Ship of Fools: Are GLBTs more high church or low church?

Thread: Are GLBTs more high church or low church? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028524

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Just a question, do you think gays and lesbians are more high church, low church or broad church? I have heard of the argument that gay men tend to be disproportionately attracted to high church denominations (Catholicism and Anglicanism in particular). Of course this might be playing on tired old stereotypes of gay men being effeminate.

On the other hand, I have noticed at least in my own limited experience, that there is a sizable portion, at least of gay men, that is attracted to evangelical/charismatic type churches.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I think you might see more gay men and lesbians in churches that are welcoming. It then becomes a snowball effect.

If people grow up in a particular tradition, they will tend to seek out similar traditions - which becomes rather difficult when those traditions are one stop short of endorsing stoning. When we set up a specifically queer congregation, we had endless struggles between the various Christian traditions - my memories of trying to mediate between "true Bible believing" Baptists and Salvation Army ex-members and "so high we're losing oxygen" Anglicans.

I didn't notice any gender split, although I did notice the guys were happier with "whatever". The lesbians just wanted to win!

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

I know one gay white man who I can only describe as a high church charismatic. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Just a question, do you think gays and lesbians are more high church, low church or broad church?

Round here overwhelmingly high church. Not universally. but mostly.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Been thinking about my own circle.

1 Methodist (woman) partner to an Anglican

3 almost fundy ex-Baptists, who bemoan the lack of decent preaching in any other church (2 women, 1 man)

4 low church Catholics more interested in social justice issues than liturgy (2 women, 2 men)

4 fairly high Anglicans (there isn't really a nosebleed high church in my city) (1 woman, 3 men)

6 Presbyterians (five women, 1 man) - this may reflect the welcoming nature of the particular parish, but the man and two of the women are cradle Presbyterians, and the man's partner is one of the Anglicans.

Don't know that you can tell anything from that spread. In our queer congregation we had more Catholics than any other denom, but they were all at the low end.

However, when I lived in another city, there was a large contingent of gay men congregated at the Cathedral. They formed a nasty little misogynist clique that eventually made me so angry I left church altogether for a couple of years. If they had been lesbians, I would have called them separatist.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

High church or central church with strong liberal leanings. There's not much understanding in the evangelical churches round here, perhaps because it's a rural area. So any GLBTs would either feel unwelcome or keep vewwy vewwy quiet.

Give 'em a few years, though, and these churches will probably come round like they did with divorce and remarriage. Nobody can afford to turn anyone away these days.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

In my experience they tend to be 'high' because:

anglo-catholics tend to like fun and aren't too censorious

some like all the dressing up

some have found the sacrament of penance helpful

and because those who've gone to evangelical churches have often left the church altogether as a result of homophobia

This is all, of course, a wild generalisation.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
anglo-catholics tend to like fun and aren't too censorious

but God help you if you bow when you should twirl [Biased]

I know not all gays are camp, but perhaps it's easier for those who are to hide in the anglo-catholic camped-up environment.
In some churches, they'd stick out like a sore thumb. And therefore get picked on or feel isolated.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

In one of the gay couples I know, one is higher and the other lower by temperament, but the one who is lower has I believe had more problems being accepted in churches.

Carys

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

I have heard this said before and I do know a fair few Gay men who are so high church Anglican they should relly take oxygen cylinders to church.
Personally I am a Methodist (though comparatively high I guess) and part of a Gay and Lesbian network in the NZ Methodist church.
As to why Gay men and Anglo-Catholicism / Roman Catholicism for some there is the sense of theatre perhaps. Certainly there are all male groups which may be comfortable.
I would be interested in the experiences of Lesbian women from High Church backgrounds; especially where there has been resistance to the ministry of women. I have a hunch some of the nonconformist churches which had women preachers quite early on and then developed deaconess roles in which women exercised ministry, often pretty autonomously, may have been more congenial for Lesbian women.
As to why a GLBT Christian might be drawn to a church with a developed sense of ritual and symbolism well I think ritual and symbol provides a more open and nuanced language. Though I know Evangelical Gay people they often feel they are there on sufferance and are 'preached to.' That being said they also value the closeness and warmth of congregational life.
The short answer is we are all different, nuanced and complex. For me I value the social justice emphasis of my tradition, its informality and the quality of relationships in the church and the freedom to be creative in worship. I imagine I would feel this way if I were straight.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I wonder if it is just a case of gay men who are formerly Roman Catholic who convert to Anglicanism bringing their Catholic sensibilities with them.

I know quite a few gay men who were former Roman Catholics who converted to Anglicanism.

To be honest, when I converted to Anglicanism in 2001, the best reason I could think of as to why was that it was Catholicism without the nasty homophobia. I suppose if Catholicism was more welcoming, I would consider converting to Rome.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I started out high Anglican, and stayed there until around 30. I think I've said somewhere else on the boards that the basic problem was with me being female. Lesbian was icing on the cake.

I encountered huge sexism, and the occasion that finally made me leave was the visit of Phyllis Trible to our church. She preached an absolutely cracker sermon on her expert field - Job. But out in the vestry (I was serving that day) I heard nothing but rude, nasty remarks about her - nothing to do with her writing or scholarship, just that she was a woman. She wasn't invited to process with the clergy, she wasn't invited to pray with us beforehand, and she wasn't given thanks or a welcome.

I tried a couple of other parishes, but without any better result, and eventually moved to being Presbyterian when I got together with my beloved, who is an elder. Having been a cradle Anglican it was a long slow haul to adjust.

I am a theatrical person, but it has nothing to do with being a lesbian! It has to do with growing up on a solid tradition of incense and bells.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

I am a former Roman Cathoic who is now a Methodist. The increasing hard line did for me really and I think the final nail in the coffin was going to Mass on the Feast of the Holy Family where the priest lauded all the married couples present and asked them to join him in the Sanctuary while he presided. As an aside he said we should not despise homosexuals as they are sad creaures in need of our pity.
After that I left and found myself in a sort of denominational limbo. I ended up joining a Methodist congregation after seeing an ad by them in a local GLBT newsletter.
I was ordained as a presbyter a month ago after serving my probationary ministry period.
No doubt I bring some Catholicism with me; as one of my congregants said to me a while back "your Catholic roots show, but you are a good preacher." (I hope the two aren't mutually exclusive!)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I started out high Anglican, and stayed there until around 30. I think I've said somewhere else on the boards that the basic problem was with me being female. Lesbian was icing on the cake.

I encountered huge sexism, and the occasion that finally made me leave was the visit of Phyllis Trible to our church. She preached an absolutely cracker sermon on her expert field - Job. But out in the vestry (I was serving that day) I heard nothing but rude, nasty remarks about her - nothing to do with her writing or scholarship, just that she was a woman. She wasn't invited to process with the clergy, she wasn't invited to pray with us beforehand, and she wasn't given thanks or a welcome.

I tried a couple of other parishes, but without any better result, and eventually moved to being Presbyterian when I got together with my beloved, who is an elder. Having been a cradle Anglican it was a long slow haul to adjust.

I am a theatrical person, but it has nothing to do with being a lesbian! It has to do with growing up on a solid tradition of incense and bells.

I could give other examples similar to the reception of Trible, who is an excellent writer and speaker.

Anglo-catholicism has a two-faced attitude to LGBTs. The more conservative churches don't mind LGBTs who are penitent or, at least, not too 'noisy' They can't cope with out gays so much - indeed many of the clergy are closet cases (suffering from internalised homophibia and also likely to be misogynist) and greatly fear those who are out.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

When I lived in Dallas the two largest gay churches were low church.

The Cathedral of Hope which has about 3,500 members is now part of the UCC. They are lightly liturgical and have weekly communion, but tend to have more praise music that traditional hymns.

Even more low-church and far more conservative was the 2,000 member White Rock Community Church. They had a very low Protestant service and believe in Biblical infallibility.

Also when looked in the Religious Organizations section of the Dallas gay directory there were numerous small evangelical and Pentecostal house churches.

But many people there are ex-Southern Baptist, etc. refugees.

Here in NYC, the Episcopal Church is of the Af. Cath. variety and most mainline denominations and even the Catholic Church have loads of gay friendly congregations. So here I would expect us to be more high church.

(My parish is nosebleed high and I am still adjusting to it.)

[ 21. December 2009, 16:51: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I started out high Anglican, and stayed there until around 30. I think I've said somewhere else on the boards that the basic problem was with me being female. Lesbian was icing on the cake.

I encountered huge sexism, and the occasion that finally made me leave was the visit of Phyllis Trible to our church. She preached an absolutely cracker sermon on her expert field - Job. But out in the vestry (I was serving that day) I heard nothing but rude, nasty remarks about her - nothing to do with her writing or scholarship, just that she was a woman. She wasn't invited to process with the clergy, she wasn't invited to pray with us beforehand, and she wasn't given thanks or a welcome.

I tried a couple of other parishes, but without any better result, and eventually moved to being Presbyterian when I got together with my beloved, who is an elder. Having been a cradle Anglican it was a long slow haul to adjust.

I am a theatrical person, but it has nothing to do with being a lesbian! It has to do with growing up on a solid tradition of incense and bells.
I could give other examples similar to the reception of Trible, who is an excellent writer and speaker.

Anglo-catholicism has a two-faced attitude to LGBTs. The more conservative churches don't mind LGBTs who are penitent or, at least, not too 'noisy' They can't cope with out gays so much - indeed many of the clergy are closet cases (suffering from internalised homophibia and also likely to be misogynist) and greatly fear those who are out.

I have heard of that criticism of Anglo-catholicism, that while it has a disproportionate number of gay men as adherents, it hasn't been historically at the forefront of actively campaigning for gay rights in the Church.

One of my friends wrote plainly that it is a rich irony listening to many conservative Anglo-catholics rant about the evils of homosexuality, while probably a substantive number of them are gay themselves.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I have had gay and lesbian friends in the past who were quite happy to draw on my support privately but would completely cut me dead in public in case someone from church saw them with me.

Actually, now I think of it, they weren't Anglicans - one is Presbyterian, the other is Salvation Army. But at the Anglican church I mentioned it was certainly "don't ask, don't tell" and let's all be extremely fabulous because no one will notice. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by chiltern_hundred (# 13659) on :

When I became an Anglican (by confirmation as an adult) I was quite consciously becoming "High Church" and at the time swore blind to myself that I would have nothing to do with evangelicals ever again.

Among the elements that drew me in were:

- the sacrament of penance;

- monks and nuns (what a contrast to evo churches in which you had to be married - preferably with children - to demonstrate that you were a Real Christian);

- clergy and laity who faced the same issues as I did and had come to different answers while respecting those they disagreed with;

in short, the realisation (contrary to what I had been led to believe) that I was not predestined to be damned and that God really did love me after all.

Posted by Rosary (# 11914) on :

Anglican Catholicism is full of course of Flaming Queers, take it from me. Apart from this I have a gay colleague (semi-boss, actually) who's an atheist but likes going to church. Any church will suit, it seems, but he doesn't get very high.

Considering the gay poets (always a good idea...): G. M. Hopkins: Anglo-Cat, converted to Rome; Auden: in his own words, "Liturgically, Anglo-Catholic, but hopefully not too spiky"; Wilfred Owen: brought up evo Anglican, gave up Christianity after crisis of faith, but retained some religious feeling, and appears to have had a slight aesthetic attraction to RCism; Charlotte Mew: may well have been lesbian though there's no proof positive, and though describing herself as "a poor infidel" was drawn to Christianity, specially the RC variety. Of course the RCism I am referring to was in all cases pre-Vatican II.

Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :

The TEC with is pluralism and pansexualism has recently supported the use of tax payers money to abortion services.
For many poncing up and down in vestments and tradition is an example of lips praising God but hearts far from God.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So not only do you know 'what the bible says', you also know the secrets of men's hearts?

I thought that was the prerogative of Almighty God.

Posted by urbanbumpkin (# 13505) on :

quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
The TEC with is pluralism and pansexualism has recently supported the use of tax payers money to abortion services.
For many poncing up and down in vestments and tradition is an example of lips praising God but hearts far from God.

For many doing WHAT?

I have a feeling this may not mean much to you, but I think it's very unlikely I'd be a Christian if it weren't for my godfather - a gay, high church priest. Is there anyway at all you could think before being quite so painfully derogatory, especially outside of hell?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Well, tax payer money already goes for abortion services in the U.S. If you have Medicaid, you can get one for any reason in about 20 states (which include the most populous states like CA, NY, IL, MA, etc.).

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=10&ind=458

The TEC has always called abortion a serious procedure and a tragedy but has always opposed using legal means to stop it. It's a decision between a woman and her doctor with support from her community.

quote:
All human life is sacred from its inception until death. The Church takes seriously its obligation to help form the consciences of its members concerning this sacredness. Human life, therefore, should be initiated only advisedly and in full accord with this understanding of the power to conceive and give birth which is bestowed by God. It is the responsibility of our congregations to assist their members in becoming informed concerning the spiritual and physiological aspects of sex and sexuality.

The Book of Common Prayer affirms that "the birth of a child is a joyous and solemn occasion in the life of a family. It is also an occasion for rejoicing in the Christian community" (p. 440). As Christians we also affirm responsible family planning.

We regard all abortion as having a tragic dimension, calling for the concern and compassion of all the Christian community.

While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations. We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience.

In those cases where an abortion is being considered, members of this Church are urged to seek the dictates of their conscience in prayer, to seek the advice and counsel of members of the Christian community and where appropriate, the sacramental life of this Church.

Whenever members of this Church are consulted with regard to a problem pregnancy, they are to explore, with grave seriousness, with the person or persons seeking advice and counsel, as alternatives to abortion, other positive courses of action, including, but not limited to, the following possibilities: the parents raising the child; another family member raising the child; making the child available for adoption.

It is the responsibility of members of this Church, especially the clergy, to become aware of local agencies and resources which will assist those faced with problem pregnancies.

We believe that legislation concerning abortions will not address the root of the problem. We therefore express our deep conviction that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding abortions must take special care to see that the individual conscience is respected, and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is acknowledged and honored as the position of this Church

1994 General Convention position on Abortion

It's one I agree with. We should be focusing our efforts, time and talent in preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I think it has to do with the accepting nature of the destination churches. TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada seem to do a good trade in ex-Roman Catholics who want the liturgy and sacramental theology but not the anti-gay stuff.

OTOH Anglican_Brat, I'm surprised how you didn't notice your own backyard. The UCCan ordains LGBT people, in fact we've ordained every single letter. I think there is a transgendered minister in Ottawa.

We tend to attract people who who come from the more fundamentalist Protestant churches like the Pentecostals. If you're gay and still want your hymn sandwich, you'll love our style.

Then again, the UCCan is a bit exceptional in that we're Hymn Sandwich Protestant, are large and mainline but are liberal and have a clear doctrine and practice on LGBT issues.

Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :

To leo,

quote:
So not only do you know 'what the bible says', you also know the secrets of men's hearts?

I thought that was the prerogative of Almighty God.

No I was referring once again to what God says, Jesus said those who love Him do what He teaches, I can see what He teaches and what men do, the motive of their hearts I cannot judge nor them I can only judge what God says is right and worship and what God says isnt right and isnt worship.

What about you? Do you accpet that whatever anyone does that they cliam is of God is of God?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So you know what God says?

I happen to be against abortion except for extreme circumstances and the TEC has some very nuanced teaching and sensitive liturgies for abortion - a far cry from your accusation of bishops 'poncing around' which is as offensive as it is inaccurate.

Posted by brightmorningstar (# 15354) on :

To leo,
Well I know what God has said in His word the Bible, dont you?

I think the Bible shows us that the creation of life is in the womb so to support abortion is a major injustice the church should be speaking and advising against, in love of course.

I think Mother Teresa summed it up best.

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself."

"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

By the way I think its utterly offenive to God for a church to support abortion, so all square. [Smile]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To leo,
Well I know what God has said in His word the Bible, dont you?

I think the Bible shows us that the creation of life is in the womb so to support abortion is a major injustice the church should be speaking and advising against, in love of course.

I think Mother Teresa summed it up best.

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself."

"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

By the way I think its utterly offenive to God for a church to support abortion, so all square.

Wow - I largely agree with you on this one, though I wouldn't word it like you do.

However, you accused the TEC of being pro-abortion. This is not true. They do, however, offer pastoral help to those who have had abortions - just as I have done when working in a hospital chaplaincy.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Also, the moral question of whether abortion is right or wrong is a very different thing from the pragmatic question of whether it should be legal. I do not think that abortion is right*, but I am fairly well convinced that outlawing it is not an effective way of reducing the number of abortions that happen. I also think it's hard for followers of one religion to impose their moral standards on the rest of society, and in that case I believe that women who choose to have abortions should have them done in the safest way possible. That means having the procedure in hospital, not some unregulated back-street clinic.

So, in summary, the question of abortion is much deeper and more nuanced than simply "is it right?"

* Except perhaps in a very small number of extreme cases, and where the mother's life is sig

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

hosting

We already have two open threads on abortion:the recent Pro-life activists Drop Pretense, Endorse Murder and the big general thread on abortion which has been running for years: Cleft lip and palate a good reason? (Abortion) (a good place for new people to get a sense of the diversity of opinion on the board by reading some of the older posts).

So please either take this discussion to one of those, if you want to discuss abortion/ pro-life activism in general, or start a new thread if you want to specifically discuss TEC and abortion. Please do not continue the abortion tangent on this thread as it is derailing it from its topic.

Thank you all!
Louise

hosting off

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Back to the topic: One (allegedly gay) bishop, asked whether he was high church or low church, said he was 'short church'.

He didn't allow services in his diocese to last longer than an hour.

Sensible bloke.

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

I think that it is fairly obvious that, in very Roman Catholic Ireland, leprechauns are very often gay.
Two of the clues they give to other gays to identify themselves are their love of rainbows, and their well-known expression, "Faith and Gomorrah!"
You could probably also add those short green pants with button flaps that drop open quickly - front and back.

[eta: Also their habit of sucking on pipes in public places]

[ 31. December 2009, 17:29: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

I've met plenty of gays at the liberalish end of non-conformity. On balance the URC is the most uniformly gay-friendly tradition in the UK (much more so than Anglo-Catholicism) and they're not exactly high church. The Metropolitan Community Church seems to be pretty low church too. And of course some gay Christians are pretty evangelical in the rest of their worship and theology...I used to know one actively gay Christians who was comfortably to the right of just about everyone in the Baptist church he went to. If the whole church ever comes round on the issue LGBTs will probably spread out pretty evenly across the church.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

PS I didn't realise how widespread the stereotype of the gay Anglo-Catholic is in the UK until it cropped up in Bridget Jones' Diary.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

Moving between camps (no pun intended) in the Church of England as I do, I have met a great number of same sex orientated (open) evangelical (charismatic) people. Some single. Some partnered. Some celibate. Or a combination.

At an evangelical discusion day some years back when the subject came up a number of people on the the table said there were same sex orientated members of their congregations.

But in general such folks keep their heads down.

As others have noted, plenty of camp anglo-catholics would deny same sex orientation, and others are no more so orientated than Eddie Izzard. Just as I know plenty of 'boyish', even 'blokey' women who find their primary emotional attachment is to the opposite sex.

However the sacramental traditions seem to be more open to celibacy, singleness, companionship, community, and the idea that what we do with our bits is not the ultimate moral issue.

Indeed it is not so long ago that recreational non-pro-creative sex was viewed in such a way.

Which is probably why when anglo-catholicism adopted the protestant view of 'sex for fun being okay' that it spread beyond strict understandings of nuclear family marriage.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

Admittedly I haven't read the whole thread yet - but in seeing if we can spot patterns in where LGBT generally sit on the high-to-low church spectrum, has anyone asked if the relationship status is a factor? In other words, do the single people, and those who are paired off, tend to belong to the same tradition?

Of course, I don't like the thought that a single person might feel that they have to jump church just because they've entered into a relationship - but it happens, and sometimes for purely practical reasons. But my point is, those who profess to be gay, but who are nevertheless single, might not be seen as being fully gay by those of a more conservative persuasion, and may therefore find that they are more tolerated. But I don't know. I'm hypothesizing.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

My experience would suggest that if you're out to everyone it makes no difference. A celibate lesbian friend of mine was given just as much crap as I was (I'm in a relationship). This appeared to be on the basis that she might at some stage get into a relationship.

On the other hand, if you're not out, I guess it could make all the difference.

[ 24. January 2010, 18:38: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]

Posted by beachpsalms (# 4979) on :

This whole question bugs the hell out of me, to be honest. It seems framed by the assumption that LGBT = White Gay Male Anglican, which is patently untrue.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Somehow the concept of being Low and Liberal never seems to get much air here on the Ship. But that's exactly what beachpsalms and my tradition is.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In my experience they tend to be 'high' because:

anglo-catholics tend to like fun and aren't too censorious

some like all the dressing up

some have found the sacrament of penance helpful

and because those who've gone to evangelical churches have often left the church altogether as a result of homophobia

This is all, of course, a wild generalisation.

Other reasons include the fact that Anglo-Catholic parishes from the 1840s onward reached out especially to the oppressed and the underdog, and were duly oppressed themselves by the powers-that-be in consequence.

Prim Protestants were so outraged, that I daresay if one wished to be an effective Anglo-Catholic proselyte or missionary, it certainly helped if one rather enjoyed being outrageous.

As Kenneth Leech wrote, Anglo-Catholicism is "a rebel tradition."

Also, rich liturgical worship is an expression of incarnational theology, which accepts the physical generally-- as opposed to Manichaeism and gnosticism, which encourage sex-negativism.

There are many interesting further speculations (although even a sympathetic reader might not agree with all of them) in Boston Bohemians by Douglass-Shand-Tucci.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

This is an interesting thread but I can only contribute some anectodological survey figures to the discussion. One RC lesbian is now in a Pesbyterian Church of Canada choir (spits on the ground in fury when a nun is sighted), two other lesbians are Unitarian having found refuge there when they came out at UU camps about 15 years ago (same year, on different sides of the country), one transgendered ftm who is a happy acolyte at a small spikey temple in Toronto, about a half dozen medium-high (smoke, BVM & BCP) male gays of all origins, two gay rosary rattling RCs (Benedictine retreats, Thomas Merton Society, ad orientem), two lesbian Antiochian Orthodox (one convert, the other Lebanese Canadian), and a gay ROCOR convert from Anglicanism. There seems to be an inclination to small congregations with close attention to the liturgy, but that may be coincidental-- a friend suggests that this is how one can establish a safe space for oneself.

I know of two closeted gays at local franchises of the Anglican Network in Canada, but I am not supposed to know about their proclivities-- one of them met me at a lavender-bowered Tory BBQ and intensely requested that I keep his identity to myself. While I know that several of the local UCC congos are well-populated by LGTBs, I don't know any personally.

Several of my lesbian friends are ex-evans, and very much on purpose. Most will pay no heed to the possible relevance (as in vehemently reject)of Christianity to themselves on account of difficulties they experienced at their churches in their youth.

I hear positive and sometimes moving comments about clerical behaviour when it matters-- clergy will speak to furious parents (e.g., a certain Orthodox bishop travelling 400km to intervene with family), carefully ensure that partners are involved at times of illness and last rites, and are honoured mourners at funerals. One friend, talking with me after his partner's requiem, said that this was the only blessing that mattered to him.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Somehow the concept of being Low and Liberal never seems to get much air here on the Ship.

Yep, and I really have no idea why. The low church URC is by far the most consistently liberal denomination here in the UK and Methodism is likewise to left of Anglicanism on the whole. Outside England (yes there is life outside the C of E's bailiwick [Biased]

) a fair number of Welsh non-conformist and Scots Presbyterian churches are comfortably to the left of the average Anglicans. In fact the C of E is arguably the second most conservative of the main English/British Protestant denominations after the Baptist Union, and I can think of plenty of Anglicans solidly to the right of anyone in the BU. And IME 80% of Anglicans under 40 are evangelicals, so the C of E can only move to the right longterm. I really wish we could lay the myth that Anglicanism has some sort of monopoly on openess and tolerance to rest.

[ 06. February 2010, 12:16: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
[QUOTE] I really wish we could lay the myth that Anglicanism has some sort of monopoly on openess and tolerance to rest.

Or give it some substance (not that I actually think it would be good for it to have a monopoly, but you know what i mean).
Of course, 'left' doesn't always mean (all types of) liberal, does it? As you say there are quite a lot of rather lefty Welsh nonconformists- lefty in a sort of pacifist/ anti-war, internationalist, anti-social hierarchies sort of way- but I wouldn't necessarily assume that this means that thye are liberal in terms of things like sexuality.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
And IME 80% of Anglicans under 40 are evangelicals, so the C of E can only move to the right longterm. I really wish we could lay the myth that Anglicanism has some sort of monopoly on openess and tolerance to rest.

I wish we could lay to rest the imported myth that evangelicals are "right wing" and theological liberals "left wing".

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
[QUOTE] I really wish we could lay the myth that Anglicanism has some sort of monopoly on openess and tolerance to rest.
Or give it some substance (not that I actually think it would be good for it to have a monopoly, but you know what i mean).
Of course, 'left' doesn't always mean (all types of) liberal, does it? As you say there are quite a lot of rather lefty Welsh nonconformists- lefty in a sort of pacifist/ anti-war, internationalist, anti-social hierarchies sort of way- but I wouldn't necessarily assume that this means that thye are liberal in terms of things like sexuality.

TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada were among the last mainline churches to ordain women and several large denominations (including mine) have already had the "Great Debate" on sexuality. There are plenty of more liberal churches than the Anglican ones in North America.

The UCCan is lefty on both counts, but we're also most emphatically a bottom-up organization. The kind of diocese-specific styles seen in Anglicanism are almost impossible in our polity.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Oh dear...I was using 'left' and 'right' in the sense of liberal or traditionalist within the church, not in terms of politics. I'm not daft enough to think that all evangelicals are politically right-wing or whatever

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Somehow the concept of being Low and Liberal never seems to get much air here on the Ship. But that's exactly what beachpsalms and my tradition is.

They used to knock around like Laurel and Hardy in the Episcopal Church.

PD

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Oh dear...I was using 'left' and 'right' in the sense of liberal or traditionalist within the church, not in terms of politics.

Well, don't then! [Razz]

Its also confusing in that it is commonin church history to talk about the more extreme Protestants in the 16th and 17th century as "the left wing of the Reformation". But of course their theological positions would count as extreme conservative.

So somewhere between about 1688 and 1988 "left" and "right" flip over and the teachings that were once "left" now become "right" and... well, its confusing!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its also confusing in that it is commonin church history to talk about the more extreme Protestants in the 16th and 17th century as "the left wing of the Reformation". But of course their theological positions would count as extreme conservative.

The Anabaptists could be just about anywhere on the theological spectrum I would think.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

The churchmanship of the average gay person will vary from place to place and time to time for reasons already mentioned. However, I predict a continuing tendency towards high churchmanship because of the incarnational theology behind it. If gay people are at odds with society at large, it is because of physical acts that they perform or want to perform. Any hint of Manicheanism in the latter will exacerbate and prolong this repression.

This is part of why I've always felt that when it comes to homophobia, the bark of Roman Catholics is usually worse than their bite. Despite the way that that some in the heirarchy have opportunistically turned up the volume in the past decade or two, a recent poll shows that American Roman Catholic laity are more accepting of gay people, and recognition of gay partnerships, than the average American. Their own marriages are also happier. Because of the incarnational theology that has always informed their tradition, these findings do not surprise me.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Here in outstate (i.e, north of the Detroit-Grand Rapids line) Michigan, one would be hard-pressed to find a "low" gay-friendly church...at least in my perception as a lesbian.

Locally, I know that LGBT people are welcome in our local ELCA, UCC and Episcopal congregations and the local Presbyterian congregation. We also have a tiny MCC church in the closest "big city," about a half-hour drive, and a tiny Quaker community in the nearest university town that's also LGBT-friendly.

The only really low gay-friendly churches in our state seem to be a couple of Baptist and Pentecostal congregations in metro areas like Detroit. I can also think of a Reformed congregation in a resort town outside Grand Rapids -- I'm sure it was RCA, not CRC -- that got kicked out of its denomination several years ago when the congregation voted to become open and affirming.

I can't speak for my gay brothers around here, but the perception among lesbians we know is that all the local churches hate and fear them. (DP and I try to explain to our friends that this isn't so, but there's still a lot of anxiety about even visiting a church on a given Sunday -- as if the Gay Police are waiting at the door to intercept them. And for all I know that may be true at some of the more conservative shacks in the area.)

I think the general conservative mentality in the community contributes in large part to the assumption that every church is going to reflect that.

I think, though, that there's less a correlation between the highness/lowness factor of a church's worship and its appeal to gay folk than the church's manner of engaging Scripture. And at least in this country, contextual/nuanced reading of Scripture tends to happen in liturgical and "broad" churches.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

I am quite surprised to see Lutheranchik describe
the UCC and a Presbyterian church as 'high'. In comparison at least to the Episcopals and Lutherans, I would have classed them as 'low' - even High Presbyterian probably still seems low to the Episcopals.

If I am reading her correctly, Lutheranchik seems to mean by 'low church' those churches which are more loosely-structured, informal, high-energy and 'contemporary' in their approach to worship.

I am wondering therefore if there is a pond difference re. what we mean by 'low church' in particular. In my church (mainstream Presbyterian), 'low church' doesn't mean 'contemporary' or loosely-structured; it means a style of worship that does not use a set liturgy, prefers lectio continua to the Lectionary, tends to avoid responses, and works at keeping ritual simple and minimalistic. Such churches can be formal or informal.

So comparing two low churches that I have attended in my time: The first was very informal: praise band, words projected on a screen, lots of interaction between minister and congregation (though no responses!), plenty participation from lay people. The second church would have been horrified by the like! It used traditional hymnbooks, classical organ music, had a choir (though not a robe in sight, and no processing!), and the congregation wouldn't even reply to the minister's 'Good morning'.

So their two styles were utterly contrasting - but both were low church. Theologically, both were what I might call moderate evangelical. And both had a few LGBT members. While technicallly the churches were probably supposed to disapprove, it wasn't something they felt a need to make a fuss about most of the time. I guess they avoided the issue, which is far from ideal, but there were certainly no denunciations from the pulpit, nor any party-line that I ever heard.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Cottontail: I wasn't describing our Reformed friends as "high"; "broad," for a lack of a better term. At least in my part of the world Presbyterians and Congregationalists still have a liturgical shape to their worship.

Interestingly, United Methodists around here are almost indistinguishable from local Baptists in terms of their worship and general pov. I've been very surprised to attend Methodist religious services around here and not experience worship as described by Methodist friends elsewhere in the world. The local Methodist churches also don't reflect the moderate/progressive point of view that many people would associate with Methodism in general.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Cottontail: I wasn't describing our Reformed friends as "high"; "broad," for a lack of a better term. At least in my part of the world Presbyterians and Congregationalists still have a liturgical shape to their worship.

Thanks, Lutheranchik. I was thinking that you were working within the categories proposed by the OP, but now I read you again, I see you weren't quite doing that.

In fact, from what you have observed, maybe it isn't so much about being 'high' or 'low', as about having a kind of rootedness in a well-established tradition. I suppose that means that individual churches have a stability which makes them less likely to swing to one extreme or another. And maybe it also means that they have an experience of theological and liturgical breadth which means that not everyone in a single congregation has to agree, let alone every church throughout the denomination. They are simply more used to living with difference than would be an individual gathered congregation with a single powerful leader setting the agenda.

It distresses me greatly that such broad and mainstream churches have recently become so factionalised over their inclusion or otherwise of LGBT people. Our breadth was our strength, and I fear that we are losing it.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I think also coming from that "high" or "broad" or small-c catholic branch of Christendom is an experience of/awareness of Church history that gives us a greater perspective of how people through the ages have engaged Scripture. In other words, we understand the process of people in community wrestling with Scripture; we acknowledge that this is in fact how it's always been, first in Jewish and then in Christian history, pious wishes to the contrary; and we have room in our theology for the notion that "God is still speaking" when it comes to how we apply Scripture to current social issues.

On one hand, IMHO in more authoritarian churches there's less room for debate/discussion, more pressure to get behind the party line both in terms of doctrine/practice and in terms of understanding Church history. On the other hand, in Christian communities that have effectively cut themselves off, through ignorance and/or design, from the larger history of Christian thought -- there's no room for debate/discussion either, since their perception seems to be that they are some sort of righteous remnant of a "pure," conservative Christianity that somehow bypassed the rest of Christendom. And since that belief seems to go hand-in-hand with a literalist, "plain meaning" understanding of Scripture -- at least "plain meaning" according to the head kahunas of all these little groups and churches -- well, discussion/debate about that is tanatmount to arguing with God, and we can't have that.;-) (And so the ends of the circle meet!)

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I can also think of a Reformed congregation in a resort town outside Grand Rapids -- I'm sure it was RCA, not CRC -- that got kicked out of its denomination several years ago when the congregation voted to become open and affirming.

First CRC of Toronto (I'm not sure if we have RCA up here - certainly CRC is far and away the largest of the "continental" Reformed bodies) was the first CRC to call a woman minister, and later got into hot water with the Toronto classis for resolving to provide for the ordination of qualified monogamous gay members as deacons or elders, but not ministers. This had to be withdrawn in order to evade denominational repercussions.

[ 08. April 2011, 04:59: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

(NB that their welcome statement nevertheless remains very much intact with respect to pewfolk).

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

I'm involved with the gay christian network which is represented in the majority, I think, of Christians who harken from the more conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist contexts. Lots of ex Southern Baptists, AoG, classical and classical pentecostal denominations. Lots of overlap in membership between GCN and Evangelicals Concerned (both flavors), TEN and pentecostal fraternities though the demographics of GCN folk tend to be younger.

There are some who affiliate with more liturgical traditions but are in the minority, I think.

I spent most of my adult live in "low church" contexts, no liturgy, strongly evo, contemporary worship and so forth. However, once I came out (late in life - 47), I found myself drawn to more liturgical worship.

Like Matariki, I belong to an affirming Methodist congregation -- the original reconciling congregation in Houston. It's fairly high church (use of the lectionary, robes, bells, no smells, eucharist every service, etc.). I found the CoE services I attended in the UK quite similar and felt very much at home there.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
On one hand, IMHO in more authoritarian churches there's less room for debate/discussion, more pressure to get behind the party line both in terms of doctrine/practice and in terms of understanding Church history.

I know I've argued this before, but I think plenty of churches of all flavours are intolerant of dissent or of questioning regarding core issues. There are plenty of theologically liberal churches here in the UK where someone who was (for example) conservative on LGBT issues, spectical regarding climate change, willing to stick up for certain 'conservative' views on the atonement or scripture or an active Conservative would be as welcome as Elton John at a Southern Baptist Convention. There are people in all sections of the church who just can't accept alternative ways of being Christian as valid.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

After having watched the efforts of evangelicals over the past 30 years to attempt to take over the U.S. government and put their explicitly anti-gay agenda into action - and after spending a good part of those 30 years arguing with them over homosexuality both online and IRL, I was totally turned off and would never have considered going "low-church" when I joined the church (only about 7 years ago).

I must admit, though, that I went to Quaker meeting for awhile, and to a liberal low church (which are very, very thin on the ground around here - maybe everywhere?) at first. But I hand't discovered "High Church" at that point.

However, the newer generation of evangelicals has changed, somewhat, on the topic, and I do find some aspects of their theology attractive. I also find that some "High-Church" proponents really are more interested in form than in substance - by no means all, but some.

So at this point, I actually have no particular prejudice in favor of one over the other, I'm surprised to find myself saying. I can find value in both things - and am more interested in what's actually being taught in a church than in the form of its worship.

I'd say I still lean a bit towards the "high," though. I'm thinking I'd really like "High Church" - smells, bells, and monotone singing (not necessarily Gregorian!) - along with occasional dancing in the aisles.

Well, good luck to me....

[Razz]

(And I'm in total agreement with Alogon about "incarnational theology." That's a must-have, for me - along with heavy emphasis on Grace. I'm pretty mixed up at this point, obviously....)

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
On one hand, IMHO in more authoritarian churches there's less room for debate/discussion, more pressure to get behind the party line both in terms of doctrine/practice and in terms of understanding Church history.
I know I've argued this before, but I think plenty of churches of all flavours are intolerant of dissent or of questioning regarding core issues. There are plenty of theologically liberal churches here in the UK where someone who was (for example) conservative on LGBT issues, spectical regarding climate change, willing to stick up for certain 'conservative' views on the atonement or scripture or an active Conservative would be as welcome as Elton John at a Southern Baptist Convention. There are people in all sections of the church who just can't accept alternative ways of being Christian as valid.

This is very true. Liberal churches can be just as intolerant as conservative churches. In TEC, liberal low church is simply MOTR done tacky. For what its worth, Rush Limbaugh paid Elton John a cool million dollars to play a set at his wedding to wife number four.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Rush Limbaugh is a serial polygamist who hires 'mo musicians? Oh dear, oh dear! [Eek!]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
I must admit, though, that I went to Quaker meeting for awhile, and to a liberal low church (which are very, very thin on the ground around here - maybe everywhere?) at first.

Here in the UK the United Reformed Church is easily the most liberal of the mainstream denominations and is low church with mixed Presby/Congregationalist roots. Methodism is also more liberal as a whole than Anglicanism and there are also some very liberal Baptists out there, particularly in Wales.
The United Church of Canada would be another obvious example of low churchy liberalism, as would (I think?) other churches in the uniting tradition. I don't think there's necessarily any particular correlation between liberalism and high church worship internationally.

Posted by Devils Advocate (# 16484) on :

As an out gay man when I was preparing for confirmation at the age of about 22 ( Rather late I know but when I was in the choir we had a new vicar who was low church evangelical and all confirmation candidates had to go to Sunday School and at the age of about 13 I wasn't having anything to do with that) the Parish Priest at the Anglo Catholic Church I was attending said to me when I told him I was gay said "All sexuality is God Given its what you do with it that counts" My late partner was a lapsed RC, the product of a Christian Brothers Education in Northern ireland, and he wouldn't have anything to do with organised religion. As he lay in his hospital bed it was I, a High Anglican that ensured he had a 'Good Death" Not only for his sake but the sake of his family and especially his Mother and it was I who arranged his Requiem Mass and the committal ( though he was cremated) and it was I that carried his remains back to N Ireland and then went through the whole thing again except this time I was his "Friend and long term carer" as opposed to his partner ( which is how Id been refered to here. my only involvement in the interment of the ashes was to throw in the first clump of earth. We were together 17 years and probably more "right" living than a lot of "Straight Couples" Im now regularly attending church again ( Agin Anglo Catholic) and have gained a great deal of consolation from it

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with Yerevan, I don't think that liberalism and 'High Church' styles of worship necessarily go hand in hand ... but all the liberals I know DO tend to go for reasonably traditional forms of worship ... whether 'catholic-lite' in the form of 'liberal catholics' or standard format non-conformist hymn-prayer-sandwiches only with fairly liberal content in Free Church circles.

Most Liberals I know love the 1662 Prayer Book or more traditional forms of worship - they don't seem to go in for Alt.Worship that much other than as an occasional variant ... at least not the ones I know.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Yerevan, I don't think that liberalism and 'High Church' styles of worship necessarily go hand in hand ... but all the liberals I know DO tend to go for reasonably traditional forms of worship ... whether 'catholic-lite' in the form of 'liberal catholics' or standard format non-conformist hymn-prayer-sandwiches only with fairly liberal content in Free Church circles.

Most Liberals I know love the 1662 Prayer Book or more traditional forms of worship - they don't seem to go in for Alt.Worship that much other than as an occasional variant ... at least not the ones I know.

My own observations would tend to support the contention that liberals tend to be liturgically conservative. I have some folks in the parish who are well out in the long grass in left field in terms of what they believe politically and religiously, but attend what is probably the most traditional liturgical church in town. This inspite of the fact that they must find my preaching hard going as there is no missing that I am a reasonably intelligent, conservative, middle-to-high Anglican.

I find gays scatter themselves all over the shop in terms of church affiliation. Traditional there have been a lot of gay men in Anglo-Catholic parishes simply because homosexuality was regarded as a fit topic for the confessional, and nowhere else, especially not the pulpit. They were just ministered to with the other outcasts, eccentrics and "normal" people. We are all made in Gd's image after all. Liberal-MOTR and Liberal-Low also have their share now that there is not the same degree of social taboo as there used to be, but that is a development of perhaps the last thirty years. I remember my vicar - who was MOTR and Liberal-lean - discussing suitable theological colleges saying to me "Oh, you'd better avoid going to Chichester unless you like keeping your back to the wall." He wasn't over keen on Staggers either.

PD

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Yerevan, I don't think that liberalism and 'High Church' styles of worship necessarily go hand in hand ... but all the liberals I know DO tend to go for reasonably traditional forms of worship ... whether 'catholic-lite' in the form of 'liberal catholics' or standard format non-conformist hymn-prayer-sandwiches only with fairly liberal content in Free Church circles.

Most Liberals I know love the 1662 Prayer Book or more traditional forms of worship - they don't seem to go in for Alt.Worship that much other than as an occasional variant ... at least not the ones I know.
My own observations would tend to support the contention that liberals tend to be liturgically conservative.

Yep.

In a moment of cosmological serendipity I posted this on another thread before I'd even read this one:

quote:

We've got a tendency to map the 18th century Low-church:High-church:Broad-church parties onto the 19th & 20th century Evangelical:Anglo-Catholic:Liberal tendencies. But of course its more complicated than that.

The Anglican evangelicals were in many ways the institutional successors of the old tolerant Broad Church on the 18th century -it wasn't atheists the Broads had wanted to tolerate (never mind, God forbid, Catholics) but other Protestant denominations who from an Evangelical point of view were no less real churches than the Anglicans were.

And many of the early Anglo-Catholics had been brought up as evangelicals.

And later in the 19th century liberal theology was more at home with formalist, legalistic, erastian, High Church style than with either low-church evangelicalism or the more extreme AC ritualism.

In England at any rate, things might be different in the US, evangelicals (Anglican and otherwise) tend to assume that all "High Church" is theologically liberal. Things may be different in other countries.

Also theological liberalism and political liberalism are not particularly associated in this country.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I would tend to map most determined C of E liberals as being MOTR to MOTR-High in churchmanship. This is a bit of a headache to me as I am MOTR in churchmanship, but very conservative in terms of theology with many of the positions I take on the Scripture, PSA, Justification being recognizably conservative Evangelical. I am only a bit weird from that point of view when you get to Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence where I am a hell of a lot closer to Luther than Calvin.

In the USA the Liberals tended to be Low Church. Basically Evangelical who had had the fizz let out of the them, then embraced mainstream liberal protestant theology. The major difference here was that the theologically liberals were a bit more likely to be political liberals; through there were still some Anglo-catholic Socialists.

The most reliably conservative group were the old-fashioned High Churchmen, whose style straight-faced liturgical style appealed to those who were trying to avoid revivalism, Popery, and actvism. When we did have a Evangelical party in the USA (as opposed to AMIA and ACNA's neo-Evangelicalism) it tended to be Republican in politics in the days when that was a Centerist party.

PD

(ed for trypo)

[ 07. July 2011, 16:01: Message edited by: PD ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0