Ship of Fools: The 'what if they're right?' fear and what to do with it.

Thread: The 'what if they're right?' fear and what to do with it. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030720

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I am not straight. Within that broad definition are a number of qualifiers and questions that I am still working out but fundamentally, I do not fit into the heterosexual camp and know that to do so would make me profoundly distressed and unhappy.

I am trying to find my way back into Churches. I am inching towards Catholicism and speaking to my personal situation, would have no problems seriously exploring a monastic vocation.

But I am held back by the 'what if they're right?' question. What if I really am depraved, unrepentent and detested by God? I can't change it. I can fail to act it out in my life but God calls for a deeper change than that and I know that at core of me I can't uproot it. I am left with a sense that there is something deeply damaged about myself. I feel so hopeless at times that I wonder if there's any point to this at all.

So what if they're right? What implications does that have for someone like me?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

If they're right then God is a sadist.

I'm always perplexed by those who claim that God's love and forgiveness are infinite and yet posit a God who seems to have a lot less love and forgiveness in Him than many finite humans.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Well, on the same basis Christians should also consider that we might be wrong about pretty much everything. We could be completely wrong for example and find out that Jesus didn't rise from the dead and that He wasn't from God. We can find out at the end that our religion really had no validity at all, so that all our dogmatic kerfuffle and theologizing really mattered nothing in the long run.

Nothing is ever certain when it comes to faith. I trust, and all I have is trust, in a God of infinite love, mercy, and grace.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If they're right then God is a sadist.

I'm always perplexed by those who claim that God's love and forgiveness are infinite and yet posit a God who seems to have a lot less love and forgiveness in Him than many finite humans.

This is my POV. Cannot reconcile the two.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Maybe it would be an idea to choose a Church which values and loves you for who you are as much as God does?

I'm sure they exist - and here is a good place to ask folks about their experiences.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I wish it were as easy as just choosing a church. I live in a tiny town in New Zealand, there isn't a lot here. I have thought about kicking back and exploring at my own pace but I have pesky sacramental theology leanings.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

When people talk about 'the leap of faith', I think this is what it means: one takes the leap of having faith that God is not the vindictive sadist that the homophobes say he is; that he loves you just the way you are; that he made you just the way you are so that you can witness to the great diversity in his creation by being yourself.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Something I've noticed is that friends who convert to churches as adults often feel they have to agree, intellectually accept, or reconcile themselves to everything that church says (eg. on contraception or anti-gay tenets) while my friends who are cradle Catholics, Orthodox etc. just ignore those bits or disagree with them and don't have any problem with that.

The last time I myself was looking for a church I found the congregation with the worship style which suited me best was an older conservative congregation which wouldn't have agreed with me on any Dead Horses but they never mentioned them and didn't invest their identity in these conflicts. On the other hand right next to me was a church of my denomination which made these things Their Business to Witness About and I quickly decided not to touch them with a bargepole.

I know it's easier said than done, but I'd knock the 'what if they're right' fears on the head. You don't need to accept that to go back. They're not right. It's just given the nature of authority in sacramental denominations that they can take decades to centuries to admit they're wrong about something, because they have to massage it to make it look like The Church never really changed its mind about something, when it did. If you tackle it the way the cradle Catholics, Orthodox etc. do, you either fight the stuff they have wrong from within or ignore it, but you understand that the Church can be wrong in the same way as your mother or embarrassing racist uncle can be wrong.

Look at a little church history as to the way the medieval churches treated Jewish people and even conversos. What they did was disgraceful and evil and none of those churches preach that sort of thing today (apart from a few wingnuts and schismatics). Would you be tempted for a moment to ask yourself 'what if they might be right?' about that or about belief in witches making demonic pacts through carnal copulation with the devil, or about supporting the secular arm in executing heretics?

Sacramental churches because of their deep roots in medieval societies have the problem that they often treat the ugly historical assumptions as sacrosanct along with the good, so your lovely liturgy comes with a toxic side-dish of homophobia and sexism which some people will try to convince you is an integral part of the meal itself and that you have to swallow it down whole.

You don't. You can refuse to do so, just as so many of the cradle people do. So the key becomes looking at the congregation - are you looking at a congregation who hone their identity with regard to the culture wars or a congregation who give a resounding 'meh' to that stuff?

If you can find a local congregation within travelling distance who clearly don't care for, or go in for the toxic stuff, then that might be a possible answer for you.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

What Louise said, definitely. My RC family appear to have no problems at all with me, even with my having tried to follow a vocation with a same-sex partner in tow. In fact, my lovely 80-year-old RC auntie is the only person apart from my (incredibly liberal) mum in my family who has asked about my vocation and discussed it in terms of the vocation rather than my sexuality. There's a reason she's my favourite aunt! Her daughter is a nun and we've had some fantastic times together.

From my own experience of trying to follow a vocation: I hold truth higher than trying to conform. Attempts to conform breed anger, bitterness and a twisting of the soul. I am who I am, and I am sure God loves me. Like Louise, I am not so comfortable with congregations who want to wave the flag for gay rights, even though I see the need for them in the overall scheme, and have been a flag waving member of one in the past.

And go and see Gardening With Soul to see some very down-to-earth Catholicism in action.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I wish it were as easy as just choosing a church. I live in a tiny town in New Zealand, there isn't a lot here. I have thought about kicking back and exploring at my own pace but I have pesky sacramental theology leanings.

You need a good, old-fashioned American style Anglo-Catholic church like S. Clement's in Philadelphia or Church of the Ascension in Chicago.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Slightly different for me because I am straight so the self-condemnation bit isn't a problem. But I say be honest with ourselves about what we believe, and if it turns out at the judgement seat (so to speak) that we're wrong we'll throw ourselves on the mercy of our God.

That said, although I try to be open to the idea that people I disagree with, even Tories, are speaking from a respectable perspective, I find it hard to see that being conservative about homosexuality would lead to any of the fruits of the Spirit. It would just mean being more judgemental about other people.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
You need a good, old-fashioned American style Anglo-Catholic church like S. Clement's in Philadelphia or Church of the Ascension in Chicago.

Zappa will have a better idea than I, but such a church is very, very rare in NZ. AUIU, the Anglican Church there is mostly a blend of good old-fashioned nineteenth century England preserved in general churchmanship, and 1970s hippy in its liturgy.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

And in a small town in NZ... you might be lucky to even have a priest in residence.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If they're right then God is a sadist.

I'm always perplexed by those who claim that God's love and forgiveness are infinite and yet posit a God who seems to have a lot less love and forgiveness in Him than many finite humans.

Does John 3:16 really say:

quote:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever is straight and believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ESV with my additions.

Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Slightly different for me because I am straight so the self-condemnation bit isn't a problem. But I say be honest with ourselves about what we believe, and if it turns out at the judgement seat (so to speak) that we're wrong we'll throw ourselves on the mercy of our God.

Wait. What if God is not merciful? Do we really have any proof that he is?

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scarlet:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Slightly different for me because I am straight so the self-condemnation bit isn't a problem. But I say be honest with ourselves about what we believe, and if it turns out at the judgement seat (so to speak) that we're wrong we'll throw ourselves on the mercy of our God.

Wait. What if God is not merciful? Do we really have any proof that he is?

We don't but if he's not then we're probably screwed anyway so I prefer to act as if he is.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Like Late Paul says, we trust anyway.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I'm gay/queer whatever you want to call me, just don't call me straight. I was baptized Catholic as a baby but my parents were lapsed Catholics and did not raise me in the Church. So when I started attending Church and has my First Communion and Confirmation in College I was basically converting. I was already out as gay at that time but, like all converts, I felt like I had to agree with the religion I was joining or else I was lying by assenting to my initiation into it - I wondered whether or not my confirmation would even be valid if I did not agree with the teachings of the Church when I was confirmed.

For a few years I tried as hard as I could to give the Church, bishops, the Pope, etc., the benefit of the doubt in everything. I would assume they were correct unless my conscience just could not wrap my head around something (which with some things like the prohibition of women's ordination I could just not get my conscience to understand or agree with). Even when my conscience definitely disagreed with something, I kept it quiet or used very circumlocutory language in talking about it so as not to move from being a material heretic to a formal heretic (ie, a public one). Ironically enough, I found myself surrounded by Catholic laypeople and priests that were much more comfortable and open in their dissent against Church teachings - even ones that the church leadership said were infallible.

Entering into a same-sex marriage about two and a half years ago (celebrated in a Lutheran church) set my mind on a whirlwind that eventually led me about a year ago to give in trying to fit my mind and conscience into a box that it clearly did not fit in. I now accept that I am a heretic, a mortal sinner, excommunicated, perhaps even a schismatic or apostate at times in the eyes of the Church leadership. I am not going to try very hard to argue with anyone that I am not.

I still go to a Roman Catholic Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation. I am registered at an RC parish and contribute my money to it (much to my husband's chagrin). I also attend his church (which was Lutheran where we lived and now looks like it will maybe be an Episcopal parish where we are moving), which means I go to two churches every Sunday/weekend.

Do I admit that I might be wrong and the Church leadership may be right? That my immortal soul may be in grave danger because of that? Yes. When I die, do I hope that I will be able to confess to an RC priest first? Yes. I will say all that I believe, said, did, and did not do, and humbly assent to whatever he says even if my conscience is utterly unable to comprehend it. If there is no Roman Catholic priest available, I will make the best confession I make to whomever is willing to hear it. If no one is available, I will do my best to make a perfect act of contrition to God. And if I don't even get a chance to think before I die, I will hope in God's mercy.

So yes, I live with fear that I may be wrong and might have to suffer the consequences, especially if my death comes on instantly. But the way I am living my life now feels much less hypocritical than it did before and I can't imagine living it any other way. I can't imagine not being a Roman Catholic, either.

All of this is not to convince you to join an RC parish or another conservative denomination. I'm just sharing my personal experience.

Also, if you believe that Anglican or Lutheran eucharists are valid, you can practice a very deep sacramental theology in those denominations.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Stop beating yourself up.

Rather than worrying if you are wholly loathsome, ask the logical question that the Church, if other pronouncements are to be believed, should be answering:

The RC Church teaches that all life is created by God - and that includes everyone of us, including you, so it is God who made you gay; how then can they argue that your God-given nature is "against God"?

Game over.

You are the person God made - and that includes your orientation. Whether or not you choose to share your life, and your body, is therefore up to you, using the free-will that God also gave you. It is not God who wants or demands that you be celibate but a group of human beings who claim to interpret for God; but God doesn't demand that we have a third party between us and him/her - we are all equal in God's sight.

You are as God intended you to be - and if that includes being a person with a satisfying emotional life who gives and receives love, including phsyical love, that is between you and God only.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

The RC Church teaches that all life is created by God - and that includes everyone of us, including you, so it is God who made you gay; how then can they argue that your God-given nature is "against God"?

Game over.

Erm, non sequitur.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Marcina--can't tell where you are from, but here is a LBGT Roman Catholic group you should check out:

http://www.dignityusa.org/

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
So what if they're right? What implications does that have for someone like me?

If they're right, then you should go out and get married to someone of the opposite sex. But this will be far more difficult for you than for them, since they are constitutionally impelled in that direction, whereas you are not.

And this is aside from the probable difficulties for your spouse. If you have perused the horror stories on the web site of the Straight Spouse Network, arising from individuals who did the right thing according those you are asking about, you will probably question their teaching even more. Didn't Jesus take a dim view time and again of a "righteousness" that caused suffering and hardship for others? This insistance that we should all pretend to be heterosexual, whether we are or not, has a lot to answer for.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

That and the idea that all non-heterosexuals are "called" to celibacy.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

What if you're wrong, they're wrong and the strict Islamic folks are right? Or some other group that doesn't allow multiple wagers?

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

Being a Christian is not about being right, it’s about being forgiven for being wrong.

Everyone does wrong things; but as Christians we are forgiven for them.

A verse of scripture that genuinely hits me between the eyes from time to time is Matt 9:13: Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’

Or to paraphrase, if you are “right”, Jesus did not come to call you.

Pray with Luke 18:10-15 one day. [I mean this in terms of believing you are right vs believing you might be wrong]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bax:

Or to paraphrase, if you are “right”, Jesus did not come to call you.

And since there is no Sermon of Jesus to the Homosexuals...

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I

But I am held back by the 'what if they're right?' question. What if I really am depraved, unrepentent and detested by God

You seem to be confusing Catholic teaching on sexuality with the ranting of some Evangelical Protestants. A homosexual orientation is not a sin for the same reason that a heterosexual one is not a virtue. A sexuality is merely a more or less strong temptation to act in one way rather than another. If you were living out a monastic vocation then your call to be celibate would be the same as that of anyone else.

If what you mean is that you do not repent of some of the acts you have carried out under the impulse of your sexuality because you see nothing wrong in them then while that is a serious matter it is not necessarily a deal breaker. Each of us has a dual responsibility to have a well formed conscience and to pay heed to what it tells us. If you study Catholic teaching on sexuality, accepting that the Church has authority and wisdom granted to her by the Holy Spirit when she teaches on faith and morals, and if you pray sincerely to be guided by the Spirit as you ponder the matter but discover that in all conscience you cannot accept at this timethat homosexuality is intrinsically disordered then you must heed your conscience.

The obligation this places you under is to mention this matter in Confession and to continuously seek to make your mind that of the Church. The Church for her part without resiling from her teachings can hope either for your conversion on the subject at a future time or that you will receive mercy from God because your rebellion might be based not on an impute le fault, like the sin of pride, but as it were an innocent fault like a constitutional inability to comprehend just exactly the one point around which the whole question hinges

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Bax:

quote:
Being a Christian is not about being right, it’s about being forgiven for being wrong.

Quotes file.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

This struck me as a very mature response. I can't fault it, can you?

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

Jesus would spend time with anyone, regardless of background- friends, passers by, 'sinners' (i.e. those who had rejected religion), friendly Pharisees, less friendly Pharisees, earnest listeners, thieves...

I strongly suspect it's important to be part of the community of God's people. Yet the real conversation is with Jesus, who will never close the door.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
This struck me as a very mature response. I can't fault it, can you?

Nice.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

What if they're right? I'll turn this one over to Mark Twain and the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (which is out of copyright).

quote:
It made me shiver. And I about made up my mind to pray; and see if I couldn't try to quit being the kind of a boy I was, and be better. So I kneeled down. But the words wouldn't come. Why wouldn't they? It warn't no use to try and hide it from Him. Nor from me, neither. I knowed very well why they wouldn't come. It was because my heart warn't right; it was because I warn't square; it was because I was playing double. I was letting on to give up sin, but away inside of me I was holding on to the biggest one of all. I was trying to make my mouth say I would do the right thing and the clean thing, and go and write to that nigger's owner and tell where he was; but deep down in me I knowed it was a lie-and He knowed it. You can't pray a lie- I found that out.

So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn't know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I'll go and write the letter- and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather, right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote:

Miss Watson your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send. HUCK FINN

I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn't do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking- thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me, all the time; in the day, and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a floating along, talking, and singing, and laughing. But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him agin in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such-like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me, and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had smallpox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he's got now; and then I happened to look around, and see that paper.

It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a trembling, because I'd got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

"All right, then, I'll go to hell"- and tore it up.

It was awful thoughts, and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming. I shoved the whole thing out of my head; and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being brung up to it, and the other warn't. And for a starter, I would go to work and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Rachel held Evans is on the same page as you
and then goes on to relate it to a present-day incarnation of an old problem.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Justinian-- thanks for that quote! I haven't read Huckleberry Finn since I was about his age and too young to appreciate how moving it really is.

I'll just note that one can easily read gay undertones in it-- as well as in Moby Dick. So the best two candidates for "Great American Novel" are as queer as a three dollar bill. It boggles the mind...

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

What worked for me, roughly and out of order...

Spend some time with serious scholarship, and learn to read for yourself and reach your own conclusions. For better and worse, we are largely protestant coutry where everyone has the right and responsibility to read the Bible for themself and reach their own conclusions.

ON that note, NOBODY can come between you and Jesus. No preacher, no wannabe evangelist, nobody. So it's between you and Jesus, ultimately. Anyone who steps into that relationship without your consent, and maybe osme who would do it with your consent, is committing abuse.

Everyone bears the image of God. this means that you bear the image of God and need to recognize that. Every image of God is marred, and everyone needs to realize that they're not a perfect reflection. Honor the good you see in people, but do not subject yourself to anyone but Christ.

Just because someone speaks with the confidence that they have God on their side or whispering in their ear doesn't mean that they actually understand God or what they're talking about.

This includes myself, of course. Buyer beware.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I find 'what if they're right' a very interesting question, not so much for its implications for gays and lesbians, but just a general query about religions. The 'they' can be seen as a sort of floating signifier, which can be filled in by all kinds of content of course, Christians, Sufis, Jews, atheists, shamans, and so on, and I have known people from all those categories.

But what is quite odd is that, as I got older, being right seemed to matter less and less, I suppose, or even seems to be an odd thing to ask about. I've got the postmodern blues, and being right has gone away, that's alright mama!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I had another thought about that, which I often do, after the guillotine has fallen upon my aristocratic neck, which is that all these queries begin after someone has said that you are wrong.

I don't just mean about being gay, but it probably applies to most things. As kids, we internalize the idea of being wrong, and then have to spend the remainder of life dealing with it in various ways.

Thus you can pretend that it wasn't said to you, you can agree with it, you can rebel against it, you can fight it off, you can try to prove it right (or wrong), and so on.

But it comes back to something simple I suppose, am I wrong right now? Am I bad? But at the same time, sometimes the question just doesn't arise at all, since after all, it is at heart, a neurotic question. Is that right?

Posted by ElderCat (# 18015) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I am not straight. Within that broad definition are a number of qualifiers and questions that I am still working out but fundamentally, I do not fit into the heterosexual camp and know that to do so would make me profoundly distressed and unhappy.

I am trying to find my way back into Churches. I am inching towards Catholicism and speaking to my personal situation, would have no problems seriously exploring a monastic vocation.

But I am held back by the 'what if they're right?' question. What if I really am depraved, unrepentent and detested by God? I can't change it. I can fail to act it out in my life but God calls for a deeper change than that and I know that at core of me I can't uproot it. I am left with a sense that there is something deeply damaged about myself. I feel so hopeless at times that I wonder if there's any point to this at all.

So what if they're right? What implications does that have for someone like me?

You are only "unrepentant" if you do not repent of (and then confess, if Catholic or Orthodox) sinful behaviors.

Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church would view you as depraved. Your sexual orientation is not in and of itself a depravity. It is the homosexual *acts* that are depraved and are sinful.

Having a particular sexual orientation is not at all a bar to full membership or full communion in either the CC or the OC.

If you're leaning towards the Catholic Church, have you discussed this at all with a priest?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ElderCat:
Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church would view you as depraved. Your sexual orientation is not in and of itself a depravity.

Just an 'intrisic disorder' according to the Vatican.

Posted by ElderCat (# 18015) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ElderCat:
Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church would view you as depraved. Your sexual orientation is not in and of itself a depravity.
Just an 'intrisic disorder' according to the Vatican.

I guess a disorder is "better" than a depravity, eh?
[Big Grin]

And most (all??) of us are disordered in one way or another....

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0