s/o Christians and gay marriage

[basilosaurus]

I mentioned in the other post that people should check out Rachel Held Evans. She's a young Christian (evangelical) blogger whose post right after amendment 1 in NC went viral. I'll share the beginning here. I think a lot of Christians on this board are likely to relate to what she says.

When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “antihomosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.”)

In the book that documents these findings, titled unChristian, David Kinnaman writes:

“The gay issue has become the ‘big one, the negative image most likely to be intertwined with Christianity’s reputation. It is also the dimensions that most clearly demonstrates the unchristian faith to young people today, surfacing in a spate of negative perceptions: judgmental, bigoted, sheltered, right-wingers, hypocritical, insincere, and uncaring. Outsiders say [Christian] hostility toward gays...has become virtually synonymous with the Christian faith.”

Later research, documented in Kinnaman’s You Lost Me, reveals that one of the top reasons 59 percent of young adults with a Christian background have left the church is because they perceive the church to be too exclusive, particularly regarding their LGBT friends. Eight million twenty-somethings have left the church, and this is one reason why.

In my experience, all the anecdotal evidence backs up the research.

When I speak at Christian colleges, I often take time to chat with students in the cafeteria. When I ask them what issues are most important to them, they consistently report that they are frustrated by how the Church has treated their gay and lesbian friends. Some of these students would say they most identify with what groups like the Gay Christian Network term “Side A” (they believe homosexual relationships have the same value as heterosexual relations in the sight of God). Others better identify with “Side B” (they believe only male/female relationship in marriage is God’s intent for sexuality). But every single student I have spoken with believes that the Church has mishandled its response to homosexuality.

Most have close gay and lesbian friends.

Most feel that the Church’s response to homosexuality is partly responsible for high rates of depression and suicide among their gay and lesbian friends, particularly those who are gay and Christian.

Most are highly suspicious of “ex-gay” ministries that encourage men and women with same-sex attractions to marry members of the opposite sex in spite of their feelings.

Most feel that the church is complicit, at least at some level, in anti-gay bullying.

And most...I daresay all...have expressed to me passionate opposition to legislative action against gays and lesbians.

“When evangelicals turn their anti-gay sentiments into a political campaign,” one college senior on her way to graduate school told me, “all it does is confirm to my gay friends that they will never be welcome in the church. It makes them bitter, and it makes me mad too. This is why I never refer to myself as an evangelical. Ugh. I’m embarrassed to be part of that group.”

More here rachelheldevans.com/win-culture-war-lose-generation-amendment-one-north-carolina

She has a follow up post at rachelheldevans.com/waging-war-washing-feet

[Deleted]

That blog post of RHE's was great. I was also introduced to her blog in the wake of NC passing Amendment 1.

[Deleted]

Interesting reads. Thanks for sharing!!

I'd also like to point that it's pretty cool that an atheist shared this!

[earlgreyhot]

Great read.

[Deleted]

There was something on NPR recently were several evangelical preacher agree the church has mishandled it and the issue is no longer stopping "gay marriage" but when will it become legal.

I like my sister's blog's interpretation of sodom and gomorrah of it isn't about homosexuality but about inhospitality.

[Guest]

Doesn't the bible say homosexuality is bad? I think the koran has similar precepts. I don't think it's a worthy endeavor to try to redefine ancient religions in this land of free religion. Gay people should be free to be gay while religious people should be free to believe in their religion and not have it rewritten to suit anyone else.

I do not think the bullying actions of individuals against gays or the suicidal thoughts of some gays can be credited to a religion, only to the people choosing those activities/responses. If gay christians hate themselves for being gay due to their religious beliefs, why can't they just convert to or create a religion like Christianity but that accepts gays? I think this solution allows everyone to be happy and not have their freedoms trampled by the beliefs of others.

[KateAggie]

May 23, 2012 1:40:47 GMT -5 @Guest said:

Doesn't the bible say homosexuality is bad? I think the koran has similar precepts. I don't think it's a worthy endeavor to try to redefine ancient religions in this land of free religion. Gay people should be free to be gay while religious people should be free to believe in their religion and not have it rewritten to suit anyone else.

I do not think the bullying actions of individuals against gays or the suicidal thoughts of some gays can be credited to a religion, only to the people choosing those activities/responses. If gay christians hate themselves for being gay due to their religious beliefs, why can't they just convert to or create a religion like Christianity but that accepts gays? I think this solution allows everyone to be happy and not have their freedoms trampled by the beliefs of others.

You're not just a guest, you're a super special guest.

Tell me, do you get an instant headache when you think that hard, or does it take a few minutes before your tiny, overloaded brain recoils and spasms?

[WOT?*]

I love this quote in her "Ask a Gay Christian" interview (Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network):

From Dawn: Given all the nasty rhetoric that has been aimed at the LGBT community -- and in that sense, at you personally -- by Christian and Christian political leaders, what is it about Christianity itself that's so compelling that you haven't been turned off completely by so many of its messengers?

One word: Jesus.

The church is human, and we make mistakes. Sometimes we don't represent God very well at all. But Jesus represented God perfectly as the incarnation of God. He loved the people his culture didn't love, he interacted with people he wasn't supposed to interact with, and he refused to distance himself from the people others called "sinners." Jesus' harsh words were aimed at the religious leaders of his day who, in their zeal for correct doctrine, were pushing people away from God. He didn't run for office or yell at sinners through a bullhorn. He loved, healed, and fed people, and then he let them beat him and hang him on a cross.

That's my God.

[Super Special]

May 23, 2012 1:51:34 GMT -5 KateAggie said:

You're not just a guest, you're a super special guest.

Tell me, do you get an instant headache when you think that hard, or does it take a few minutes before your tiny, overloaded brain recoils and spasms?

What about my post makes you respond this way? I'm not a Christian, so maybe I don't know why some church's have a problem with gays. Am I wrong that it's part of the Christian religion (or certain denominations of this religion) and the bible to reject homosexuality? Do you disagree that an entire religion, which is just a set of beliefs, is responsible for gays wanting to kill themselves? Why is it impossible for suicidal gays to discard the judgements of that religion and believe what they want to about themselves? I'm not gay either, just bisexual. The feelings of others who don't know me doesn't affect my feelings about myself. This is why I'm thinking gays don't have to hate themselves just because another group of people do. I don't see where you're coming from with your reaction. Could you be more specific?

[myst]

May 23, 2012 1:40:47 GMT -5 @Guest said:

Doesn't the bible say homosexuality is bad? I think the koran has similar precepts. I don't think it's a worthy endeavor to try to redefine ancient religions in this land of free religion. Gay people should be free to be gay while religious people should be free to believe in their religion and not have it rewritten to suit anyone else.

I do not think the bullying actions of individuals against gays or the suicidal thoughts of some gays can be credited to a religion, only to the people choosing those activities/responses. If gay christians hate themselves for being gay due to their religious beliefs, why can't they just convert to or create a religion like Christianity but that accepts gays? I think this solution allows everyone to be happy and not have their freedoms trampled by the beliefs of others.

It's a matter of active debate if homosexuality is actually condemned in the Bible or not, the passages are subject to interpretation.

Religion also constantly evolves, so it's not as though this is some novel attempt to redefine ancient religion, as you called it. For example, Vatican II was a significant evolution of the Catholic Church. The point is that large numbers of members of the religion themselves do not think the hardline church stance about gays is right anymore. It's up to the leadership of the churches to establish official doctrine, but like I said, calling for a chance to doctrine is in no way a novel thing.

Asking why gay Christians don't just convert is honestly a little silly. People who are true believers think they have the answer to salvation and truth, it's not some convenience thing like picking a gym where if you don't like one of their policies you can just switch. If the majority of Christians end up supporting gay marriage, why shouldn't they get to keep the old title and the ones against it form a new church? Answer: again, because for many people, religion doesn't work that way, everyone just tugs to get it in line with their own sense of morality.

No one set of beliefs eternally "owns" any church, no matter what the people who agree with current doctrine tend to spout: yes, as I said, doctrine is written by the leaders. Leaders, however, come and go, and as I said, doctrine evolves. No one is getting their rights trampled, no matter how tempting it is to play the martyr card.

[Guest]

I didn't know that the Bible says homosexuality is maybe ok, maybe not. I thought it was pretty plainly spelled out that men should not do sex to other men, sheep or otherwise waste their seed (isn't that why sodomy and oral sex are not considered ok?). I'd ask some Christian friends to show me the actual wording, but I'd rather not start that conversation with them. I've only read certain books of the Bible. I think it says don't eat pork or the meat of any cloven hoof animal too. A lot of modern Christians do eat pork. I don't see them hating themselves for it and committing suicide. So ya, I see what you're saying about reform in doctrine and evolution of interpretations. I agree that gays can be Christians. If a gay guy believes he must not be gay according to his beliefs, I think it's a better alternative to change to a different church than to remain true to their beliefs (by committing suicide). Maybe it's silly, but I don't think one church's interpretation is worth killing yourself over.

If the majority of Christians or whoever has the power to set doctrine opts to keep the traditional interpretation of gay is bad, then what? No, no one's rights are being trampled yet. Christians would be having their rights trampled if government responded to the cries of suicidal gays and forced church's to change their doctrine to accept gays. Gays would be having their rights trampled if some Christians had their way and the government forced gays to stop engaging in gay acts. I wasn't playing any kind of martyr card in saying that the best win-win solution is for neither side to impose their views on the other. Sorry if you are offended by a third alternative solution besides gays "win" or churches "win". I feel both can win and retain their identities.

Whether the majority thinks the gay haters are morally right or not, they have every right to be what they are as long as they don't hurt another person. Isn't this the gist of Ben Franklin's wisdom in that other thread? Liberty means no one, not even the majority, can force their views and way of life on the few?

[wawa]

woah, woah woah...where are suicidal gays asking the gov't to force a church to change doctrine?

[druidp]

Yep, black people should have just turned their backs on white people with hoses or, worse, dressed in white sheets and said, "Well, that's all for YOU, but no thanks."

The Christianity components the prejudicial hosers are basing their entire vitriol off of are the laws of do this, don't do that, since it's a sin - totally disregarding that ALL are sinful and fall short. They are essentially so busy spotting that speck of dust in a gay person's eye, they don't notice the splinter rash spreading from the 4x4 jutting out of their own face.

And then, to try to legislate based off of that, is in my opinion asinine. There is no freakin' reason a government of any level should tell people who they can or can't love or marry.

[myst]

May 23, 2012 14:25:28 GMT -5 @Guest said:

I didn't know that the Bible says homosexuality is maybe ok, maybe not. I thought it was pretty plainly spelled out that men should not do sex to other men, sheep or otherwise waste their seed (isn't that why sodomy and oral sex are not considered ok?). I'd ask some Christian friends to show me the actual wording, but I'd rather not start that conversation with them. I've only read certain books of the Bible. I think it says don't eat pork or the meat of any cloven hoof animal too. A lot of modern Christians do eat pork. I don't see them hating themselves for it and committing suicide. So ya, I see what you're saying about reform in doctrine and evolution of interpretations. I agree that gays can be Christians. If a gay guy believes he must not be gay according to his beliefs, I think it's a better alternative to change to a different church than to remain true to their beliefs (by committing suicide). Maybe it's silly, but I don't think one church's interpretation is worth killing yourself over.

If the majority of Christians or whoever has the power to set doctrine opts to keep the traditional interpretation of gay is bad, then what? No, no one's rights are being trampled yet. Christians would be having their rights trampled if government responded to the cries of suicidal gays and forced church's to change their doctrine to accept gays. Gays would be having their rights trampled if some Christians had their way and the government forced gays to stop engaging in gay acts. I wasn't playing any kind of martyr card in saying that the best win-win solution is for neither side to impose their views on the other. Sorry if you are offended by a third alternative solution besides gays "win" or churches "win". I feel both can win and retain their identities.

Whether the majority thinks the gay haters are morally right or not, they have every right to be what they are as long as they don't hurt another person. Isn't this the gist of Ben Franklin's wisdom in that other thread? Liberty means no one, not even the majority, can force their views and way of life on the few?

The passage most often quoted as the Bible being against homosexuality is the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. You can use the Google, but the bottom line is that some people say it condemns homosexuality, while others say the punishment was for essentially attempted rape. In other cases, it's like your eating pork issue: people think the church should basically throw it out, consider it non-binding, which is how many Christian churches view a great deal of Leviticus.

As far as people committing suicide over it...while an individual may choose to disagree with some element of church doctrine, the case of homosexuality is unique in that you have dumbasses like the NC pastor who preaches that gays should be penned up in electric fences. When was the last time you saw someone with that solution to someone eating pork, or getting divorced, for that matter? Gays feel persecuted by the religious because they *are* being persecuted by some of the religious, and it's no surprise that if one is otherwise deeply devote that leads to depression and potentially suicide.

It also gets into homosexuality as a "choice". Eating pork is a choice. Getting divorced (while it may be the right choice) is a choice. Being gay? Not a choice. I'm not saying people who are homophobes should be locked up for it or prohibited from holding those beliefs, but they are assholes, just like racists and sexists and anti-semites.

As far as "then what", the OP post is about the anti-gay view no longer being in the majority. Either way, as I said, the final decision is to the church officials. The point I was making is that doctrine isn't fixed in stone.

Bit of advice, I'd suggest giving up the notion that someone disagreeing with you means that they're offended.

[wawa]

Not really to the point, but can I just say, it's rude as fuck to post in a forum like this and not give some sort of name.

When you converse with somebody you usually start off by giving your name. We all have names. We like something to call people. "Guest" is not a name. Put a handle of some sort in that little box so we can address you by it.

[GuestSeesaw]

^What if I don't want you to address me by name? Sorry you feel it's rudeness towards you, but it's not directed at you personally. I am not ready to join this board permanently with a screen name, at least not yet. I haven't explored the other threads to see if things are better there.

mysticporter - Ok, I misinterpreted your tone with me. I thought you were offended with me "playing the martyr card". I tried to defend my opinions for what they are and not some playing of the martyr card, which I took as derogatory. Please don't misunderstand my response for evidence that I equate disagreement with offense. When people get rude and insulting, I take that as they are offended and trying to offend me back, not simply disagreeing with me. A lot of that seems to happen on this board and since no one regulates civility here, I feel I must defend myself with a response or be trampled by the rabids. Sorry I misinterpreted your comment. Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs or values.

[myst]

May 23, 2012 15:25:21 GMT -5 @GuestSeesaw said:

^What if I don't want you to address me by name? Sorry you feel it's rudeness towards you, but it's not directed at you personally. I am not ready to join this board permanently with a screen name, at least not yet. I haven't explored the other threads to see if things are better there.

mysticporter - Ok, I misinterpreted your tone with me. I thought you were offended with me "playing the martyr card". I tried to defend my opinions for what they are and not some playing of the martyr card, which I took as derogatory. Please don't misunderstand my response for evidence that I equate disagreement with offense. When people get rude and insulting, I take that as they are offended and trying to offend me back, not simply disagreeing with me. A lot of that seems to happen on this board and since no one regulates civility here, I feel I must defend myself with a response or be trampled by the rabids. Sorry I misinterpreted your comment. Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs or values.

FWIW, I neither said nor meant that you, personally, were playing a martyr card.

No one set of beliefs eternally "owns" any church, no matter what the people who agree with current doctrine tend to spout: yes, as I said, doctrine is written by the leaders. Leaders, however, come and go, and as I said, doctrine evolves. No one is getting their rights trampled, no matter how tempting it is to play the martyr card.

The martyr card is in reference to people who agree with current doctrine who righteously claim permanent control over church beliefs, if they take the stance that challenging that is trampling their rights.

I do think it's a bit of a reach to find that rude and insulting. Only thing I have to base your beliefs and values on is what you post, not sure where you think I've done otherwise.