Cultivate the public good

A response to the Diocese of Tulsa’s withdrawal from OCCJ

June 8 was not a good day for cultivating the public good in Tulsa. After the Oklahoma Center for Community and Justice (OCCJ) participated in the Tulsa Pride Parade, the Diocese of Tulsa withdrew from OCCJ membership.

The letter of withdrawal reads: 

“To march in such a parade seems to us to be a deliberate and full-throttled expression of support for the so-called gay agenda, a central component of which is same-sex marriage. Unless a clear statement can be made by OCCJ that its participation does not imply support for same-sex marriage or be seen to condone sexual acts outside of marriage, we have no option but to withdraw from membership.”

Really, there were no other options? Given the long history of Catholics walking together with other faith groups to oppose bias, bigotry and hatred in Oklahoma, and given that there is still plenty of bias, bigotry and hatred in Oklahoma to oppose, it seems there might have been a way to continue to walk together.

The lineage that produced OCCJ began with the National Conference of Christians and Jews, which was founded to combat anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic discrimination. NCCJ/OCCJ members have marched together for civil rights in Oklahoma for Catholics and Jews, Muslims and Christians, for the religious and non-religious—for all human beings. OCCJ has evolved into a human relations organization whose standards of liberty, compassion and justice draw people from multiple streams, religious and secular—a wider stream than the former NCCJ. Now, one of its founders has left the table.

The departure is particularly disappointing because the OCCJ board had deliberately refrained from making a statement on same-sex marriage. OCCJ and its members have been vocal (and sometimes
game-changing) when it comes to other prominent LGBTQ rights issues such as supporting anti-bullying and fair housing laws and opposing conversion therapies. But, after board-level and individual deliberations on the legal and moral bases of same-sex marriage, OCCJ decided not to make a statement about the issue.

The bishop’s decision to leave OCCJ begs an urgent and troubling question both for Americans generally and also for communities of faith. When we create tables for conversation and argument, must we agree on everything in order to stay? The answer would seem to be “no.” If it were otherwise, then every marriage would end in divorce. There are matters—some very important—in which I disagree with my parents, my wife, my children, my church, my colleagues, my school (even though I am the president!), my alma maters, my city, my state and my country. But I’m not divorcing any of them.

We have to agree on essentials, but what are they? It’s essential to agree that we share a mission we can’t accomplish alone. When we leave, we’re saying we don’t need each other to accomplish the mission. Our current toxic ecology of gridlock politics and turning opponents into enemies is feasting on this age of divorcing those with whom we disagree. Leaving the table dedicated to the public good weakens democracy—which, after all, is a “company of strangers” (to quote Parker Palmer) and a fellowship of conflicting interests. 

The recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage have left some religious people feeling threatened. The rulings make opportunities for dialogue even more essential for the public good. If we leave discussions we can’t control, for what kind of public good can we hope? Red and Blue America? Religious, spiritual, atheistic and I-could-not-care-less America? Horrible for the church. Just as terrible for democracy.

Opining as a Christian, I believe following Jesus should have a real, positive effect on cultivating good in the public realm—including the good of staying at the table to argue, to understand one’s opponents and to strive to stay together by focusing on work that cannot be done (or done as well) alone.

Do we as people of faith, as fellow citizens, need one another? The answer, in a practical sense, is not clear. But the decision to leave the table certainly implies the answer is “no.”

[Editor’s note: Gary Peluso-Verdend is an OCCJ board member and president and associate professor of practical theology at Phillips Theological Seminary. “Cultivate The Public Good” first appeared in Peluso-Verdend’s “Nurturing Leaders” blog series.  It is updated and reprinted with permission.  Read other blogs in the series at ptstulsa.edu.]

For more from Tulsa's faith leaders, check out Barry Friedman's interview with Rabbi Marc Boone Fitzerman and Beau Adams' Q&A with Rev. Tamara Lebak.