|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One third of young people who abandon Christianity cite anti-gay policies
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Jade Constable
Christians disagree with each other over all sorts of theological matters - some of which seem quite major - without allowing those differences to ruin their lives. But we seem to have reached the point where disagreement over sexuality has become massively more significant than disagreement over the virgin birth, or the Trinity, or the resurrection of the dead, or the Prosperity Gospel, etc. This is rather shocking when you think about it. It suggests that Christianity really has hollowed itself out. The clergy spend years studying theology, but the thing that really matters is the certificate; theological content itself has become less and less important.
Indeed, it seems to be less theologically problematic for a young person from a Christian family to become an atheist than it is for a young Christian to come out as gay. To put it bluntly, the former don't (as far as I know) kill themselves, they just leave the church, become autonomous beings, and carry on with their lives. Obviously, no one should kill themselves, but what's the theological message here? That it's worse to be gay than to be an atheist??
Nah. I'd like different theological perspectives on sexuality or sexual behaviour to be treated as just that: different theological perspectives. No one's psychological equilibrium is shattered because they disagree with their church family about the Creeds. They either tolerate each other peaceably, or else the person with the less orthodox views leaves their strict church and finds a more amenable church to attend, and everyone will be happy. This is how it should be, IMO.
[ 02. March 2014, 19:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There was a piece in the "Sunday" programme today with an interview with one of the Americans behind the Ugandan law - I put it here because his rationale (not sure that is the right word) is based in religion. And it is a religion in a world which is wholly alien to me. I couldn't be associated with a church thinking like that. If I were a young person, and that was the world I were required to live in to be a Christian, I wouldn't be one.
Part the way through.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, has it not occurred to anti-gay churches that it is them that's ignoring the Holy Spirit, and that affirmation of queer people is not just a trend but part of being a true Church family?
No.
They absolutely believe that they are following the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and that affirmation of queer people is directly contrary to true christianity and being part of a true Church family.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
There is an interesting new survey released yesterday (Huff Post article, Original research) that of people under 34 years of age ("millennials") in the US:
- 70% of them agreed that religious groups are "alienating young adults by being too judgmental on gay and lesbian issues."
What did the other 30% think? Or were they made up of people who think that being gay is evil and who cares about spreading anything that resembles good news?
quote:
- of those who had left the religion they grew up with, one third cited anti-gay teachings of that religion as being a motivating factor in that decision. (Since it's a US survey, the "religion they grew up with" is Christianity ~95% of the time)
Alas the report doesn't give the other reasons. Although to answer Dafyd my reason for leaving the Church in the mid 90s was I simply thought it was full of codswallop. Millenials aren't all recent leavers and the Church's homophobia wasn't as out of step then as it is now. Or I think as strong as it is now - I've said in the past that homophobia is the defining moral principle on which British Christians are visibly out of step with the rest of society, and that leads to feedback loops.
quote:
I am a bit surprised, really, that Christian leaders haven't been paying more attention to this fact, as they do seem to often express worry about young people leaving their congregations. Perhaps knowing that a third of those leaving are doing so because of their anti-gay stance will lead them to rethink that stance...?
That would mean they had to change. And to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.
And apparently the old are out of touch with the young with less than half the Silent Generation realising homophobia drives people away.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
It continually hurts to remain part of the Anglican Church. But where would I go?
Indeed, mutatis mutandis.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Two-Owls
Shipmate
# 9680
|
Posted
To be frank, if someone asked me a few years ago when I was in my thirties I would probably have said "because of the discrimination against the LGBT community". This wouldn't be because I cared all that much about LGBT people but because I would have wanted to say something that I could actually argue and I knew some of the arguments about that particular issue from even my sketchy knowledge of current affairs. The real reason I dropped out of churchgoing was because I couldn't be bothered but that just makes me sound like a lazy, self-centred git. It is always better to sound like someone with principles rather than someone with no interest whatsoever.
Posts: 1262 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
No.
They absolutely believe that they are following the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and that affirmation of queer people is directly contrary to true christianity and being part of a true Church family.
John
This still comes off as a false dichotomy to me. There's a huge amount of space between anti-gay preaching, and affirmation of gay relationships.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
seekingsister
There may be some space between preaching against and affirmation of gay relationships, but the churches (CofE, RC and Orthodox) aren't affirming anything: at best they're saying 'we know you're wrong, we disapprove of you, but we'll officially say you're welcome to be a member, so long as you don't ask to be married; oh, and we might discriminate against your off-spring as well'.
And that's the BEST bit - the Orthodox, certainly in Greece and Russia - are a lot less welcoming than that.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
No.
They absolutely believe that they are following the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and that affirmation of queer people is directly contrary to true christianity and being part of a true Church family.
John
This still comes off as a false dichotomy to me. There's a huge amount of space between anti-gay preaching, and affirmation of gay relationships.
Just to be clear, I was commenting on Jade Constable's question, and those were the terms in which she posed it. She seemed to me to be assuming that those doing the anti-gay stuff really, at heart, at the most basic level, must somehow know that the Holy Spirit was with those they are oppressing: I was just pointing out that the anti-gay lot are quite sure, really, at heart, at the most basic level, that those they are oppressing are wrong, sinful, and going against the will of the HOly SPirit.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, has it not occurred to anti-gay churches that it is them that's ignoring the Holy Spirit, and that affirmation of queer people is not just a trend but part of being a true Church family?
No.
They absolutely believe that they are following the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and that affirmation of queer people is directly contrary to true christianity and being part of a true Church family.
John
I was asking a rhetorical question - sorry for any confusion. I am well-aware of the views of anti-LGBTQ+ churches.
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just rereading the Barna-research-based book "Unchristian" which spells out the various negative views of evangelical Americans, the most salient point on this issue was that the young people nowadays know some self-proclaimed GLBTs, who have usually turned out to be the kind of people one wants for friends.
This, in turn, means that the church preaching about the evil monsters who are going to steal our children don't appear to exist.
And, as a result, the church preaching about LOVE is seen as wrong, because the church actions are not seen as loving. So they walk away as soon as they have the chance.
Plus, once they are known as gay-friendly, their church often pushes them away befor4e the kids have a chance to run, and sends their parents along with them.
Hatred is easy to breed in closed communities.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There was a piece in the "Sunday" programme today with an interview with one of the Americans behind the Ugandan law - I put it here because his rationale (not sure that is the right word) is based in religion. And it is a religion in a world which is wholly alien to me. I couldn't be associated with a church thinking like that. If I were a young person, and that was the world I were required to live in to be a Christian, I wouldn't be one.
Part the way through.
I was astounded when i listened to that yesterday morning. LGBTs, he reckons, are responsible for divorce.
I was thinking of a gay couple that I know who are celebrating 50 years of being together and wondering how it was their fault that the straights can't make their marriages last longer than 10 years.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
It s a bit of a jaw dropper, isn't it? I often, despite my best endeavours, sleep fitfully through Sunday - I blame them shifting the time of transmission , but this one woke me up in disbelief. And I bet he is also a YEC, since the style of argument and the manner of "discussion" is very similar. But YECishness doesn't end up with dead people.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Christians disagree with each other over all sorts of theological matters - some of which seem quite major - without allowing those differences to ruin their lives. But we seem to have reached the point where disagreement over sexuality has become massively more significant than disagreement over the virgin birth, or the Trinity, or the resurrection of the dead, or the Prosperity Gospel, etc. This is rather shocking when you think about it. ...
The reason that issues of sexuality - divorce is a horse that has left the barn, but there's still sex before marriage, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality - have been so divisive is because Christians haven't been content to merely disagree with each other. They haven't let it ruin their lives because they're too busy ruining other people's lives. They've tried to win the debate by having their governments impose their ideas on Christians they disagree with, as well as non-Christians.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
seekingsister
There may be some space between preaching against and affirmation of gay relationships, but the churches (CofE, RC and Orthodox) aren't affirming anything: at best they're saying 'we know you're wrong, we disapprove of you, but we'll officially say you're welcome to be a member, so long as you don't ask to be married; oh, and we might discriminate against your off-spring as well'.
The problem is that we have one side saying, "If we make any move even vaguely suggesting that homosexuality is not an extremely evil sin, then we are tacitly endorsing it."
And we have another side saying, "If you're not going to marry us and ordain us and publicly state that our relationships are 100% OK within your church, you are homophobic."
Most Christians (I believe anyway) are in the middle. And there are more than enough churches and denominations that are affirming and accepting of gay marriage, that a gay Christian can find a fellowship that works for him or her. I got married in a Unitarian church by a lesbian minister - because that church was welcoming of a mixed race interfaith couple that had lived together before marriage, and no one else really was. There are lots of relationships that the Christian church doesn't affirm - not just gay ones.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
seekingsister
One of the nicest gay couples I know isn't asking to be married, or blessed, or prayed over - and certainly neither of them wants to be ordained.
What they would like is for their child to be baptised: but the grandmother of the infant (who is a priest) not only refuses either to baptise it herself or to be present at a baptism, but she has written to their parish priest where they live, the rural dean, archdeacon, etc, etc, etc more or demanding that no one else baptise the child either.
This lovely (and loving) couple aren't asking to whistles and bells, just for their baby to be baptised in the middle of the community where they live and where, apart from the church, belong.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Upon what basis can baptism be refused?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What they would like is for their child to be baptised: but the grandmother of the infant (who is a priest) not only refuses either to baptise it herself or to be present at a baptism, but she has written to their parish priest where they live, the rural dean, archdeacon, etc, etc, etc more or demanding that no one else baptise the child either.
So the grandmother is refusing to do the baptism or attend, but the parish priest et. al. are having to be persuaded by her, and possibly (probably?) unsuccessfully.
This doesn't read like a case of the Church of England refusing to baptize the child, but more like a family conflict.
Is there any CofE policy that says children of gay couples cannot be baptized?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
...what exactly is an American doing behind a Ugandan law, anyway?
I'm sure I can find something in the Paraguayan civil code that isn't to my taste...
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The Americans are working in Uganda because their efforts aren't getting anywhere against the attitude shift in the US. A whole bunch of condescension about how those ignorant blacks can be talked into what we good white upstanding Christians tell them,
plus the shrill whine of "nobody at home likes us and our hate-filled policy"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The reason that issues of sexuality - divorce is a horse that has left the barn, but there's still sex before marriage, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality - have been so divisive is because Christians haven't been content to merely disagree with each other. They haven't let it ruin their lives because they're too busy ruining other people's lives. They've tried to win the debate by having their governments impose their ideas on Christians they disagree with, as well as non-Christians.
This sounds like a political problem to me, rather than a specifically religious one. When it comes to politics, everyone's allowed to try and 'win the debate'. In secularising countries like ours purely religious arguments are likely to lose, sooner or later.
In a country like Uganda, I'm surprised that such an anti-gay culture has only now decided that it needs an anti-gay bill. The reasons strike me as political rather than religious, because I'm sure there were gay people for the churches to get worked up about 10 or 20 years ago....
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[...]
This lovely (and loving) couple aren't asking to whistles and bells, just for their baby to be baptised in the middle of the community where they live and where, apart from the church, belong.
This looks like a case where the parents will have to go to the Methodists or the URC. (These denominations do still have their uses as independent institutions, it seems! They shouldn't merge with the CofE just yet.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sounds like a political problem to me, rather than a specifically religious one. When it comes to politics, everyone's allowed to try and 'win the debate'.
Only if we abandon the "liberal" part of liberal democracy, which assumes that there are certain rights and liberties which aren't up for debate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps churches that do accept and welcome gays should make it more obvious? It will be interesting to see if the under 35s then start beating a path to their doors, or whether they will then come up with another reason why they're not interested. It's where the survey results get translated into reality that interests me.
I attended a gay friendly church ~ albeit discreet in acknowledging that ~ it was talking to anyone else. And gay friendly churches have been known to have problems from other churches and congregations.
My church* was generally affirming as well, with a few notable exceptions. But once the CofE had made an official statement against SSM, claiming to speak on my behalf with its bewildering array of kneejerking, distortion and special pleading, there was no way I could remain part of that body. Once that was an "official" statement, it drew a line in the sand and I couldn't/wouldn't stay where I was.
Where these statistics may be confusing, and Bob Two-Owls has touched on something in this direction, is that it's almost never just one thing. I'd effectively given up on the church before that, but could have gone on forever as a passive presence in the pews not wanting the awkward conversations that would result from walking away.
It's entirely possible that an unpleasant and high-profile view offers an excuse for people who want to leave anyway. My reaction could be viewed in that way, although I see it more as a deeply unpleasant lifting of the veil. I left because I felt that I'd seen the truly ugly side of a church I'd always considered fairly sensible. I couldn't unsee that, and I wasn't going to be associated with those views just for the sake of somewhere to go on Sunday mornings.
Depending on what questions were asked and in what context, you could get very different answers, and in any case, they should be taken with a huge quantity of salt. It's very rare that a single thing makes the difference, and my route out of the church could be traced back about 15 years. It is significant when the same things keep coming up, but interpreting it is difficult.
* - I never know the right way of describing it - it is "my" church in the sense that it's the one I left, and the one my family still attend, but very much not my church seeing that I left it. I suppose this will have to do for now.
--------------------
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
Croesos
What counts as liberal democratic principles changes over time, as a result of public debate and changing opinion. (E.g. there were few calls for gay marriage 30 years ago, yet we would still argue that most Western societies were liberal democracies. Times change.) Religious groups are free to make their arguments as part of such a debate, and if those arguments are deemed not to be sufficiently democratic according to wider cultural standards they can be dismissed. Religious arguments regularly fail, even in countries like the USA where the Religious Right are so noisy. Isn't that why they make so much noise - because their importance is waning?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... What counts as liberal democratic principles changes over time, as a result of public debate and changing opinion. (E.g. there were few calls for gay marriage 30 years ago, yet we would still argue that most Western societies were liberal democracies. Times change.) ...
It's not the principles that change. What changed in Western societies is who is allowed to enjoy the benefits of those principles. Property rights haven't changed for hundreds of years, but they're now open to everyone, instead of just free men, or white people, or whatever. Laws against miscegenation fell before gays and lesbians gained equality. Women once weren't allowed to vote; now they are. And so forth. Even minor privileges are now universally enjoyed.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The Americans are working in Uganda because their efforts aren't getting anywhere against the attitude shift in the US. A whole bunch of condescension about how those ignorant blacks can be talked into what we good white upstanding Christians tell them,
plus the shrill whine of "nobody at home likes us and our hate-filled policy"
One of the reasons it struck me is because the rhetoric in Uganda suggests that homosexuality is something 'Western', or European. It seems very odd, then, that anyone in Uganda would take advice from the West on this issue. It's taking advice on how to solve a problem from the people that created the problem.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
. And there are more than enough churches and denominations that are affirming and accepting of gay marriage, that a gay Christian can find a fellowship that works for him or her.
Not if that christian values the sacraments in the way that (some) Anglicans, (some)Lutherans and RCs do.
There's more to church, IMO, than fellowship.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Replace "values" with "has similar eucharistic theology to". There are lots of churches that value the sacraments deeply that don't go for the Real Presence.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
. And there are more than enough churches and denominations that are affirming and accepting of gay marriage, that a gay Christian can find a fellowship that works for him or her.
Not if that christian values the sacraments in the way that (some) Anglicans, (some)Lutherans and RCs do.
There's more to church, IMO, than fellowship.
John
The US Episcopal Church is affirming and sacramental.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just came across Barna Survey on Young Adults Leaving the Church
May be of some help in this thread.
Doesn't say much about homosexuality per se, but does deal with the whole approach to sexuality as being out-of-date or irrelevant.
Sadly quote:
Research indicates that most young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers, even though they are more conservative in their attitudes about sexuality.
which leads to the question about "what is the point of church in the first place?"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Generally Christians show at least some concern about not putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of people coming to the gospel (particularly young people - cf Mat 18:6). Often salvation is considered the (only) important thing, and so non-essential teachings that drive people away from Christ are generally minimised. I doubt many people think that teachings on homosexuality are a core gospel matter or essential for salvation. Do you think they are? Even people who would like to see the church remain "faithful to scripture" in terms of maintaining unwavering opposition to homosexuality, surely have to accept that at some point driving people away in large numbers is unhelpful to some of the church's basic goals, and that acceptance of homosexuality is not nearly as harmful to the church as having no members left in the congregation.
I’m sure that there are people who believe that one of the church’s basic goals is to ensure that as many people as possible enjoy salvation and inherit the Kingdom of God, and that if the church were to accept and endorse behaviour which leads to exclusion from the Kingdom of God, it would have abandoned its goals and its very reason for existence.
And I’m sure that there are people who believe that teachings on homosexuality are essential for salvation (based on 1Cor.6:9-10), and therefore that the acceptance of homosexual behaviour would indeed be harmful to the church. Better a church that has very few members which teaches the words of eternal life than a popular church that teaches the words of eternal death. That’s why this subject provokes such intense arguments –it really is considered to be a matter of (eternal) life and death.
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
... Sadly quote:
Research indicates that most young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers, even though they are more conservative in their attitudes about sexuality.
which leads to the question about "what is the point of church in the first place?"
It seems the one Christian value they took with them when they left the church was hypocrisy. If that is the answer to Horseman Bree's question, that's really sad.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I was thinking of a gay couple that I know who are celebrating 50 years of being together and wondering how it was their fault that the straights can't make their marriages last longer than 10 years.
That's very arrogant of them given that there's a lot of gay couples who relationships last much less than 10 years and a lot of hetereosexual couples whose relationships last more than 50 years.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I was thinking of a gay couple that I know who are celebrating 50 years of being together and wondering how it was their fault that the straights can't make their marriages last longer than 10 years.
That's very arrogant of them given that there's a lot of gay couples who relationships last much less than 10 years and a lot of hetereosexual couples whose relationships last more than 50 years.
I think that the point is that relationships are seen to be judged by the church on an axis straight/ gay which people find increasingly meaningless as opposed to an axis long-lasting/ ephemeral. The position of a lot of Christian homophobes seems to be that the latest Kardashian flingette is somehow more meaningful than e.g. a gay couple I know who were together for 18 years and where one of the partners nursed the other through terminal cancer. To which the only adequate response is: "for the love of Jesus, stop being such a twat".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
ISTM that making heterosexism an unyielding, unchangeable part of Christian doctrine is almost tantamount to fetishism. Of all the things that are a core, central part of our faith, surely that isn't. Many bits of doctrine have been reversed in the last 2000 years. (Just to take one instance in the Catholic Church, the immaculate conception.) If believing that homosexual marriage is okay is damning, then salvific faith is very weird and much different from what Jesus preached.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If you love God, then there are a large number of activities that you will not be tempted to do.
Seriously? All I have to do is love God, and the temptations will cease? I smell a "No True Scotsman" fallacy here. "I'm tempted." "Ah, you just don't love God enough."
quote:
Sadly quote:
Research indicates that most young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers, even though they are more conservative in their attitudes about sexuality.
which leads to the question about "what is the point of church in the first place?"
You mean if its purpose is not to enforce sexual morality, it has no purpose? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Did you take your "I must be sour pills" today?
The point I was trying to make was that the whole upbringing-as-Christians thing didn't work, and doesn't work.
10 years ago, it was being reported that born-again Christians were no better than the rest of the general public in regards to abortion, teen-age pregnancy, divorce, murder rates, lack of tithing, etc. In most cases, these Christians were worse than the average. And they were supposed to be the Good Examples.
And the most-Christian states had the highest murder, divorce and teen-pregnancy rates, while Godless Massachusetts, that un-American Liberal place, had the least problem.
Now we see that the kids of those people are, surprise! surprise!, just as likely to do stuff that is not acceptable to the Church as anyone who has not been to church at all.
If that is the net result of church teaching all through their formative years, why would one bother going to the church?
Of course, the church may be a social center, but that is hardly a reason to go through all those years of apparently-pointless Sunday School and Sunday services.
There may be individual churches that do it well and keep their kids interested , but overall, it ain't happening.
P.S. this thread is about attitudes to sexuality, so I thought it could be mentioned. Let's do gossip or gluttony or pride if you prefer.
[ 07. March 2014, 01:18: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
To say that attending church doesn't make any difference in teen pregnancy and divorce rates understates the influence of the church. Abstinence only sex education programs advocated by the churches turn out not to be particularly good at preventing teen pregnancy. The pressure for early marriage leads to a lot of divorces. To be fair, the tendency in liberal states like Massachusetts for many people to simply live together without marrying also understates the rate of couple breakup since it doesn't show up as divorce.
[ 07. March 2014, 03:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Did you take your "I must be sour pills" today?
Are those on the same shelf as the "I forgot to be clear" pills?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Horeseman Bree and mousethief
With the recent sniping exchanges, it looks like you're starting to move into Commandment 3/4 territory. You know the guidelines; best to back off or take it to Hell.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
[QUOTE]I think that the point is that relationships are seen to be judged by the church on an axis straight/ gay which people find increasingly meaningless as opposed to an axis long-lasting/ ephemeral.
That may be so for some but where's the proof?
I'm not convinced that "people" care that much about others' relationships at whatever level - it's a "me" world.
What doesn't add to the debate are leo's chums claiming they have something others' don't. That kind of attitude can harden resolve not to engage: to many it doesn't come across whimsically droll, just catty.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
And I’m sure that there are people who believe that teachings on homosexuality are essential for salvation (based on 1Cor.6:9-10), and therefore that the acceptance of homosexual behaviour would indeed be harmful to the church. Better a church that has very few members which teaches the words of eternal life than a popular church that teaches the words of eternal death. That’s why this subject provokes such intense arguments –it really is considered to be a matter of (eternal) life and death.
Angus
Unfortunately this all really tends to come across as, the sin YOU do is so bad that you can't be part of my church, but the sin I do is forgivable because I'm straight.
I used to be part of a fairly fundamentalist church, and they have a lead minister who is on his third marriage. All of his ex-wives are alive, and there are lots of children and step-children involved who have been deeply hurt. He and the church have used Scripture to justify why he's been divorced so many times and asked the church to forgive his wrongdoings. According to him, he was the cause of the marital breakdowns. And yet they kick out anyone involved in homosexuality - this not only excludes one from leadership but from membership. No gay people allowed - end of story.
I am sure if you look at most anti-gay churches in the US you will find people who have committed a litany of heterosexual sins in the pews and at the pulpit.
So what's worse - the hypocrisy of only enforcing sexual morality on gay people, or allowing gay people in monogamous Christ-oriented relationships to share in the fellowship of other believes and let God decide?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I used to be part of a fairly fundamentalist church, and they have a lead minister who is on his third marriage. All of his ex-wives are alive, and there are lots of children and step-children involved who have been deeply hurt. He and the church have used Scripture to justify why he's been divorced so many times and asked the church to forgive his wrongdoings. According to him, he was the cause of the marital breakdowns. And yet they kick out anyone involved in homosexuality - this not only excludes one from leadership but from membership. No gay people allowed - end of story.
Not at all saying I agree with the policy of your former church, but I guess the difference is one of repentance. The lead minister has acknowledged mistakes on his part and sought the church's forgiveness (although, of course, one might wish to question his sincerity, but that's a separate point I think) whereas a Christian in a faithful same-gender relationship most likely believes they have nothing to seek forgiveness for. Which would be seen by the church as unacknowledged and unrepented sin.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Generally Christians show at least some concern about not putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of people coming to the gospel (particularly young people - cf Mat 18:6). Often salvation is considered the (only) important thing, and so non-essential teachings that drive people away from Christ are generally minimised. I doubt many people think that teachings on homosexuality are a core gospel matter or essential for salvation. Do you think they are? Even people who would like to see the church remain "faithful to scripture" in terms of maintaining unwavering opposition to homosexuality, surely have to accept that at some point driving people away in large numbers is unhelpful to some of the church's basic goals, and that acceptance of homosexuality is not nearly as harmful to the church as having no members left in the congregation.
I’m sure that there are people who believe that one of the church’s basic goals is to ensure that as many people as possible enjoy salvation and inherit the Kingdom of God, and that if the church were to accept and endorse behaviour which leads to exclusion from the Kingdom of God, it would have abandoned its goals and its very reason for existence.
And I’m sure that there are people who believe that teachings on homosexuality are essential for salvation (based on 1Cor.6:9-10), and therefore that the acceptance of homosexual behaviour would indeed be harmful to the church. Better a church that has very few members which teaches the words of eternal life than a popular church that teaches the words of eternal death. That’s why this subject provokes such intense arguments –it really is considered to be a matter of (eternal) life and death.
Angus
I have personally heard Wallace Benn say such things, so certainly such attitudes exist in certain corners of the CoE.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Also more generally - please can we refrain from referring to a binary homosexual/heterosexual division of sexuality? Sexuality is much more fluid than that and bisexual erasure is a thing. Bisexual, pansexual and otherwise queer people exist so please don't ignore us.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Not at all saying I agree with the policy of your former church, but I guess the difference is one of repentance. The lead minister has acknowledged mistakes on his part and sought the church's forgiveness (although, of course, one might wish to question his sincerity, but that's a separate point I think) whereas a Christian in a faithful same-gender relationship most likely believes they have nothing to seek forgiveness for. Which would be seen by the church as unacknowledged and unrepented sin.
I think everyone should be forgiven, but I do not think the New Testament intends for someone whose home life is in such disarray (he's divorced the second wife and married the third over the past 2 years, and remained in leadership the entire time) should be at the helm of a church.
I've seen a few cases where (usually male) church leadership is allowed to remain in position while dealing with infidelity, divorce, porn addiction, alcohol/drug addiction (not just in my old church but in others) and these are all evangelical places where homosexuality is 100% forbidden.
It sends a very nasty message to young Christians who are perhaps realizing that they are gay. It's OK to be in church or lead in church if you're up to your eyeballs in sin as long as you make a big show of repenting, but you can never, ever, be accepted if you are gay, even if you conduct your love life with the same standards that the Bible expects of straight people. It's hypocritical.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
[QUOTE]I think that the point is that relationships are seen to be judged by the church on an axis straight/ gay which people find increasingly meaningless as opposed to an axis long-lasting/ ephemeral.
That may be so for some but where's the proof?
I'm not convinced that "people" care that much about others' relationships at whatever level - it's a "me" world.
What doesn't add to the debate are leo's chums claiming they have something others' don't. That kind of attitude can harden resolve not to engage: to many it doesn't come across whimsically droll, just catty.
The point is that lots of gay relationships (certainly not all of them) offer a model of self-sacrificing fidelity which mirrors the relationship between Christ and His Church. And plenty of straight relationships (certainly not all of them) don't.
I realise that I am banging my head against a brick wall here but, in over a decade posting on these boards has no-one has ever explained to me in which part of a relationship which models the greater love hath no man than this bit between two people of the same gender is intrinsically evil. In what part of their love does the sin, the evil reside. What compromises their relationship so that it can never, despite any heights of mutual self giving or self-sacrificial love, ever be valid or meaningful? All you ever get back is an opaque fundamentalism plus some shit about how we need to be respectful of some African homophobe or other.
Why the hell shouldn't gay people get slightly snarky about people playing fast and loose with their souls and civil rights in a way we wouldn't tolerate in a moment if it were black people or Jewish people we were dealing with? Give us a credible argument or, as Malcolm Tucker would say, fuck the fuck off.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Not at all saying I agree with the policy of your former church, but I guess the difference is one of repentance. The lead minister has acknowledged mistakes on his part and sought the church's forgiveness (although, of course, one might wish to question his sincerity, but that's a separate point I think) whereas a Christian in a faithful same-gender relationship most likely believes they have nothing to seek forgiveness for. Which would be seen by the church as unacknowledged and unrepented sin.
I think everyone should be forgiven, but I do not think the New Testament intends for someone whose home life is in such disarray (he's divorced the second wife and married the third over the past 2 years, and remained in leadership the entire time) should be at the helm of a church.
I've seen a few cases where (usually male) church leadership is allowed to remain in position while dealing with infidelity, divorce, porn addiction, alcohol/drug addiction (not just in my old church but in others) and these are all evangelical places where homosexuality is 100% forbidden.
It sends a very nasty message to young Christians who are perhaps realizing that they are gay. It's OK to be in church or lead in church if you're up to your eyeballs in sin as long as you make a big show of repenting, but you can never, ever, be accepted if you are gay, even if you conduct your love life with the same standards that the Bible expects of straight people. It's hypocritical.
At least the hypocrisy was open for all to see. You certainly couldn't claim to be fooled, could you? In most churches the situation would be a lot more opaque than that.
BTW, I'm impressed that this pastor was so utterly brilliant at his job (including the begging for forgiveness part) that his disastrous personal life was considered to be of little consequence. If, as is often the case, we follow someone's example rather than listening to their words, we might all potentially be inspired by someone like him, regardless of our sexuality....
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, I'm impressed that this pastor was so utterly brilliant at his job (including the begging for forgiveness part) that his disastrous personal life was considered to be of little consequence. If, as is often the case, we follow someone's example rather than listening to their words, we might all potentially be inspired by someone like him, regardless of our sexuality....
He's a minor celebrity - former professional athlete. I think that many of his, um, merits are based on his ability to attract new members on the back of his local renown.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sounds like a political problem to me, rather than a specifically religious one. When it comes to politics, everyone's allowed to try and 'win the debate'.
The point of a liberal democracy is that if you lose the debate it shouldn't be catastrophic. This is why liberal democracies aren't very corrupt and are incredibly stable compared to other systems. It's never winner takes all and if you lose this round you can come back the next time.
There are two exceptions to this where it is winner takes all. The first is a coup (normally a self-coup). The second is where one side is claiming that the other quite literally shouldn't be full members of the society and shouldn't have rights.
quote:
In secularising countries like ours purely religious arguments are likely to lose, sooner or later.
Indeed. And they will lose and deservedly so so for two reasons.
1: The religious argument is claiming that LBGTQ people are not full citizens and shouldn't have the rights others do. This is the one argument that is anathema to a liberal democracy.
2: Those running the purely religious argument are claiming that their religion should have a veto over the rights of others, and therefore no one who does not share their religion is a full citizen with equal rights. This is even more anathema as it is neither more nor less than an attempt to disenfranchise everyone not agreeing with their religion.
The claim that marriage is a religious and not a secular institution amounts to nothing less than an attempted religious coup (arguably self-coup by Canterbury in Britain) by giving one group of people an absolute veto over the law.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
