|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are young Christians leaving the church re attitudes to gay people?
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Louise, Tony
I picked up an interesting link in the POTUS 2012 thread in Purg and thought it might be worth a separate thread here. Equally happy if you want to put the topic in the all purpose thread, but that one seemed busy on other matters pro tem.
Shipmates
Here's the link. It poses several major questions and challenges. I'd be interested to hear the opinions of other Shipmates on Rachel Held Evans' trenchant blog.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
She's a fascinating blogger. I've only just discovered her.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Given that "the church" (or at least the evangelical church as it exists in the U.S.) seems to have made doing everything in their power to harm gay people one of their top priorities, why shouldn't young people, most of whom have openly gay friends, leave the church?
Via twitter: These two pictures will be viewed/judged identically by our children and their children.
[ 10. May 2012, 13:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
These two pictures will be viewed/judged identically by our children and their children.
As Desmond Tutu observes, justice is a seamless cloth.
I once heard a story about Desmond Tutu during the apartheid era in South Africa. He was conducting a prayer event re opposition to apartheid in a cathedral in S Africa, when armed security police and military personnel burst in, surrounded the congregation. He confronted them, informed them that they had already lost, and then broke out into a characteristic smile.
"So, since you have already lost ... why not join the winning team" .. and led the congregation, unscathed, out of the cathedral.
Crœsos, it is taking a little while for the realisation to dawn that the proponents of the traditional view "have already lost". The blog is evidence that that particular penny has dropped.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Crœsos, it is taking a little while for the realisation to dawn that the proponents of the traditional view "have already lost". The blog is evidence that that particular penny has dropped.
My problem is that for every Desmond Tutu or Martin Luther King, Jr. in the church there seems to be at least three Charles Coughlins or Benjamin Palmers (and at least eight of the sort that signed "A Call to Unity" [PDF], a craven call to sacrifice justice in the name of order most notable for the response it inspired [also PDF]). If the church keeps getting this sort of thing wrong, what's it for? Just another exclusive country club where the "right sort" can socialize over bread and wine?
Blogger Bill Lindsey discusses what he refers to as the oppression-repentence cycle within the church:
quote:
[Huffington Post blogger Paul Brandeis] Raushenbush notes that history shows that those treated as despised, humiliated others by church folks often, over the course of time, begin to appear to their tormentors as human beings worthy of human respect. And when that happens, churches tend to go through predictable ritual cycles of repentance, in which they issue apologies to the group they've just savaged (and, in some cases, actually slaughtered):
quote:
We're so sorry. Didn't have a clue in the world we were inflicting such pain. We had imagined you don't feel pain as we feel pain. We had thought that excluding you, telling you you're unwelcome, that you and all your people are backwards and ignorant, wouldn't hurt you in the same way it might hurt us if we were treated this way.
We're sorry. We didn't mean it. We're Christians, after all. We're good folks. We intend to learn from this experience not to do anything like this ever again, to another group.
Yet as Raushenbush notes, only a few days ago, the United Methodist church voted to retain in its Book of Discipline language that singles out gay and lesbian human beings in a singularly ugly way, noting that homosexuality is "incompatible" with the practice of Christian faith -- while the same UMC folks voting to target the gays in this way apologized in the very same breath for having done precisely the same thing to people of color in the past! Take a map and mark on that map those Methodist conferences that voted to split the Methodist church in the 19th century over the issue of slavery, and you'll find that the map you draw is almost exactly the same map as you draw when you mark on a map the UMC conferences that are fighting today to inform LGBT folks that their lives are incompatible with Christian faith -- and that they're not welcome.
How many second chances should an abusive institution get?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rhflan
Shipmate
# 17092
|
Posted
As a gay Christian I almost left the church b/c of their attitude toward homosexuality. I *wanted* so desperately to be a part of the church, but it felt like the church didn't want me.
--------------------
www.twitter.com/rhflan
Posts: 135 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
I'm vaguely young*, and I'm on the edge of going to church/ not going to church. The fact that the CofE does not have equality in its attitudes and actions with regards to gay people doesn't make me want to attend church more.
(I also feel like this about a church that still doesn't give women equality in its hierarchy.)
So, I'm not leaving the church because of its attitudes to gay people, but those attitudes make it hard for me to feel very enthusiastic about it. Still, I'd rather be in the church as a person who wants it to change, rather than be outside the church wanting it to change.
*Early thirties. Please tell me that's still young?!
[ 10. May 2012, 15:51: Message edited by: Earwig ]
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Via twitter: These two pictures will be viewed/judged identically by our children and their children.
The placard "One man, one woman, FOR LIFE" shown in the bottom photo could be part of a counter-demonstration. It is a reminder of how much divorce is frowned upon in the New Testament. It points out the cherry-picking that's going on among people (i.e. evangelicals) whose divorce rate statistically exceeds that of atheists.
That's a great blog entry in the OP. I want to bookmark it permanently. I'm not convinced that the Jerry Falwells actually outnumber the Desmond Tutus in the church. They are merely noisier, and they are able to make so much noise because they are well-funded by the likes of shadowy outsiders such as Scaife. Such money is responsible for what life homophobic initiatives still have in the Episcopal Church. I don't know whether their definition of victory is to hijack TEC or to kill it, but in either case I'm happy to observe that, so far, they've met their match. Maybe we should discuss what's in it for them.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Not so much left the church, but certainly left a church for another one.
I'd worshipped there for over 20 years, worked in the office for a couple of those, and still have good friends who go there. In the end, the anti-gay thing was one of the two straws that broke the camel's back.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The blog post linked from the bottom of the posst in the OP is worth a look for a rather different (dare I say Christian?) attitude, particularly about avoiding anger, and about seeing as people even those who oppose you.
Sorry, forgot to add this illustrative comment from that blog:
quote:
Justin, I did a 180 on this issue about six months ago after viewing "Through My Eyes". Thanks to you and all the brave people on that video, I stopped viewing homosexual people as strangers I would never meet except in a gay bar, and came to realize that Christian home-schooled youth could also be gay. When I started thinking about the precious children I have watched grow up in the church, and began wondering what it would be like for any of them to discover they are gay, I cried. I cried a lot. I asked God to forgive me for my bigotry and the way I hurt good people without even knowing it. So, thank you, Justin. You do change hearts.
After my position on Amendment One changed, my pastor's attitude toward me changed. He hated me, though as a Christian he would deny that. My own family saw it on full display when he called me one night to rant about a facebook post I had made. He was on speakerphone (bluetooth picks up automatically in the car) and what my son and husband heard shocked them both.
Pastor never apologized, and started treated my teen son with the same cold shoulder. We stopped going to church. And you know what? That pastor doesn't care. We can go to hell for all he cares. Literally. So now I know what my gay brothers and sisters in Christ have been going through for twenty years or more.
Peace to you, Justin. You are a better person than I am.
I can remember other occasions where the anger of the pastor overrode everything else and drove people away from the church.
[ 10. May 2012, 17:19: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
That's a great blog entry in the OP. I want to bookmark it permanently. I'm not convinced that the Jerry Falwells actually outnumber the Desmond Tutus in the church.
It seems likely, given the way the institutional church seems to end up on the wrong side of social issues with remarkable consistency. Blogger Ed Brayton explains how the process usually works:
quote:
There is a clear pattern here. Every movement to increase equality and civil rights has had to battle against the full weight of institutional Christianity, often for decades and even centuries. After the battle is won and the traditional Christian churches have been forced to abandon the position that they maintained up to that point, often supported with violence, their apologists suddenly discover that some of the people they fought so hard against were Christians — almost always of some variety that they had always rejected as heresy and apostasy. And then they say, “See! This was a Christian idea all along!”
I’ll make a prediction: 20 or 30 years from now, when anti-gay bigotry is viewed as being as anachronistic as racial bigotry is today, Dinesh D’Souza or his ideological descendants will point to Gene Robinson and some of the very same liberal leaders who embraced equality while they themselves stood foursquare against it, and they will declare that equal rights for LGBT people was based on Christian principles all along.
In short, the Fallwells and such will be airbrushed out of Christian history, more sympathetic figures like Billy Graham will have some cosmetic surgery applied to their biographies, and some leaders who are currently dismissed as "not really Christians" for treating gays as fellow human beings will become the retroactive exemplars of Christian love and tolerance.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
They are merely noisier, and they are able to make so much noise because they are well-funded by the likes of shadowy outsiders such as Scaife. Such money is responsible for what life homophobic initiatives still have in the Episcopal Church.
Maybe instead of wondering why a bunch of "shadowy outsiders" are willing to shovel money into homophobic initiatives it would be better to ponder why there are so many willing takers for that kind of well-paid dirty work inside the church.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I can remember other occasions where the anger of the pastor overrode everything else and drove people away from the church.
quote:
Originally posted by St. Augustine:
Hope has two beautiful daughters: their names are anger and courage. Anger that things are the way they are. Courage to make them the way they ought to be.
Anger isn't necessarily a problem. There are things people, including pastors, should be angry about. But treating gays as your legal equals isn't one of them.
[ 10. May 2012, 18:35: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
The church I belong to is "Inclusive" CofE, and it's busy and full of all sorts of people, young and old ones. There doesn't seem to be any nasty attitude to gay and lesbian people. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I once heard a story about Desmond Tutu during the apartheid era in South Africa. He was conducting a prayer event re opposition to apartheid in a cathedral in S Africa, when armed security police and military personnel burst in, surrounded the congregation. He confronted them, informed them that they had already lost, and then broke out into a characteristic smile.
"So, since you have already lost ... why not join the winning team" .. and led the congregation, unscathed, out of the cathedral.
Actually that story helped me put my finger on what troubles me about the post. I read a marked contrast between Tutu's defiance and what I can only describe as the passive-aggressive tone of her article. (I don't like that expression but I can't think of a better one that describes my unease.)
Tutu was in a war, fighting injustice. He didn't give up fighting until the war was won.
She writes that the church is tired of the culture wars. Can you you imagine Tutu saying that he was tired of trying to advance the kingdom through politics? It wearied him, yes, but he would keep on fighting.
What she means is that she is tired of those she disagrees with. If she really cares about injustice towards the LGBT community then she would be keen to keep up the fight.
I think she is right about the damage the 'right' has done in the way it has engaged with the political process. However I would have much more respect for her position if she was advocating a push to carry on the struggle against injustice.
She was the one who framed the discussion with the rhetoric of war. Having begun the fighting talk she comes across like a Protestant from NI claiming that the troubles would be ended if only the IRA gave up their weapons.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Isn't it more a case of saying to other believers (with whom you disagree), something like this.
"Time to beat our spears into ploughs. These people are not your enemies. Your warlikeness is a much greater threat to all you hold dear than they are. You are pulling down your own house".
Folks who are not convinced that this really is a justice issue (or not yet convinced) might be given pause for thought.
I think that is what Rachel Held Evans is trying to do. The footwashing comment is enough to suggest that however she may feel about the established church, there is quite a lot of faith still there.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm not convinced that the Jerry Falwells actually outnumber the Desmond Tutus in the church. They are merely noisier, and they are able to make so much noise because they are well-funded by the likes of shadowy outsiders such as Scaife. Such money is responsible for what life homophobic initiatives still have in the Episcopal Church.
Surfing in response to this thread, I accidentally bumped into
this web page which supports your statement.
OTOH, an article on the Methodist situation from a couple weeks ago said it's an international denomination and the battle is not so much USA factions against each other but the liberal Americans vs the very conservative African representatives.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Via twitter: These two pictures will be viewed/judged identically by our children and their children.
The placard "One man, one woman, FOR LIFE" shown in the bottom photo could be part of a counter-demonstration. It is a reminder of how much divorce is frowned upon in the New Testament. It points out the cherry-picking that's going on among people (i.e. evangelicals) whose divorce rate statistically exceeds that of atheists.
For example, Rush Limbaugh has accused Obama of "destroying marriage" by coming out in support of same-sex marriages. Limbaugh's first, second and third wives were unavailable for comment.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I'm intrigued at blogs etc saying homosexuality is the significant issue. I'd say most the the Gen X I know think church irrelevant, period. Homosexuality is easy to finger as an example of irrelevancy, but if homosexuality did not exist or if churches everywhere assumed sexual orientation was none of its business, the Gen X and younger I know would still think church irrelevant.
The Gen X, Gen Y I know who are intrigued by spirituality think church irrelevant to God. The rest think church -- well, truth is they don't think of church, don't notice it any more often than I notice or think about or care if there's a Masonic lodge somewhere in town, it's got nothing to do with me, church has nothing to do with them. Some people like to get up early Sunday morning and run 5 miles, some people get up early and go to church, some stay home with their family, shrug.
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
And I think disinterest in church started with a significant chunk of the Boomers dropping out of church and NOT returning to take their kids to church.
Would be interesting to see statistics -- what percentage of Boomers were baptized by the time they were teens (infant or believers), what percentage of Gen X were baptized? What percent of Gen X is taking their kids to church?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Maybe instead of wondering why a bunch of "shadowy outsiders" are willing to shovel money into homophobic initiatives it would be better to ponder why there are so many willing takers for that kind of well-paid dirty work inside the church.
In the highest-profile American cases, I don't mind pointing out that the word "church" barely applies, in that their orders are not valid. They've merely hung out their shingles with self-produced credentials. That leaves the homophobia of the RCC still to account for, whose internal politics I don't follow. But a rather snarky Episcopal chorister whom I used to know may have had a point: he attended a Catholic prep school. Announcing proudly that they were to receive a visit from the archbishop, one of his teachers asked "Who runs the archdiocese?" The kid replied, "Nicky Scarfo!" [mafia figure]
We need never look far to explain why people would accept payment for whatever. Avarice and pride are infamous motives.
[ 11. May 2012, 16:15: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
You're probably right. Another off-putting feature cited in the same Barna study is the ridiculous insistence on new-earth creationism, leading to a general impression that Christian belief is opposed to and incompatible with science. Let me be the first to say that an honorable person can find this, too, sufficient reason to ignore Christian claims if one never takes the trouble to learn better. And why should anyone be obliged to do that in the face of all the propaganda issuing from the very movement one is being asked to join? In other words, these Christians are their own worst enemies. As Saint Augustine of Hippo noted eons ago, when people reject the church because of the stupidity of proselytes, the proselytes are the culpable ones.
We will always have the misguided and frivolous with us in society, and those whose dust we must shake off our feet. But at the very least, members of the church owe it to them, as well as to ourselves, to remove all silly and scandalous obstacles of our own making.
entirely honorable dissuasive IMHO. on the part of anyone knockout punch on the part would be a knockout punch for me as well If one doesn't make the special effort to see past this misperception
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
In the highest-profile American cases, I don't mind pointing out that the word "church" barely applies, in that their orders are not valid. They've merely hung out their shingles with self-produced credentials. That leaves the homophobia of the RCC still to account for, whose internal politics I don't follow.
Yeah, that Scotsman gets around, doesn't he? That's kind of what I mean about airbrushing out the vast majority of Christians when the injustices of the institutional Church are eventually repudiated.
So yes, the Roman Catholics are anti-gay. But that's it. Well, them and the Southern Baptists. But that's just the largest Christian sect in the U.S. and the largest Protestant denomination. So it's just those two . . . and the United Methodists (mentioned above). But aside from the Catholics, the Southern Baptists, and the United Methodists, that's it. Plus the Pentecostals. Anyway, besides the Catholics, Southern Baptists, United Methodists, Pentecostals, and Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, . . . what have the Romans ever done for us?
[ 11. May 2012, 18:14: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, that Scotsman gets around, doesn't he?
Not guilty, your honor. The True Scotsman fallacy begs the question. I'm making a distinction that has been made for centuries and for reasons quite independent of the subject at hand.
Two different things don't become the same thing just because you want to say they are.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, that Scotsman gets around, doesn't he?
Not guilty, your honor. The True Scotsman fallacy begs the question. I'm making a distinction that has been made for centuries and for reasons quite independent of the subject at hand.
Two different things don't become the same thing just because you want to say they are.
Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. Perhaps you could explain which Christians you don't think are really Christians and what makes their "orders" valid or not.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I'm referring to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and in particular the historic episcopate. These criteria are ancient.
But even in secular terms, the United Church of Christ, as a legally distinct organization, should be able to wash its hands of the aberrations, say, of Southern Baptists. If you owned a Toyota with safety issues, you woudn't try to sue Volkswagen, would you?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm referring to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and in particular the historic episcopate. These criteria are ancient.
Interesting distinction, particularly in its demographic implications. For example, most demographers put Christians at a bit over 75% of the U.S. population. By your standard, this number is too high by a factor of three, with "real" Christians comprising only 26% of adult Americans, almost all of them Catholic.
[ 11. May 2012, 19:57: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Crœsos
You wont find any attempts by me to defend the general record of Christians on major justice issues viz
a) slavery, racial discrimination
b) suffragette movement and feminism
c) homosexuality
Wilberforce, William Lloyd Garrison, King, Tutu and others all worked tirelessly on a) and Tutu is a consistent voice on a) to c). Garrison, who was an anti-slavery pioneer in the US was also a great supporter of the suffragette movement. But it would be wrong to claim them as typical of all Christians of their era; they were not and (in Desmond Tutu's case) are not. Desmond still gets it in the neck from conservative Christians.
This is classic nonconformist territory. Probably the most consistently progressive religious voice on these kinds of justice issues has come from the Quakers, who represent a very small proportion of the visible church - and these days not all of their membership would self-identify as Christian.
It's a challenge for me, personally, has been for close on forty years. Becoming Christian actually made me more radical on justice issues, woke me up. I thought something like that was a normal fruit of conversion. The dethroning of egotistical self-interest, the enlivening of a desire to love and serve others, to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly, these all point in the same direction so far as the marginalised are concerned. "Why are there so few of us", I ask myself quite often, as I keep on keeping on.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
As a young Christian (early 20s) who's recently rejoined the church, I can tell you that I would never join a denomination or congregation that a) taught that homosexuality is sinful b) actively opposed or refused to perform gay marriage or c) was anything less than radically inclusive of gay congregants or clergy.
I had the opportunity recently to view the documentary Love Free or Die about Gene Robinson, and it made me incredibly proud to be a new member of The Episcopal Church.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Good to see you here, Bostonman. Welcome to the Ship!
Unfortunately, while I agree with you, I would have to go out-of-province to church if I stuck to your principles totally, My local church is getting there, though!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
I agree.
This feels, historically, like the downgrade controversy repeating itself.
I'm sure that if I'd be alive at the time I would have thought that Spurgeon was an idiot. I mean, what kind of person takes pride in the fact that it would take a surgical operation to put a new idea in his head? And yet, with hindsight, I don't see how we can avoid the fact that he was right in that giving the people what they want won't actually bring them back to church.
ISTM that BR is right. Those to whom it will make a difference are tiny minority. It is just like the parish church mentality that is outraged when the church I don't go to is threatened with closure.
Recently I've been struck by a media phenomenon. There are several churches that I have had some contact with which have received a lot of publicity for their pro-gay stance. The thing that struck me was the dissonance between the media support and publicity and the tiny numbers of people who attend these churches each week.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
As a young Christian (early 20s) who's recently rejoined the church, I can tell you that I would never join a denomination or congregation that a) taught that homosexuality is sinful b) actively opposed or refused to perform gay marriage or c) was anything less than radically inclusive of gay congregants or clergy.
That is precisely what our 20-somethings say on discovering our church(part of the Inclusive Church network.)
We have inquiries and some atendances from people over an hour's drive away.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Of course it is true that courting popularity can lead any institution and its members up the garden path. That isn't what is going on here. The battleground, as in previous justice issues, is disagreement over what is right.
If one takes an issue, once controversial, now determined, as an example. There are, in all probability, a few churches around these days which condone racism, continuing to use the sorts of arguments from scripture and traditional understandings which used to be commonplace. Similarly, for antisemitism. Is there any doubt that they are wrong? The moral stances were wrong when they were popular and they remain wrong now they are unpopular.
Why is Rachel Held Evans protesting, appealing? Surely it is not because a mind-change re homosexuality would make Christianity more popular? She points to a growing conviction that discriminatory stances are just wrong. Whether popular or not in some quarters. That is the battleground for hearts and minds.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm intrigued at blogs etc saying homosexuality is the significant issue. I'd say most the the Gen X I know think church irrelevant, period. Homosexuality is easy to finger as an example of irrelevancy, but if homosexuality did not exist or if churches everywhere assumed sexual orientation was none of its business, the Gen X and younger I know would still think church irrelevant.
The Gen X, Gen Y I know who are intrigued by spirituality think church irrelevant to God. The rest think church -- well, truth is they don't think of church, don't notice it any more often than I notice or think about or care if there's a Masonic lodge somewhere in town, it's got nothing to do with me, church has nothing to do with them. Some people like to get up early Sunday morning and run 5 miles, some people get up early and go to church, some stay home with their family, shrug.
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
And I think disinterest in church started with a significant chunk of the Boomers dropping out of church and NOT returning to take their kids to church.
Would be interesting to see statistics -- what percentage of Boomers were baptized by the time they were teens (infant or believers), what percentage of Gen X were baptized? What percent of Gen X is taking their kids to church?
She's making a distinction that seems to have gotten lost here.
Her assertion is that opposition to the inclusion of gay people (and other touchstone cultural issues) are causing young already-churched people to leave the church, not necessarily that becoming gay-inclusive, etc. will attract the unchurched. Young people who are already church participants feel like they are forced to choose between church and their gay friends (as well as other touchstone cultural issues) and choosing the latter. However becoming gay inclusive, etc. isn't going to make the Christian message more compelling for those who outside the church.
My experience with the unchurched is that they don't find the Christian message compelling because, in addition to the cultural issues: 1) the institutional church and its members are flawed, they have an expectation that religious people should behave significantly better than non-religious and find that witness wanting; 2) they think the institutional church is most concerned about controlling people; 3) they feel compelled to reconcile Christian claims about the Virgin Birth, resurrection, afterlife, etc. with the scientific method and can't do so; 4) they don't understand the point of the crucifixion and see it as needlessly cruel and gory; 5) they find it offensive to say that humanity has an innate propensity to sin; 6) they unwittingly adopted the more-fundamentalist position that the Bible is supposed to be fully, equally and literally true, yet find numerous contradictions, offensive laws and examples of bad behaviour, and 7) they find the worship baffling.
But it's overwhelmingly #1 that seems to be the real issue. In their minds: why commit time, talent and money to a cause that doesn't seem to make people more ethical and loving?
But again, I think the blog is addressing to those who would otherwise find church attractive who are leaving.
[ 12. May 2012, 15:44: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'm referring to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and in particular the historic episcopate. These criteria are ancient.
But even in secular terms, the United Church of Christ, as a legally distinct organization, should be able to wash its hands of the aberrations, say, of Southern Baptists. If you owned a Toyota with safety issues, you woudn't try to sue Volkswagen, would you?
It doesn't do you any good to claim you're a legally distinct organization if you fail to make public criticisms of the faults of the other churches because you claim brotherhood. "we're incorporated in different states and I don't like some things they do that I won't enumerate." lets people think you are the same.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think that is right. Referring back to my personal experiences during the struggles over the roles of women, however, it is really important to understand the different arguments deployed in the disagreement. Simply asserting that you occupy the moral high ground can be sterile and self-defeating.
People are changing their minds. I changed my mind. The world in which I grew up saw homosexuality as an moral or psychological aberration, not a natural variation. It was ambiguous over race and encouraged stereotypical thinking about women. I could point to books, movies, serious texts in encyclopedia etc. My parents, who were very decent, loving, law-abiding citizens, were at best only partially enlightened on these issues, affected by the commonplace ideas around when they grew up.
These battles for hearts and minds, the moral and ethical debates, have been a feature of my life for six decades. It is necessary to learn how to speak the truth with love, particularly in families and communities we belong to. There are reasons why I changed my mind, stopped going with the crowd. I can explain them without rancour, listen to criticisms without getting out of my pram, recognis an impasse, be patient. Such stuff has been common to all the ethical battlegrounds. I'm particularly grateful to others who modelled that kind of behaviour to me. Whether we agreed or not.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
My experience with the unchurched is that they don't find the Christian message compelling because, in addition to the cultural issues: 1) the institutional church and its members are flawed, they have an expectation that religious people should behave significantly better than non-religious and find that witness wanting; 2) they think the institutional church is most concerned about controlling people; 3) they feel compelled to reconcile Christian claims about the Virgin Birth, resurrection, afterlife, etc. with the scientific method and can't do so; 4) they don't understand the point of the crucifixion and see it as needlessly cruel and gory; 5) they find it offensive to say that humanity has an innate propensity to sin; 6) they unwittingly adopted the more-fundamentalist position that the Bible is supposed to be fully, equally and literally true, yet find numerous contradictions, offensive laws and examples of bad behaviour, and 7) they find the worship baffling.
While that certainly makes more sense than all that "GenXYZ" handwaving (which mainly details minor fashion trends among American journalists and their neighbours) it can't explain everything.
Because your seven points have always been true. Well, always for well over a thousand years anyway. And most of them since the first century. People have always found churches to by hypocritical. They have always worried about the clash between Christian accounts of the world and whatever science or scholarship was accepted in their time (read Augustine!). The crucifixion is needlessly cruel and gory. Worship is baffling (and even more, boring) to the average child dragged along by parents.
I could add another two that didn't exist in the Apostles time but do now - churches seem to work to defend the existing or traditional social order. So anyone with a streak of rebellion in them will be annoyed by them. And churches seem to be rich yet are always asking for more money.
But there are times and places when churches have grown despite all that - so what's changed?
Also the collapse in church attendance that is now going on in the USA happened in Europe a hundred years ago or more, yet in both Europe and North America the general acceptance of gay men came about slowly between the 1960s and 1990s - here the churches started failing two or three generations before that, but in the USA a generation later - the timing is out.
That said I wish very much that every single Christian preacher or priest who feels the need to go on about homosexuality would take a short break from the topic and keep their mouths shut. Like maybe for the next thirty years. There's plenty else to talk about.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Your seven points have always been true...
I could add another ... that didn't exist in the Apostles time but do now - churches seem to work to defend the existing or traditional social order...
That said I wish very much that every single Christian preacher or priest who feels the need to go on about homosexuality would take a short break from the topic and keep their mouths shut. Like maybe for the next thirty years. There's plenty else to talk about.
Agreed there is plenty else to talk about (including things that could be life-changing for many if addressed well, like learning generosity and forgiveness etc), but if a topic is not touched at all, neither pro nor con, doesn't that silence "affirm the existing traditional or social order"?
Think RCC banning the topic of ordaining women, silence inhibits chance. Silence about homosexuality would mean the few denominations that openly accept all sexualities would continue that stance and the rest would continue to have stated policies or traditions limiting the acceptance of homosexuals.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The key is "addressed well". That is easier said than done. And I'm not sure a sermon is the right kind of vehicle. Questions and Answers strikes me as more appropriate on an issue which divides.
And ken may also have a point. Cooling off periods have their value on heated issues. It's a matter of judgment how long that cooling off should be.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That said I wish very much that every single Christian preacher or priest who feels the need to go on about homosexuality would take a short break from the topic and keep their mouths shut. Like maybe for the next thirty years. There's plenty else to talk about.
You said it.
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
And yes, it is Easter and we are in the middle of the series of lectionary readings from Acts on the various religiously-unacceptable people the Holy Spirit recruited to full, active membership of Christ's Church.
Sometimes I wish the whole lot of them would just shut up.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
Did he include marriage between a man and a woman in his examples of things that are totally unlike real unselfish love? Or was he letting the unspoken prejudice out of the bag?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That said I wish very much that every single Christian preacher or priest who feels the need to go on about homosexuality would take a short break from the topic and keep their mouths shut. Like maybe for the next thirty years. There's plenty else to talk about.
You said it.
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
And yes, it is Easter and we are in the middle of the series of lectionary readings from Acts on the various religiously-unacceptable people the Holy Spirit recruited to full, active membership of Christ's Church.
Sometimes I wish the whole lot of them would just shut up.
I'm a British Methodist, and I've never, ever heard a sermon that mentioned gay marriage. Methodists tend not to go looking for controversial subjects to preach about! In the UK, the URC and the Methodists have a moratorium on formal discussions about gay marriage, so I understand (although I'm sure that others will know the details better than I do). However, both churches have suffered heavily from the loss of their young people, and I doubt that attitudes towards homosexuality have had much to do with this.
From the British point of view, I'm sure the CofE's very open disagreements about homosexuality are damaging to the public image of that church. By extension, I suspect they're damaging to other churches as well, because British people tend to assume that the CofE's issues are shared by all other churches. It's interesting how our most gay-affrming groups, the Quakers and Unitarians, seem not to have benefitted a great deal in terms of PR and numbers from their stance. The British public seem unable to cope with churches that don't match their preconceptions, whether that's to do with gay marriage or anything else.
Ultimately, this issue probably has more influence outside the churches than inside. This is because anyone who would be seriously upset about this probably left the church long ago - if they were even there to start with.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ken:
quote:
Also the collapse in church attendance that is now going on in the USA happened in Europe a hundred years ago or more, yet in both Europe and North America the general acceptance of gay men came about slowly between the 1960s and 1990s - here the churches started failing two or three generations before that, but in the USA a generation later - the timing is out.
I suspect that the collapse is largely a bi-product of industrialization and the formation of alternative social groups and communities. (IOW, Why go to church for a potluck at a set time each week, when you can meet your friends at a pub or café after work when you feel like it and socialize?)
I suspect it happened earlier in Europe because the higher population density allowed pub/café culture to flourish in a way that was difficult to maintain in spread-out North America where the church often served as the only local meeting place (for like-minded folk at least.) Even in North America, church observance tended/still tends to be lower in cities than in rural areas (apart from urban new-immigrant communities.)
[ 14. May 2012, 00:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I would tend to think that the experience of the World Wars, particularly the Second, had some bearing on these changes.
A lot of men (and some women) got to travel to places that were different from "home"; all of these people and many more women tried out new jobs; and they all mixed socially with divergent groups of other people, which inclined them to a more open attitude.
Plus there was a huge amount of propaganda about how "we're all in this together, and everyone has to do his part", which made exclusivism bad for the war effort.
Blacks were in the Forces and mistreated whle "serving their country", which led to a lot of questions about "Why?" (Why serve the country? Why mistreat them?...). To a large extent, and not just in the US, WW2 opened up a lot of the world for blacks (although it took a generation of develop). The collapse of the conept of Empire helped as well.
City people have always known that there are gays, more openly in artistic circles, largely because the gays were more likely to move out of the boonies and live in cities. Soldiers found that there were lots of males available "professionally" as well as females, more openly in some countries than others. And there is little question that, say, Hollywood had a pretty thriving gay culture even in the oh-so-uptight '50s. It has just taken a bit longer to get to the stage where most people in general accepting that gayness exists has neared the tipping point.
This may be related to the churches having to back away from active racism as being totally against Jesus' message, but being able to demonise another group, which has prolonged the agony.
[ 14. May 2012, 00:45: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Off topic a bit: The Second World War is certainly credited for the creation of San Francisco and New York as two preeminent gay centres in the U.S.
Most of the returning troops from the European and Pacific theatres were discharged in those two cities. As it took a period of 2 - 6 weeks to process the Discharge paperwork, by the time they were free to go they had already made local friends, found housing and established networks - so chose to stay where they felt freer. The media visibility of the New York Stonewall Riots and Harvey Milk's activism in the late 60s and 70s led to a further mass movement of gay people from the Midwest and South to those locations.
The church ironically was the first to engage gay people in San Francisco in the early 1960s. A group of local clergy from Anglican/Episcopal, Quaker, Methodist, Lutheran and United Church of Christ churches formed the Council on Religion and the Homosexual to dialogue and advocate for rights for the local gay community. The Diocese of California (San Francisco) held its first same sex blessing at Grace Cathedral in 1962. In 1965 the CRH published a paper called "A Brief of Injustices: An Indictment of Our Society in Its Treatment of the Homosexual" where they outlined all the injustices that were occurring at the time.
So at one time, the church was in a place to have become the champion of the gay community, but that all got washed away in the denominational "culture war" politics of the 1970s-early 2000s.
[ 14. May 2012, 01:02: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Komensky: She's a fascinating blogger. I've only just discovered her.
Seconded.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Quoted from Toujours Dan's fascinating link
quote:
The Friends Home Committee was one of the first religious organizations to speak out in support of the lesbigay community. In 1964, it published Towards a Quaker View of Sex stating: "It is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters: one must not judge it by its outward appearance but by its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual affection, and therefore we cannot see that it is in some way morally worse. Neither are we happy with the thought that all homosexual behavior is sinful: motive and circumstances degrade or ennoble any act, and we feel that to list sexual acts as sins is to follow the letter rather than the spirit, to kill rather than to give life.
(emboldening by B62)
Well, exactly. One of the most telling critiques of "letter v spirit" is found in the gospels, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 23. The essential relational ethic of the New Testament is loving faithfulness.
Why is this not a reasonable argument to be advanced from a pulpit; at the very least for it to be considered? Why should it not be heard, considered?
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
And yes, it is Easter and we are in the middle of the series of lectionary readings from Acts on the various religiously-unacceptable people the Holy Spirit recruited to full, active membership of Christ's Church.
Well exactly. The acceptance of those previously outcast is a major theme of NT scripture. The Ethiopian eunuch did not meet OT Law standards for acceptance into the household of faith. (Deuteronomy 23:1). This does not seem to have bothered Philip. Perhaps he was imperfectly educated on the scripture? Or maybe, just maybe, he had seen through the letter to the spirit?
I can't help but feel that if such viewpoints were at least offered for consideration, in bible studies, from pulpits, rather than the kind of stonewalling that Chamois cites, the young people referred to in Rachel Held Evans' blog might at least stick around to listen, rather than voting with their feet. The basis in scripture for the moral argument is worth advancing, whether or not folks remain in the church, whether or not some folks remain unconvinced. At least it makes space for reasonable dialogue, as opposed to shouting.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
This morning's (visiting) preacher told us that gay marriage is an example of "things that are called love in today's society but are totally unlike the real, unselfish love Jesus was talking about".
Did he include marriage between a man and a woman in his examples of things that are totally unlike real unselfish love? Or was he letting the unspoken prejudice out of the bag?
Not-so-unspoken prejudice. He was sounding off about how awful it was that some people want to change the definition of marriage.
I had a word with him afterwards. I doubt that he understood my point, but maybe he'll keep his mouth shut on that topic if he visits us again.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554
|
Posted
Well - I have left the church (C of E) because of what seems to me to be the cruelty and hypocrisy (all the gay priests it uses but condemns to loneliness and/or guilt) of its attitude to gay relationships. Both that, and its treatment of women priests, seem incompatible with the notion of witness to a loving God. I'm sorry about this in some ways, coming from a family with many priests in it, and having been a chorister and a church organist. But trying to understand the church's position - a journey that included teaching myself NT Greek in an attempt to understand the source material better - actually made me doubt the truth of much of the church's teachings. I feel mixed about this, as evidenced by my occasional visits to the Ship website; but in a way feel freer.
The question as posed, however, was about young people. My limited sample suggests strongly that the answer is yes: young Christians are leaving the church because of its attitudes to gay people. My children (early 20s) are incredulous at the church's intolerance of loving and committed gay relationships, as are all the friends of theirs I have spoken to. They were brought up going to church, but want nothing whatever to do with it. When asked why, this is the main reason they give.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I suspect homosexuality is a stand-in for a much deeper disdain for or disinterest in the institutional church. Dissolving that barrier problem will NOT result in lots of Gen X etc coming to church.
To me, this sounds like a combination of sour grapes, and an apologia for gay-bashing.
No, Gen X aren't coming to church. Because the church has all but fucked up its witness for this generation and maybe one or two after, by forsaking the preaching of the gospel for attacks on gays and women having abortions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, Gen X aren't coming to church. Because the church has all but fucked up its witness for this generation and maybe one or two after, by forsaking the preaching of the gospel for attacks on gays and women having abortions.
Ah yes, "Genital Christianity". All morality can be summed as criminalizing abortions and hating gays.
quote:
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Don't let chicks get abortions.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Make life as tough as possible for the queers.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
At any rate, although everyone seems to "know" that virtually all young people have openly gay friends, I'm not sure the institutional church has really understood the implications of this fact. In essence, the message from the Church is that you have to choose between your gay friends or being a Christian. First off, if you deliver an ultimatum like that you can't be surprised that some people will choose the other option. And those who stay, picking the church over their out friends, may have a certain amount of resentment over being made to choose.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, although everyone seems to "know" that virtually all young people have openly gay friends, I'm not sure the institutional church has really understood the implications of this fact. In essence, the message from the Church is that you have to choose between your gay friends or being a Christian. First off, if you deliver an ultimatum like that you can't be surprised that some people will choose the other option. And those who stay, picking the church over their out friends, may have a certain amount of resentment over being made to choose.
I think you're right. I happened to read an article today from the USA that observed that support for gay marriage has accelerated rapidly (and across all age groups) as more people have realised that they know someone gay who doesn't have 2 heads or devour children.
(So clearly there's merit in us doing the whole coming out thing fairly visibly.)
Personalising these issues makes all the difference. And younger people now are so comfortable with having gay friends around, they're distinctly uncomfortable with being told that there's something wrong with their perfectly normal gay friends.
[ 15. May 2012, 06:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
