|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexual Attraction: The Power of a Pastor's Testimony
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
FooloftheShip
In your case the support group wouldn't be useful, but to people who are public about their homosexuality yet committed to celibacy, like this priest, it might be helpful.
The idea posted above that this particular priest must hate himself seems strange to me. In some Christian traditions, the notion that God might put a particular burden on someone isn't deemed to be perverse, but quite possible. It's not a sign that you ought to hate yourself, but that you might have to live your life in a state of self-sacrifice. Isn't the theme of the thorn in Paul's side often read in this way? Of course, Christians disagree on that idea - but if this priest would rather not see things in this way, all he has to do is align himself with Christians who see the matter differently. There are plenty of alternative views in his own denomination (the CofE), so it's not as though changing his mind would result in his being cast out into the darkness!
However, I agree with some people's comments that a support group made up of gay 'supportees' and straight 'supporters' sounds problematic. Aren't the best support groups made up of people who've 'been there and come out the other side'? You want to be with people who understand where you're coming from. Some will have found a solution to the same problem, and some will still be travelling towards their goal.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I rather regret the last part of my previous post now, because it blunts the impact of the rest. However, I thought I should say it because it does give context for the rest.
As far as the situation described by the OP is concerned, I would say, rather against myself, that anything that makes that minister's position more bearable than Michael Vasey's is to be applauded, even if it is a very very long way from ideal.
As for the concept of the burden placed by God, I'm not sure. I've always tended to the belief that in Christ everyone's burden is light exactly because it is their burden, shaped for them by God who is love and loves each one of us as we are. Therefore a burden which is completely ill-suited to a person's nature and cuts diametrically across it looks like wilful perversity on God's part, and is therefore not something I am willing to attribute in that direction.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No-one would ever suggest that all heterosexuals have the gift of celibacy. But this school of thought expects that all homosexuals have it.
Didn't the Shakers suggest exactly that?
No. They were quite happy for other people to not be celibate and boost their numbers.
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
FooloftheShip, could you expand on your reference to Michael Vasey please? I know he was gay; what else are you getting at?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
FooloftheShip, could you expand on your reference to Michael Vasey please? I know he was gay; what else are you getting at?
When I was at the University of Essex, he came and gave a seminar in the Chaplaincy about the very painful process of writing in his book "Strangers and Friends". I found him and his paper both impressive and moving, and I was left with a very strong impression of the scale of the task he was taking on, in trying to find an honourable way of holding on to the two central truths of his life, namely his evangelical faith and being loved by God sexuality and all. Within a short time of that talk, he had committed suicide.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Thanks for that insight; he certainly wasn't as open about being gay when I knew him. However, I didn't think he'd committed suicide. Certainly I wondered about that at the time he died and was assured it was natural causes.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thanks for that insight; he certainly wasn't as open about being gay when I knew him. However, I didn't think he'd committed suicide. Certainly I wondered about that at the time he died and was assured it was natural causes.
I may have been wrong about the suicide element: it wasn't exactly confirmed at the time, but when I raised it I was rather more encouraged than discouraged in my conclusion forming.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
That's Virtue Online, Leo. It's a homophobic site. Note they very carefully don't say anything that goes beyond that he was HIV positive at the time of his death, but they say it in such a way as to imply he died of it as they want to tie his death to his sexuality. Other sites say he died of heart disease, but there's no obvious good authoritative source to settle the matter.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrrt01
Shipmate
# 11264
|
Posted
Andrew Brown at the Guardian has commented on VR's interview in this article.
Re the support group: it is entirely possible that the support group was formed to support him as rector of St Ebbe's OR that it is a mutual support group. It is also possible that Vaughan himself set it up. To impute bad motives to its existence seems unfair without at least some evidence.
Re marital status: the interview show that he is single, and has never (afaik) been married. He is 'walking the walk'.
I may not agree with his theology, but I admire his willingness to follow his conscience before God.
Posts: 62 | From: Manchester | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
Re the support group: it is entirely possible that the support group was formed to support him as rector of St Ebbe's OR that it is a mutual support group. It is also possible that Vaughan himself set it up. To impute bad motives to its existence seems unfair without at least some evidence.
I'm not imputing bad motives. I'm sure they think they're doing something good.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There is an element of self-loathing involved in denial of one's genuine and actual nature involved with both...This pastor actually has hatred toward himself. IMPO
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I missed any reference in the interview to his own marital status... If he is happily married, then either his homosexual attractions are fairly incidental, or his wife is an unusually long-suffering woman, such as it can hardly be one's duty to unearth. And if he is unhappily married because he never told her before tying the knot, "oh, by the way, I actually like guys a lot better," I wouldn't give him the time of day.
Neither, he's actually unmarried. Would you give the time of day to someone who has chosen to be celibate for their entire life because they wish to commit their life to the service of God, and believe this is the most honest and faithful way to do it?
You and no prophet may not agree with him that celibacy is necessary, but surely you can respect the man's decision?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh, and the thing about the Advisory Group?
Yes. All very supportive. They'll sit around and pray for their afflicted brother.
And then probably they'll all go home and have sex with their wives.
The "support", again in my experience, doesn't actually tend to extend so far as bearing the burden with him. It consists of spiritually cheering from the sidelines and applauding one's bravery in suffering. But conservative evangelicals are thoroughly willing to provide THAT kind of support to their homosexual brothers.
(and sisters too, probably, but I'm personally familiar with the gay male struggler/straight male support dynamic - all very manly)
That's extremely binary. I think Vaughan is trying to break that stereotype - that the world can be divided easily into straight people and gay people. Rather he would view the advisory group as a group of sinners each struggling with their faith and their sin, and supporting each other. From Vaughan's article I'd be astonished if he saw it as a bunch of sraight men telling a gay man what to do.
Perhaps I didn't read it carefully enough, but I can't say I saw much evidence that they all sat around sharing their sins, it read to me as if they all sat around 'supporting' the one person deal with his particular sin.
That's possible, it's not explicitly metioned in the article. However, hearing a sermon by Julian Hardyman and by Peter Comont (a member of the advisory group and a pastor in East Oxford) in the past, from what they both have said about other supporting groups of pastors they belong to, I would suspect this is another of those general mutual-support groups among friends and trusted colleagues and not a specific one set up purely to keep Vaughan on the straight and narrow.
And FooloftheShip's comment about the advisory group not containing other celibate gay men to support Vaughan, yes that isn't ideal, but I would suspect this is because there isn't anyone else struggling with a similar tempation in their circle of trusted colleagues who can be invited to join. It is better to discuss a problem one has with others who shares that problem, but if not possible, then this is surely better than no support or encouragement at all.
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
As for the concept of the burden placed by God, I'm not sure. I've always tended to the belief that in Christ everyone's burden is light exactly because it is their burden, shaped for them by God who is love and loves each one of us as we are.
A nice bit of theology, and it would be good if it were true. I know a lot of faithful Christians who struggle with incredibly heavy burdens though (such as serious and debilitating health issues), who have prayed for healing and not been given it. God, in his ineffable wisdom, sometimes gives us thorns in our side, sometimes an entire thorn-bush. I agree with Svitlana.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And even accepting the label of it a sin for present purposes... do you REALLY think it's just like other sins? Heck, even St Paul doesn't think that sexual immorality is the same as other sins.
It's simply not the same. If you're going to label someone's sexual attraction as sinful - not just their sexual attraction to a particular person, but either all or the vast majority of their sexual attractions to ANYONE - then that is an astonishing burden.
It's not what I believe, but what Vaughan believes that is important. He argues that it is like other sins. He doesn't uplay it - and make it into the most important sin in his life, and the one the church should be most concerned about. He doesn't downplay it either though, he believes in the Bible commandments against it, and so doesn't dishonestly try to argue it away or justify it by arguing it's not really a sin, or not as bad as other sins. He has convictions, and he has the courage to stand by them. I can respect that.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
That's Virtue Online, Leo. It's a homophobic site. Note they very carefully don't say anything that goes beyond that he was HIV positive at the time of his death, but they say it in such a way as to imply he died of it as they want to tie his death to his sexuality. Other sites say he died of heart disease, but there's no obvious good authoritative source to settle the matter.
I didn't know that and I am very grateful to you for pointing this out. (I do remember some conversation with my vicar after Michael's death - they were fellow liturgists and fellow evangelicals and good friends for a long time - but I couldn't remember the outcome - though i thought it was HIV-related - and my vicar was in no way the sort of person who would believe stuff peddled by such an organisation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Would you give the time of day to someone who has chosen to be celibate for their entire life because they wish to commit their life to the service of God, and believe this is the most honest and faithful way to do it?
Of course. Such have been builders of western civilization out of all proportion to their numbers.
quote:
You and no prophet may not agree with him that celibacy is necessary, but surely you can respect the man's decision?
Now you're confusing me. First you say that he is celibate because he wants to commit his life to the service of God, and then you tell me that be believes celibacy to be necessary. We have a saying, don't we, "making a virtue of necessity." It implies at best a little mind-game played on one's own psyche, and at worst a rather dishonest attempt to impress others. So no, I don't entirely buy it. We don't get brownie points for doing something about which we really have no choice.
If the former is the case, then he is in excellent company, but the nature of the sexual attraction that he is sublimating is totally irrelevant. Why are we discussing it?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
We're discussing it because it is the necessary God-given right of Christians to meddle in, and be prurient about, all aspects of someone else's sexuality. (but leave mine alone, it is NOYB)
"Love your neighbour" does not apply to Christians on matters of sexuality, because they have a special dispensation for this.It must be in the Bible somewhere.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
As a bisexual, I find this very interesting.
Wait, no, not interesting-- what's the words I'm looking for? Ah, yes! An adorably quaint Victorian view of gender as purely one-or-t'other which is backed neither by history, biology, nor even the Bible (Mt. 19:12, and then the whole part where a man who did not have 'whole genitals' could not be part of the assemblies of God in Leviticus way before there were gender assignment surgeries available for intersex people).
Of course, I also have the belief that whomever you're engaging in intimate relations with is between you, and that person, and if you're into that kind of thing, God. As I'm not God, nor likely to be one of the people in the intimate relationship*, I don't bloody well care.
And I don't understand really why anyone else cares all that much, either. Or feels the need to tell me about your intimate relationships, or struggles with same--
--also, and I'm surprised no one's brought this up-- how hilariously Protestant is it that when you're having questions about your sexuality you form a COMMITTEE?!
*Seriously, you really want to break people's brains? Tell them you're presently celibate and bisexual. It's adorable! It's like, "Wha-- not having sex but finding lots of people sexy? HOW-- WHAT-- DOES NOT COMPUTE ABORT/RETRY/IGNORE?"
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Ahh Spiffy, you made the post I wanted to make ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Please let's not forget that it is perfectly possible for a male pastor to be happily married to a woman AND be attracted to men (making a general point here, I am aware that Roberts is celibate). Bisexuality, if Kinsey is to be believed, is more common than homosexuality yet one would never know this if they went by church debates on sexuality. Speaking for myself, I am bisexual but voluntarily celibate regarding relationships with women. Non-voluntarily single regarding relationships with men ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
The pressure for young men and women in evangelical churches to marry off as soon as they are done with higher education is huge and incredibly unhelpful to both debates on sexuality and church life in general. Even for those who are attracted to the opposite gender, the pressure to marry despite perhaps not actually feeling the 'burn' of passion is very limiting. There is no encouragement for singles in the church to get settled in themselves emotionally before considering marriage, and it's assumed that a serious relationship between a young man and woman will automatically lead to marriage.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jade
Would you say that British evangelicals suffer quite a high rate of divorce as a result of this attitude?
I suspect that the pressure to marry can't be a universal evangelical trait, since many evangelical churches are are undersupplied with men, leaving many (straight) women with no option but to remain single or to marry non-Christians. The latter option tends to be frowned upon in those circles. This state of affairs offers a solution for evangelical lesbians: attend an evangelical church with a shortage of men, then noone can reasonably expect you to rush into marriage!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade
Would you say that British evangelicals suffer quite a high rate of divorce as a result of this attitude?
I suspect that the pressure to marry can't be a universal evangelical trait, since many evangelical churches are are undersupplied with men, leaving many (straight) women with no option but to remain single or to marry non-Christians. The latter option tends to be frowned upon in those circles. This state of affairs offers a solution for evangelical lesbians: attend an evangelical church with a shortage of men, then noone can reasonably expect you to rush into marriage!
I couldn't honestly say from experience - I'm at the age where my evangelical peers are getting married - but I would say that the divorce rate for British evangelicals mirrors that of US evangelicals, which I believe is far higher than for liberals and people higher up the candle.
Also in my experience, evangelical churches tend to be better supplied with young men than other churches, especially student churches (and marrying straight out of university is de rigueur).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
As a bisexual, I find this very interesting.
As a bisexual, you have same-sex attraction. Why do you think I chose my wording so carefully?
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
As a bisexual, I find this very interesting.
As a bisexual, you have same-sex attraction. Why do you think I chose my wording so carefully?
I hope Spiffy doesn't mind me answering for them, but for me at least, the idea that sexual orientation is binary is the problem here. Bisexuality means that it cannot be so. I have same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction at the same time!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know it's binary. Either you have same-sex attraction or you don't.
As a bisexual, I find this very interesting.
As a bisexual, you have same-sex attraction. Why do you think I chose my wording so carefully?
I hope Spiffy doesn't mind me answering for them, but for me at least, the idea that sexual orientation is binary is the problem here. Bisexuality means that it cannot be so. I have same sex attraction and opposite sex attraction at the same time!
But I didn't say that sexual attraction was binary in that sense, did I? I said that either you have same-sex attraction or you didn't. I did NOT say that having same-sex attraction meant you didn't have opposite-sex attraction.
As I said, my choice of wording was conscious and deliberate. Because the point was that a person who doesn't have same-sex attraction is going to find it difficult to relate to and understand the experience of having a sense of same-sex attraction condemned. There's a reason why there's a 'B' in GLBT or GLBTI. There's also a reason why there's no 'H' in there for heterosexual. There are many differences between the G, L, B, T and I, but the common element and shared experience is being different from the norm.
[ 04. October 2012, 05:26: 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
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
I think you may be talking past each other a little, because I see both your points and I don't think they're necessarily contradictory.
It's true that same-sex attraction can be considered independently of opposite-sex attraction, and that any given person could have one or the other, both or neither. But at the same time, the different possible degrees of that attraction don't necessarily lend themselves to neat statements that you've either got it or you haven't.
Assume that I'm basically straight (because I am) - you'd say I don't have same-sex attraction. But what if I occasionally find some feminine-looking men quite attractive in a non-sexual way? What if I once had a crush on a man? What if I regularly do? How far down this line does the switch get flipped so I suddenly become same-sex attracted?
I don't think there's an easy line you can draw between "same-sex attracted" and "not same-sex attracted". The most likely answer is at the point where you have ever thought of a member of the same sex in any sort of sexual way, but that's a very broad definition, so broad as to be almost meaningless, and there's still the thorny problem of defining "sexual". I'm happy to be corrected, but I think it's a bit more complicated than a simple "yes" or "no".
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm at the age where my evangelical peers are getting married - but I would say that the divorce rate for British evangelicals mirrors that of US evangelicals, which I believe is far higher than for liberals and people higher up the candle.
Also in my experience, evangelical churches tend to be better supplied with young men than other churches, especially student churches (and marrying straight out of university is de rigueur).
That's interesting. The evangelicalism I'm most familiar with is of the inner city variety, which is probably rather different from what you're describing.
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them? It's interesting that the only churches where young people can have fun are those where they face heavy expectations about how they should organise their personal lives. That's quite fascinating, really.
I don't think there's an easy answer to these questions, except that we like to make life complicated for ourselves. A church where noone's interested in anyone's else's sex life is evidently just too easy for most people! Maybe it's just not challenging enough!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them?
Many reasons:
worship-style and doctrine - I know two gay people who came from evangelical backgrounds into a MOTR inclusive church but found the worship too formal and the doctrine too 'sloppy/dodgy' and returned thither they had come
they believe in working for change from within
internalised homophobia - they want to told that God hates them
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them?
Many reasons:
worship-style and doctrine - I know two gay people who came from evangelical backgrounds into a MOTR inclusive church but found the worship too formal and the doctrine too 'sloppy/dodgy' and returned thither they had come
they believe in working for change from within
The interesting question for me is why some of the theologically MOTR churches don't draw more wholeheartedly on these lively styles of worship while deliberately retaining their tolerant atmosphere. It's not a specifically gay issue, but more about church culture in general, and why it develops in one direction but not in another.
In the UK at least, this seems to be a huge challenge. The 'trendy vicar' with his guitar is a stereotype not from Anglican evangelicalism but from ordinary congregations, but he's depicted as a man who's out of touch, unsuccessful in trying to bring pop culture and mainstream church worship together.
Maybe it was possible in the 70s, when there was more optimism and idealism in the mainstream churches, and it was okay to do weird things in church. Nowadays, it seems that only evangelical charismatics are expected to be enthusiastic and daring in worship, while the traditionalists are only allowed to be enthusiastic and daring in their theology. This is an unsatisfactory division of labour for today's church.
What you say about working for change from within is interesting. Is it easier to make a lively charismatic church gay-friendly than to make a gay-friendly church lively and charismatic!?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them? It's interesting that the only churches where young people can have fun are those where they face heavy expectations about how they should organise their personal lives. That's quite fascinating, really.
This parallels another common facet of gay life (though it's becoming less common all the time): coming out to your homophobic relatives. At what point do you just throw in the towel and accept that dad/grandma/Uncle Vern will never accept you or even just leave you in peace, forcing you to cut off all ties? I can imagine someone from a particularly homophobic family would likely also be raised as a member of a particularly homophobic church and severing ties with the latter would probably involve severing ties to the former. For instance, if one were to re-write your post in this context, the difficulties become more apparent.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of [a homophobic family] in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people [form a] more tolerant ["family of choice"], where less would be expected of them? It's interesting that the only [families] where young people can have fun are those where they face heavy expectations about how they should organise their personal lives. That's quite fascinating, really.
In that context it's a lot less "fascinating" and a lot more heartbreaking.
This is, of course, only a valid observation to the extent that a church is analogous to a family, though most people "choose" their first church in much the same way they "choose" their family, by being born into it. If one sees a church more like a restaurant or an auto mechanic (i.e. an easily replaceable vendor providing a service) then the analogy is less valid.
[ 09. October 2012, 18:36: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them?
Many reasons:
worship-style and doctrine - I know two gay people who came from evangelical backgrounds into a MOTR inclusive church but found the worship too formal and the doctrine too 'sloppy/dodgy' and returned thither they had come
they believe in working for change from within
The interesting question for me is why some of the theologically MOTR churches don't draw more wholeheartedly on these lively styles of worship while deliberately retaining their tolerant atmosphere. It's not a specifically gay issue, but more about church culture in general, and why it develops in one direction but not in another.
A lot of charismatic evangelical theology is encapsulated in the worship material. Some of it would actually be quite difficult for a non charizevo to sing. Moreover, there are a proportion of of people in more MOTR churches who are refugees from charizevoism who don't want to go back to that material.
quote:
In the UK at least, this seems to be a huge challenge. The 'trendy vicar' with his guitar is a stereotype not from Anglican evangelicalism but from ordinary congregations, but he's depicted as a man who's out of touch, unsuccessful in trying to bring pop culture and mainstream church worship together.
He doesn't exist in reality. Some media types seem to think that guitars go with liberal theology - you'd think modernisers in one way would be modernisers in another. It's generally within the church that we know that ain't so.
quote:
Maybe it was possible in the 70s, when there was more optimism and idealism in the mainstream churches, and it was okay to do weird things in church.
Maybe, going by some of the material that dates from there, generally used in MOTR churches where it seems to me to sit a bit uneasily with 19th century hymns and organs.
quote:
Nowadays, it seems that only evangelical charismatics are expected to be enthusiastic and daring in worship, while the traditionalists are only allowed to be enthusiastic and daring in their theology. This is an unsatisfactory division of labour for today's church.
You never come across what I call the Traditionalism Quotient? It's generally a constant. It's found by multiplying the degree of traditionalism within the worship style by the degree of traditionalism within the theology. If both were low, the TQ would be low; if both were high, the TQ would be high. This doesn't happen, because the TQ tends towards being a middling constant.
quote:
What you say about working for change from within is interesting. Is it easier to make a lively charismatic church gay-friendly than to make a gay-friendly church lively and charismatic!?
Ah, that's impossible for man...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them? It's interesting that the only churches where young people can have fun are those where they face heavy expectations about how they should organise their personal lives. That's quite fascinating, really.
I don't think there's an easy answer to these questions, except that we like to make life complicated for ourselves. A church where noone's interested in anyone's else's sex life is evidently just too easy for most people! Maybe it's just not challenging enough!
That's rather assuming that the purpose of an evangelical church is to be homophobic and controlling. That may be the nature of many of them, but it doesn't need to be that way. Maybe many gay Christians actually have a faith where the Cross, the Bible and Evangelism are central? Maybe they also (as has been said) prefer lively worship and to be among their peers, age-wise. That many churches with such an emphasis have badly let them down is the problem, it is not a given. I do agree that it is a puzzle that this should so often seem to be the case.
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
When our gay and lesbian congregation first started back in the early 90s, the organising committee was formed of 3 Catholics, 2 Anglicans, a Methodist, 3 Presbyterians, 1 Salvationist and 2 Baptists. It was decided very early on that there couldn't possibly be one style of worship!
Over the following 10 years the Catholic/Anglican end became more evangelical and the Baptist/Methodist end became more contemplative and liturgical. Everyone benefitted - well, I think so. There was a very determined collective will to cooperate and be a congregation together.
There were some wild moments, but no one ever said it had to be easy.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Croesos
I accept that if you really want to belong in a particular environment but can't, it must be heartbreaking. But this way of being seems less and less likely in modern, westernised, individualistic societies. Families split up and reconfigure all the time. Children grow up and move away, they change jobs, relationships and friendships. Young people frequently create their own identities, rather than relying on ready-made ones that arrive at birth. Children from religious families routinely shed their inherited religious identity for another, or for none at all. So the idea that we should identify with one family/community/faith tradition all our lives seems somewhat out of date; but I accept that your environment may be very different from mine.
Karl
Thanks in particular for the Traditionalism Quotient. I'll certainly look into that! In terms of worship songs, more liberal churches don't have to simply borrow music that's sung elsewhere; they can write their own, as they used to do. As for 70s church music, I quite liked it! I didn't find it clashed with Charles Wesley. (That could just be because it reminds me of my childhood, though!) Interestingly, although the assumption is that Methodists sing their theology, there's an appreciation now, I think, that we don't always believe exactly what we sing. I suspect that choral singing serves a number of purposes, and we may be willing to sing something that makes us feel nostalgic, or part of a greater whole, even if we don't quite agree with its theology, or don't understand what it means. Perhaps this diversity of thought is silently tolerated for traditional hymns, but becomes more problematic when it comes to worship songs. But why...?
mrs whibley
The assumption on these boards tends to be that evangelical churches are generally homophobic, so it's good that you have a broader picture to paint!
Traditionally, evangelical Protestants have been quite schismatic; they revel in appearing to be contrary. This is problematic for gay evangelicals, I think, because their struggle isn't to be distinctive, but to be accepted. For straight evangelicals, founding new denominations is about self-determination and independence. Perhaps many gay evangelicals feel unable to do the same because it would be read as a capitulation to homophobia rather than a victory for self-determination and ideological freedom in the evangelical tradition.
Unlike many people here, I don't automatically see schism as a bad thing. Different denominations serve different needs. There should be more churches/ denominations that are at ease with gay pastors, etc., in or out of romantic relationships. There certainly seems to be a need for that, considering all the debate this subject arouses. I can't understand why there aren't more churches that bring these issues together, if it's what people want. Church planting must be a dying art in evangelicalism.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
When our gay and lesbian congregation first started back in the early 90s, the organising committee was formed of 3 Catholics, 2 Anglicans, a Methodist, 3 Presbyterians, 1 Salvationist and 2 Baptists. It was decided very early on that there couldn't possibly be one style of worship!
Over the following 10 years the Catholic/Anglican end became more evangelical and the Baptist/Methodist end became more contemplative and liturgical. Everyone benefitted - well, I think so. There was a very determined collective will to cooperate and be a congregation together.
There were some wild moments, but no one ever said it had to be easy.
Having said that ecumenicalism can be difficult, I know that plenty of new churches and 'non-denominational' churches are made up of people from different denominations coming together.
The advantage of starting something completely new is that the participants each have a strong voice in what happens. This can get lost once a church develops its 'traditions' and becomes less flexible.
You're lucky to have had the opportunity to start up a completely new church fellowship. Have you ever written about it in a book or blog, etc.? Your experience might be helpful to others.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place.
I guess I wasn't aware that my sexuality would be expected to automatically dictate the content of my belief system.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You'll not find much on the TQ because I invented it, but the idea that churches seem to either need the security of traditional theology or traditional worship has been commented on before.
You raise a very interesting point about how we seem more able to cope with theology we do not own in traditional hymns than in modern choruses. I think it's probably because songs from the charismatic tradition carry with them a sense of emotional connection to the words; singing them without meaning them completely seems to strike more at the heart of the whole point of singing them than it does with older hymns which seem to have a greater degree of seperation.
If you see what I mean - you can readily imagine someone singing Majesty with their hands in the air and their eyes closed; much harder somehow to imagine someone singing Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in quite the same way.
Entirely cultural.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If you see what I mean - you can readily imagine someone singing Majesty with their hands in the air and their eyes closed; much harder somehow to imagine someone singing Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in quite the same way.
Singing with your hands in the air and your eyes closed isn't any more a natural sign of emotional connection that singing lustily from a hymn book. You might even say that it's a sign that one feels the need to contrive an outward sign of whatever you ought to be feeling.
I say that as one who finds Praise to the Lord, the Almighty meaningful and emotional despite or even because of the problems with the existence of evil that it raises.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If you see what I mean - you can readily imagine someone singing Majesty with their hands in the air and their eyes closed; much harder somehow to imagine someone singing Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in quite the same way.
Singing with your hands in the air and your eyes closed isn't any more a natural sign of emotional connection that singing lustily from a hymn book. You might even say that it's a sign that one feels the need to contrive an outward sign of whatever you ought to be feeling.
I know. But I hope you know what I mean about the higher expectation of emotional connection.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place.
I guess I wasn't aware that my sexuality would be expected to automatically dictate the content of my belief system.
Not the entire content, no! But since we all have a theology about sex, it must have a part to play in our theological outlook as a whole. If churches are meant to be indifferent about sex, why would they conduct marriages? (Some would say they shouldn't. They could be right.)
There's no denying that the same-sex marriage issue has been presented to the public as a liberal, not an evangelical religious position. Perhaps that's a poor strategy; you could say the activists are missing a trick by not looking for brave gay evangelicals to share the public platform with them. It would be more instructive than the public discussions we've had so far. (I'm speaking about my own country, but it would be interesting to know if the debate has been different elsewhere.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place.
I guess I wasn't aware that my sexuality would be expected to automatically dictate the content of my belief system.
Not the entire content, no! But since we all have a theology about sex, it must have a part to play in our theological outlook as a whole.
Yes, but you asked why a person would be a member of an evangelical church. You're effectively taking the theology of sex and making it into the primary driver of which church to attend. Never mind if I agree with evangelical positions and theology on the vast majority of topics, if I want some peace and quiet about sexuality, I really should go elsewhere, ignoring all the other mismatches so long as I find a church that will accept my homosexuality.
This is precisely the thinking I have had to deal with in recent years, inside my own head and now it seems in the minds of others. After my old church took a lurch into more conservative evangelical territory with a change of minister, I eventually felt that I had to leave as a mental survival mechanism. Never mind all the other theology of low Anglicanism that I was in alignment with.
When I could stomach looking for another church, I found one that was a reasonably okay fit. And then the minister there left, and while the new one was not a homophobe or anything of that nature, his style is completely out of synch with my style. His sermons either leave me cold or bored or make me squirm with embarrassment.
I need, like everyone else needs, a church that sustains and nurtures my faith and which I can relate to. And it annoys the freaking hell out of me that I end up feeling like I have to have a Number One Question at the top of the list: are you okay with me being gay. And that there'll be this expectation of crossing otherwise wonderful and amazing churches off the list if the answer is No, and having to make do with whatever dregs happen to be left in the Yes column.
There ought to be FAR more important criteria than that one. Yet not only is it a struggle for me to relegate it down the list, it sometimes seems as if some churches and Christian groups are obsessed with it as well. We've got Anglicanism splitting down the middle over it. Here in Australia we've got the Australian Christian Lobby, which claims to be the leading political group representing Christians (but which lately is beginning to look like a fringe group and not nearly as representative as the politicians first thought), spending ridiculous amounts of its time discussing the 'homosexual agenda' as if it's the most important thing in the Christian worldview.
Denominations have already been created over all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal points, but dammit, I do NOT want homosexuality to be one of them. Homosexuals should be present in churches across the entire theological spectrum. And in fact they probably are.
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Orfeo: quote:
Denominations have already been created over all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal points, but dammit, I do NOT want homosexuality to be one of them. Homosexuals should be present in churches across the entire theological spectrum. And in fact they probably are.
Amen and Amen. Preach it, brother!
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Orfeo: quote:
Denominations have already been created over all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal points, but dammit, I do NOT want homosexuality to be one of them. Homosexuals should be present in churches across the entire theological spectrum. And in fact they probably are.
Amen and Amen. Preach it, brother!
Yes, up to a point. Better if you say that you do not want sexuality to be one of them - homo, hetero, or anything else for that matter.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There ought to be FAR more important criteria than that one. Yet not only is it a struggle for me to relegate it down the list, it sometimes seems as if some churches and Christian groups are obsessed with it as well. We've got Anglicanism splitting down the middle over it. Here in Australia we've got the Australian Christian Lobby, which claims to be the leading political group representing Christians (but which lately is beginning to look like a fringe group and not nearly as representative as the politicians first thought), spending ridiculous amounts of its time discussing the 'homosexual agenda' as if it's the most important thing in the Christian worldview.
Homosexuality is one of what Jonathan Dudley has dubbed "the Big Four" of Evangelicalism.
quote:
I learned a few things growing up as an evangelical Christian: that abortion is murder; homosexuality, sin; evolution, nonsense; and environmentalism, a farce. I learned to accept these ideas -- the "big four" -- as part of the package deal of Christianity. In some circles, I learned that my eternal salvation hinged on it. Those who denied them were outsiders, liberals, and legitimate targets for evangelism. If they didn't change their minds after being "witnessed to," they became legitimate targets for hell.
<snip>
When the Bible and biology are mixed in this way, the products are boundaries. The preceding stances on each issue, in the eyes of many, define the perimeter of the evangelical community. Like walls surrounding a city, the issues serve to distinguish evangelical insiders from nonevangelical outsiders. If you don't think life begins at conception, or you believe gay marriage is OK, chances are many evangelicals won't see you as a fellow Christian.
In other words, Dudley's case is that a big chunk of the evangelical brand of Christianity has defined itself in such a way that being anything other than anti-gay places you outside the faith.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, he is writing from an American perspective. I didn't use to think things were quite that cut and dried here.
Indeed, one of the more interesting observations I saw recently re the Australian Christian Lobby's inordinate influence was that Australian politicians get some training in America, get impressions about the importance of the 'Christian' vote, and come back thinking that the 'Christian' vote is terribly important here. It takes them a while to figure out that people with these kinds of views are a much smaller force in Australia.
But yes, they still exist.
My old church, before the aforementioned 'lurch', was wonderful precisely because it included people with differing views on these topics and most of them really didn't care that much that the person in the next pew might disagree with them on evolution or abortion or euthanasia.
It turns out that SOME of them did care. They regarded the homosexual couple (who - I'm not kidding - I never even realised were a couple until after they'd left) as a 'problem', especially as one was heavily involved in the church in ministry roles.
The people who cared about these things managed to gain control of the appointment of the new minister. They got the kind of man they thought they wanted. The church got ripped into pieces. Their man went on stress leave. A former bishop has been brought in to pick up the pieces of what used to be one of the largest, most vibrant churches in the diocese.
[ 11. October 2012, 01:54: 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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, but you asked why a person would be a member of an evangelical church. You're effectively taking the theology of sex and making it into the primary driver of which church to attend. Never mind if I agree with evangelical positions and theology on the vast majority of topics, if I want some peace and quiet about sexuality, I really should go elsewhere, ignoring all the other mismatches so long as I find a church that will accept my homosexuality.
We all have to make compromises with church. We might like one aspect of a church and dislike another, and we make a judgement as to whether, on balance, the good weighs more than the bad. But if a place is more unbearable than helpful, though, is it worth staying? (Perhaps too many of us prop up cruel churches, when really we should leave them to die.)
I'm finding it difficult to make a compromise at the moment in terms of what I need from a church. I think it must be a widespread problem, which is partly why I think we need a greater diversity of churches, not less.
quote:
After my old church took a lurch into more conservative evangelical territory with a change of minister, I eventually felt that I had to leave as a mental survival mechanism. Never mind all the other theology of low Anglicanism that I was in alignment with.
When I could stomach looking for another church, I found one that was a reasonably okay fit. And then the minister there left, and while the new one was not a homophobe or anything of that nature, his style is completely out of synch with my style. His sermons either leave me cold or bored or make me squirm with embarrassment.
If our comfort at a church resides principally in what the minister is like, then we're never going to be entirely secure, because ministers come and go. In the Methodist Church, the normal period for stationing is 5 years. This is why I have problems with the minister-as-leader model of church; why should the theological temperature of a church change every 5 years, depending on the arrival or departure of one person? I think the permanent, settled congregation should be creating the atmosphere, not the minister. But that's a subject for another thread.
quote:
I need, like everyone else needs, a church that sustains and nurtures my faith and which I can relate to. And it annoys the freaking hell out of me that I end up feeling like I have to have a Number One Question at the top of the list: are you okay with me being gay. And that there'll be this expectation of crossing otherwise wonderful and amazing churches off the list if the answer is No, and having to make do with whatever dregs happen to be left in the Yes column.
This begs the question of why the Yes churches should represent the dregs rather than the No churches. I posed this question before: what is it about some of the mainstream churches than makes them unexciting places to be, despite their affirming, welcoming credentials? It's a serious question, but I've yet to see a serious treatment of the subject. I don't want to intellectualise it, but I think it would make an interesting and, above all, a vitally important research topic for someone to engage in.
quote:
Denominations have already been created over all sorts of weird and wonderful doctrinal points, but dammit, I do NOT want homosexuality to be one of them. Homosexuals should be present in churches across the entire theological spectrum. And in fact they probably are.
Evangelicals shouldn't be starting new denominations??? That's not a very evangelical thing to say, is it?!! My feeling is that disagreements about sexual behaviour should be treated as theological disagreements like any other, and shouldn't be given more, or less, attention than any other. Unfortunately, people are fascinated by sex and less and less interested in other theological issues, which creates the impression that the churches do nothing but talk about homosexuality all day long. Perhaps that's the problem - if we were all more passionate about our other, more significant, beliefs then homosexuality might seem quite unimportant in comparison.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
It's one thing for my church to hassle me. Who knows, that might be its job in the short run. But it's another if the church I support hassles my friends, not only in catechism and pulpit but venturing into political and legal arrangements to do so: people in whom I find no fault either with who they are or with their decision to live accordingly. If I support an organization that is making life difficult for a friend, then I am making life diffficult for a friend. Some friend me. To my mind, this is the issue.
If one believed, however reluctantly, that such betrayal were indirectly necessary to one's salvation (as, Zach or I might if we ceased to believe that TEC were fully part of the church Catholic) then I suppose one might have an adequate reason to submit and participate. Fortunately, we do not. And in any case, I'm not sure that a mere personal stylistic preference could justify it.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The most obvious question, I suppose, is why a gay person, or indeed anyone who just wants to be left in peace, would be a member of an evangelical church in the first place. Or, to put it another way, why don't young people go to the more tolerant churches, where less would be expected of them?
Many reasons:
worship-style and doctrine - I know two gay people who came from evangelical backgrounds into a MOTR inclusive church but found the worship too formal and the doctrine too 'sloppy/dodgy' and returned thither they had come
they believe in working for change from within
The interesting question for me is why some of the theologically MOTR churches don't draw more wholeheartedly on these lively styles of worship while deliberately retaining their tolerant atmosphere. It's not a specifically gay issue, but more about church culture in general, and why it develops in one direction but not in another.
In the UK at least, this seems to be a huge challenge. The 'trendy vicar' with his guitar is a stereotype not from Anglican evangelicalism but from ordinary congregations, but he's depicted as a man who's out of touch, unsuccessful in trying to bring pop culture and mainstream church worship together.
Maybe it was possible in the 70s, when there was more optimism and idealism in the mainstream churches, and it was okay to do weird things in church. Nowadays, it seems that only evangelical charismatics are expected to be enthusiastic and daring in worship, while the traditionalists are only allowed to be enthusiastic and daring in their theology. This is an unsatisfactory division of labour for today's church.
What you say about working for change from within is interesting. Is it easier to make a lively charismatic church gay-friendly than to make a gay-friendly church lively and charismatic!?
Really? Has Fresh Expressions not been in much effect in your area? I've been in nosebleed-high churches with very interesting worship. Of course it depends what you mean by 'enthusiastic and daring', but imo there is a variety of ways of achieving this.
Also in my experience, many LGB people I know have been drawn to AffCath congregations because of their gay-friendliness (it's been explicitly said on the church websites) and have learnt to love the services. It really depends on one's non-negotiables. Mine were gay-and-OoW-friendly, Eucharist every week and a friendly atmosphere. With the weekly Eucharist in particular, that led me to an Anglo-Catholic church and I am happy there despite being a little lower on the candle myself (but only a little lower).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Has Fresh Expressions not been in much effect in your area? I've been in nosebleed-high churches with very interesting worship. Of course it depends what you mean by 'enthusiastic and daring', but imo there is a variety of ways of achieving this.
Also in my experience, many LGB people I know have been drawn to AffCath congregations because of their gay-friendliness (it's been explicitly said on the church websites) and have learnt to love the services. It really depends on one's non-negotiables. Mine were gay-and-OoW-friendly, Eucharist every week and a friendly atmosphere. With the weekly Eucharist in particular, that led me to an Anglo-Catholic church and I am happy there despite being a little lower on the candle myself (but only a little lower).
Sorry - I thought you were attending an evangelical church! Yes, I've heard that Anglo-Catholic churches are attractive to some gay people. I suppose I was thinking more of MOTR churches. (Does 'MOTR' include Anglo-Catholicism in CofE contexts?)
I've heard quite a bit about Fresh Expressions, although my area isn't really into that kind of thing so much - I'd have to go further out into the suburbs.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Has Fresh Expressions not been in much effect in your area? I've been in nosebleed-high churches with very interesting worship. Of course it depends what you mean by 'enthusiastic and daring', but imo there is a variety of ways of achieving this.
Also in my experience, many LGB people I know have been drawn to AffCath congregations because of their gay-friendliness (it's been explicitly said on the church websites) and have learnt to love the services. It really depends on one's non-negotiables. Mine were gay-and-OoW-friendly, Eucharist every week and a friendly atmosphere. With the weekly Eucharist in particular, that led me to an Anglo-Catholic church and I am happy there despite being a little lower on the candle myself (but only a little lower).
Sorry - I thought you were attending an evangelical church! Yes, I've heard that Anglo-Catholic churches are attractive to some gay people. I suppose I was thinking more of MOTR churches. (Does 'MOTR' include Anglo-Catholicism in CofE contexts?)
I've heard quite a bit about Fresh Expressions, although my area isn't really into that kind of thing so much - I'd have to go further out into the suburbs.
Within the CoE, liberal Catholic churches are much easier to find than liberal evangelical churches. This undoubtedly has an impact. I'm post-evangelical but went straight into Anglo-Catholic churches although I think my last church could be called MOTR - it's the group I have the least experience with so I can't help with that much, sorry. Anglo-Catholic is definitely not MOTR within the CoE! MOTR churches wouldn't use incense, have side chapels not lady chapels and use a variety of music within services. Clergy usually wear cassock with surplice and tippet for non-Eucharistic services. You would probably find most Fresh Expressions stuff in MOTR churches, actually.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Most Fresh Expressions are in evangelical churches - or in a few MOTR attempting to poach disillusioned evangelicals.
You're probably talking about FE in the CofE environment. The Methodist Church (which is the tradition I know) has also taken up FE, but I wouldn't say that the Methodist goal is to poach evangelicals from other churches. In my estimation, Methodist evangelicalism isn't usually heavy enough to rival the alternatives, and in any case, the goal of FE is to reach people outside or on the periphery of the church. I get the impression that FE content would be too basic for most serious evangelicals.
I've read about emergent/emerging churches, which are supposedly aimed at disillusioned post-evangelicals. The emergent church might be a space where gay and straight Christians could meet on common ground without the weight of tradition to divide them. These groups call themselves 'non-denominational', so there would be no fear (in theory) of creating a 'new denomination'. However, they don't seem to have taken off in the UK.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
