary
Kathryn Tanner, University of Chicago
Holly Toensing, Xavier University
Mary Tolbert, CLGS / Pacific School of Religion
Mona West, Church of the Trinity MCC (FL)