Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, June 14, 2011
Religion / LGBTQITSLFA Here's An Opportunity for Liberal Christians to Speak Up
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Surely there must be some gay-affirming congregations in or near Boston that could pull together a protest or a vigil in front of this church. And for those of us who aren't living in the Boston area: the New England Baptist Church, according to their website, "is a multicultural church meeting the needs of the diversified population of our world today." Except for the gays, of course, because, you know, because the bible says. In addition to saying that homosexuality is wrong, the bible says that women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights should be put to death and that parents should beat their disobedient children to death and that women who refuse to marry their rapists should be put to death. Those of who aren't in Boston can place a call to the pastor—Pastor Thomas Michael—and suggest some language for his church sign that embraces those biblical truths. And, as Pastor Michael is a choicer, you can politely suggest he take the choicer challenge: prove homosexuality is a choice by choosing it himself.
Contact info via the New England Baptist Church's creepy contact page:
That number again: (781) 395-6116. You can also send an email to New England Baptist here. Once again: be polite. But firm. But polite.
4
There were about 20 Unitarian congregations in the Pride parade on Saturday, but as a godless heathen, I have no contacts in their network. Hopefully some of them read Slog and are willing to step up and call out their fellow Xians for being intolerant douches.
7
Do church congregations really protest other churches? ... OK, fine, do progressive church congregations really protest other churches?
8
It's commendable you still put that sort of effort into pushing churches to do what they "say" they will -- I've given up on the whole religious crap entirely -- and if stats are any indication, they'll extinct themselves right out of existence :-P
Meh and feh.
Meh and feh.
9
I wouldn't even really consider myself a NALT anymore (was for quite a long time), but I did suggest for the sign a Bible verse that I think NALTs out there could use as a rallying cry to counter this bigotry:
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." - Romans 12:18
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." - Romans 12:18
11
@10 MLK's relatives have claimed that he opposed gay rights. He never spoke on it publicly so we can't really be sure but for the most part his family are all anti-gay yet somehow believe they are pro-equality. Remember that bigots who are oppressed themselves can still be bigots. MLK probably as a man of his day would not believe in gay marriage for the same reasons the founding fathers did not believe blacks to be equals. It is pointless to inject MLK into a debate about gay rights in the modern age.
14
I love this line from their welcome page,
"... in a church founded upon the unchanging truths of the King James Bible."
Unchanging truths - since 1611.
"... in a church founded upon the unchanging truths of the King James Bible."
Unchanging truths - since 1611.
16
Email sent:
If you follow the bible as faithfully as your sign suggests, please be sure your patrons are observing these passages as well:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12 Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19 The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I mean, the faithful can't pick and choose, right?
If you follow the bible as faithfully as your sign suggests, please be sure your patrons are observing these passages as well:
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12 Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19 The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I mean, the faithful can't pick and choose, right?
17
Re: Deuteronomy 25:11-12, pretty much the only thing that appeals to me about living in "biblical times" is dudes rasslin' nekkid. But I can see all I want without time travel or being deprived of mod cons--thanks, Internet!!
19
One more e-mail sent.
Indeed, @11, he meant Martin Luther -- you know, the guy who started the whole Protestant thing (before him, we were all Catholics)... Not Dr King. The point was that Martin Luther obviously criticized the Catholic church and Rome -- ergo, yes, more liberal/progressive churches can and did throughout history criticized less liberal/progressive ones.
Indeed, @11, he meant Martin Luther -- you know, the guy who started the whole Protestant thing (before him, we were all Catholics)... Not Dr King. The point was that Martin Luther obviously criticized the Catholic church and Rome -- ergo, yes, more liberal/progressive churches can and did throughout history criticized less liberal/progressive ones.
20
And the monkeys have flown; here's mine:
Do you know that the sign in front of your church not only sends the message to young gay people that they are not okay, it doesn't only tell bullies that they are right, it doesn't just make Baptists look primitive, it makes it look like you yourselves had to choose to be straight, which is something only closet cases have to do. If you didn't know that that's what saying that being gay is a choice really means, now you do.
I'm straight by the way, but not by painful, difficult choice; I feel sorry for you.
Do you know that the sign in front of your church not only sends the message to young gay people that they are not okay, it doesn't only tell bullies that they are right, it doesn't just make Baptists look primitive, it makes it look like you yourselves had to choose to be straight, which is something only closet cases have to do. If you didn't know that that's what saying that being gay is a choice really means, now you do.
I'm straight by the way, but not by painful, difficult choice; I feel sorry for you.
21
The only good church is a church that has been razed to the ground and replaced by a school, a library or low income housing for the poor.
22
I now see that he was of course not referring to MLK and just the regular old Luther of the Lutheran (protestant) reformation.
I was just reading about the stupid fucking republicans and some of Cain's supporters who are invoking MLK in their anti gay bias. I crossed the two in my mind with MLK so recent.
The original point I missed is a good point. Christian churches have gone to war with each other in the same way that the Sunni and Shia versions of Islam are willing to. The problem I see is not that bigots use the bible to back themselves up.
The problem is that using a book so morally flexible as the bible to be the base of your morality will inevitably allow all kinds of bigots to further their agendas.
As nice as some Christians are if you actually read into Christian theology there are some terrible terrible precedents regardless of how liberal or progress of a sect you are a member of.
I was just reading about the stupid fucking republicans and some of Cain's supporters who are invoking MLK in their anti gay bias. I crossed the two in my mind with MLK so recent.
The original point I missed is a good point. Christian churches have gone to war with each other in the same way that the Sunni and Shia versions of Islam are willing to. The problem I see is not that bigots use the bible to back themselves up.
The problem is that using a book so morally flexible as the bible to be the base of your morality will inevitably allow all kinds of bigots to further their agendas.
As nice as some Christians are if you actually read into Christian theology there are some terrible terrible precedents regardless of how liberal or progress of a sect you are a member of.
23
Your assault on them with a barrage of people shaming them won't change their mindset. You'll need to find another way.
25
How much do you want to bet that Pastor Thomas W. Michael is 'counseling' young men in the privacy of his back office?
Without fail, these evangelical weirdos turn out to be closet cases themselves. Why else would they be so obsessed with "The Gays"? I love how they hide behind 'The Bible', which is so full of bizarre nonsense that any insecure or hateful person can find something to stoke their strange fires.
Without fail, these evangelical weirdos turn out to be closet cases themselves. Why else would they be so obsessed with "The Gays"? I love how they hide behind 'The Bible', which is so full of bizarre nonsense that any insecure or hateful person can find something to stoke their strange fires.
26
"I love this line from their welcome page,
'... in a church founded upon the unchanging truths of the King James Bible.'
Unchanging truths - since 1611."
Even better @14, is that King James was known in his own day as Queen James. It was an open secret that James was queer.
So the book from which they get their "unchanging truths" was commisioned about 400 years ago by a royal fag!
'... in a church founded upon the unchanging truths of the King James Bible.'
Unchanging truths - since 1611."
Even better @14, is that King James was known in his own day as Queen James. It was an open secret that James was queer.
So the book from which they get their "unchanging truths" was commisioned about 400 years ago by a royal fag!
27
@23, how is it "shaming" them? These are legitimate questions. I asked a protestor at Pride this weekend why they don't hang out in front of the seafood restaurant down the street because of the "don't eat shellfish" thing in the Bible. They didn't have an answer. And I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I am serious. I absolutely hate inconsistencies in judgment and behavior IF it hurts/punishes someone, and I have yet to have someone answer the questions Dan, others and myself have raised over the years?
Also, in addition to all the things that people give a pass to (premarital het sex rate at 98%, divorce at almost 50%, mixed fibers, etc.), why don't they give a pass to this thing. It doesn't bother anyone unlike murder or theft, which are Bible tenets that I can get behind, because there are proven negative consequences to society through murder/theft. There is no negative societal consequence to my dating women instead of men, in fact the opposite is true since I'm much happier out of the closet.
Also, in addition to all the things that people give a pass to (premarital het sex rate at 98%, divorce at almost 50%, mixed fibers, etc.), why don't they give a pass to this thing. It doesn't bother anyone unlike murder or theft, which are Bible tenets that I can get behind, because there are proven negative consequences to society through murder/theft. There is no negative societal consequence to my dating women instead of men, in fact the opposite is true since I'm much happier out of the closet.
28
@3, unfortunately, I'm guessing they must approve the posts before they appear online since there hasn't been a new post since May. Boo. I was hoping to read the Sloggers' indignation.
Also, one of the top hits for "new england baptist church" included a link to the Rip-Off Report Web site, where some pretty interesting and un-Christian-like accusations are made of Pastor Michael.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/religion/new…
Also, this guy has a nice takedown of Pastor M's various signs throughout the years.
http://www.davesphotoblog.com/category/n…
Also, one of the top hits for "new england baptist church" included a link to the Rip-Off Report Web site, where some pretty interesting and un-Christian-like accusations are made of Pastor Michael.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/religion/new…
Also, this guy has a nice takedown of Pastor M's various signs throughout the years.
http://www.davesphotoblog.com/category/n…
29
You're comparison of what the bible says isn't really fair. They don't say, "Homosexuals should be stoned" so it's not clear they are suggesting that this is true, only that it's wrong.
So, when you write:
"In addition to saying that homosexuality is wrong, the bible says that women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights should be put to death and that parents should beat their disobedient children to death and that women who refuse to marry their rapists should be put to death."
It would be fair to instead say, "The bible says pre-marital sex is wrong. It's wrong for children to rebel against decent parents." And that last part you just made up. The bible does say when a woman is raped, it's the same as pre-meditated murder.
Maybe they are actually inconsistent. I don't know. But you're ignoring the last 2000 years of Church history where Christians have extracted moral precepts from the Old Testament without attempting to recreate that ancient legal system. Christians are not obligated to keep Jewish customs (Acts 15), they must obey the government (Romans 13), they are to judge and expel Christians who act wickedly but welcome and not judge the sexually immoral, liars, extorters and idolatrous outsiders.
You say things that are patently untrue about what the bible says and interpret it in "brainless-literal" form. It's the lamest strawman argument. Can't you defend your beliefs against what Christians actually believe? Can't you critique the bible according to how all Christians everywhere have understood it?
So, when you write:
"In addition to saying that homosexuality is wrong, the bible says that women who aren't virgins on their wedding nights should be put to death and that parents should beat their disobedient children to death and that women who refuse to marry their rapists should be put to death."
It would be fair to instead say, "The bible says pre-marital sex is wrong. It's wrong for children to rebel against decent parents." And that last part you just made up. The bible does say when a woman is raped, it's the same as pre-meditated murder.
Maybe they are actually inconsistent. I don't know. But you're ignoring the last 2000 years of Church history where Christians have extracted moral precepts from the Old Testament without attempting to recreate that ancient legal system. Christians are not obligated to keep Jewish customs (Acts 15), they must obey the government (Romans 13), they are to judge and expel Christians who act wickedly but welcome and not judge the sexually immoral, liars, extorters and idolatrous outsiders.
You say things that are patently untrue about what the bible says and interpret it in "brainless-literal" form. It's the lamest strawman argument. Can't you defend your beliefs against what Christians actually believe? Can't you critique the bible according to how all Christians everywhere have understood it?
30
@29, I'm not sure who you are arguing with, but I will tell you that one of the main problems with the Bible is that it is a very inconsistent book that can be and has been interpreted in many different ways. If that were not true, there wouldn't have been a Protestant movement, or an Inquisition, and there would be no need for the acronym NALT. It's absurd to say that "all Christians everywhere" have understood anything in the same way.
31
Mr. Joshua, the point, since you clearly just woke from some sort of Rip Van Winkle like sleep, is that the arguments against, among other things, gay rights is that "The Bible Says". Therefore, if you are to take certain things the bible says literally, why not all of them? And if, then, the bible is not meant to be taken literally, why stick on certain points as a reason to attack and discriminate against certain people and not others.
But yeah, clearly that's too much for your to comprehend.
But yeah, clearly that's too much for your to comprehend.
32
@29 Well, then they shouldn't be using the Old Testament as justification to discriminate against gay people then, should they?
Also, considering what a hack job the King James is (as far as translations go) I'm utterly amused anyone tries to use it as a justification of anything.
Also, considering what a hack job the King James is (as far as translations go) I'm utterly amused anyone tries to use it as a justification of anything.
33
@4 Unitarian Universalist churches are not Christian-oriented or -affiliated. You're more likely to find an atheist at a UU sermon than a Christian.
34
I used to live down the street from this church. I had to drive by on my way to and from work every day. For a while, back in 2000-2001, the sign actually said "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." I wondered if they were joking, since that seemed like such a tired, used-up expression of bigotry.
35
@30
Mr. Savage's argument:
The bible says homosexuality is wrong.
[These] Christians, therefore, believe homosexuality is wrong.
The bible says disobedient children should be stoned.
[These] Christians don't believe that.
Are they inconsistent? No. Because this isn't even a parallel argument.
The old testament says homosexuals should be stoned.
Christians, therefore, believe that homosexual acts are immoral.
The old testament says adulterers should be stoned.
Christians, therefore, believe adultery is immoral.
The old testament says disobedient children should be stoned...
etc.
Perfectly consistent.
Is this not a literal interpretation of the bible? Well, sure. Because these verses don't exist in isolation.
"All Christians Everywhere" is a bit of a theological point. The test for doctrine in the Catholic church in the early councils was "all Christians everywhere." So, if some group in Syria has unusual stories about Mary or the Egyptian church has developed a specific creed it's not Church doctrine. If everyone had basically agreed on something, and it's always been so, then when you decide everyone else has been wrong and you're right, you're a heretic.
Whether that's a fair test or not really depends on your perspective.
BUT: The Old Testament has not in the history of the Christian church been the source of a legal code. In fact, this happened explicitly at the foundation of the Church. "The Judaizers" wanted to make Christians follow all the Old Testament law. Peter was peer pressured into supporting this, and stopped eating with non-Jews because they were "unclean." So Paul called him out as a heretic, and he repented. Paul similarly argued in many places with the "Party of Circumcision" who insisted on, well, you know, but wanted the gentiles to follow the old testament law.
The people who disagreed were all heretics. So, you could pretend they were just part of the diversity of Christianity, but it's simply not true. A number of times they tried to get Paul killed. But Paul, Peter and the other disciples explicitly wrote what requirements of the old testament law they should follow:
"Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."
More...
Mr. Savage's argument:
The bible says homosexuality is wrong.
[These] Christians, therefore, believe homosexuality is wrong.
The bible says disobedient children should be stoned.
[These] Christians don't believe that.
Are they inconsistent? No. Because this isn't even a parallel argument.
The old testament says homosexuals should be stoned.
Christians, therefore, believe that homosexual acts are immoral.
The old testament says adulterers should be stoned.
Christians, therefore, believe adultery is immoral.
The old testament says disobedient children should be stoned...
etc.
Perfectly consistent.
Is this not a literal interpretation of the bible? Well, sure. Because these verses don't exist in isolation.
"All Christians Everywhere" is a bit of a theological point. The test for doctrine in the Catholic church in the early councils was "all Christians everywhere." So, if some group in Syria has unusual stories about Mary or the Egyptian church has developed a specific creed it's not Church doctrine. If everyone had basically agreed on something, and it's always been so, then when you decide everyone else has been wrong and you're right, you're a heretic.
Whether that's a fair test or not really depends on your perspective.
BUT: The Old Testament has not in the history of the Christian church been the source of a legal code. In fact, this happened explicitly at the foundation of the Church. "The Judaizers" wanted to make Christians follow all the Old Testament law. Peter was peer pressured into supporting this, and stopped eating with non-Jews because they were "unclean." So Paul called him out as a heretic, and he repented. Paul similarly argued in many places with the "Party of Circumcision" who insisted on, well, you know, but wanted the gentiles to follow the old testament law.
The people who disagreed were all heretics. So, you could pretend they were just part of the diversity of Christianity, but it's simply not true. A number of times they tried to get Paul killed. But Paul, Peter and the other disciples explicitly wrote what requirements of the old testament law they should follow:
"Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."
36
I'm not sure if you've heard about St. Cecilia’s Church in the Back Bay in Boston, Dan. JMG (and several family members, via facebook) featured a story about the Archdiocese of Boston cancelling a Mass supporting LGBT parishioners, and later, about the Rev. John J. Unni's sermons advocating acceptance:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach…
This kind of priest, and the Vigil parishioners have scheduled for next week, is what we need to see more of here in Boston. It makes me wish I lived in the Back Bay, so I could attend the service.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massach…
This kind of priest, and the Vigil parishioners have scheduled for next week, is what we need to see more of here in Boston. It makes me wish I lived in the Back Bay, so I could attend the service.
37
@21 I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms, Cato. Churches serve as important reminders of the amount of time, energy and material wealth people are willing to devote to fucking horrendously stupid causes. I hope we maintain as many churches as possible for future generations so they can remember how fucking dumb we can be as a species.
40
The Christians you saw at Boston Pride were probably from United Church of Christ -- a church that actually practices that old "love thy neighbor" thing. (And yes, they are actively anti-homophobia. They were a huge source of support when marriage equality was legalized here in MA.)
41
Where's kim "the night listener" in ptld? I want her perspective here! Yeah, bitches! Make it better, fuckers! This screams blacks. It's the blacks in NE...that or white trash, because that's all there is to baptists.
42
as to Martin Luther King and LGBT folks, one of his closest and most trusted aides, Bayard Ruston, was gay. google him, people.
43
@11. You are an uneducated person. It's amazing, actually, that you're literate. MLK and Martin Luther are...well, they're different people, stupid.
44
Sorry to be so late on this--oh, how a workday can get in the way of things.
I agree with Dan and the person who tipped him off that this is an awful sign, and NALTs/progressive Christians should respond. But I don't think a protest, or even calling or writing the pastor, would be a very useful approach.
One thing I firmly believe is that the answer to bad speech is more speech.
EVERY liberal/welcoming/reconciling/open and affirming/more light, etc. church in that area should put up some visible sign of their welcome and support of LGBT people. That closeted high school kid will see that, yes, there are bigots, but there are lots of other people (and other types of Christians), too.
Second, and much more difficult for so many reasons, I think liberal churches in the area should reach out to this church and its members and engage with them. Work on a food pantry or soup kitchen or homeless shelter project (or whatever) together. Make sure these church members get to see other types of Christians--including gay Christians. Nothing is more persuasive than witness. It's difficult (though not impossible) to know and respect gay people and hold onto such negative attitudes about them.
Locked away in their little church, reinforcing one another's limited perspective of Christianity, gays and lesbians, their views will never change. Protesting in front of their church/sending angry letters will only put church members and their leaders on the defensive and make them feel like victims. Engaging with them, extending a hand in Christian love--even when we REALLY don't feel like it--is probably the best way to move them, at least some of them.
I agree with Dan and the person who tipped him off that this is an awful sign, and NALTs/progressive Christians should respond. But I don't think a protest, or even calling or writing the pastor, would be a very useful approach.
One thing I firmly believe is that the answer to bad speech is more speech.
EVERY liberal/welcoming/reconciling/open and affirming/more light, etc. church in that area should put up some visible sign of their welcome and support of LGBT people. That closeted high school kid will see that, yes, there are bigots, but there are lots of other people (and other types of Christians), too.
Second, and much more difficult for so many reasons, I think liberal churches in the area should reach out to this church and its members and engage with them. Work on a food pantry or soup kitchen or homeless shelter project (or whatever) together. Make sure these church members get to see other types of Christians--including gay Christians. Nothing is more persuasive than witness. It's difficult (though not impossible) to know and respect gay people and hold onto such negative attitudes about them.
Locked away in their little church, reinforcing one another's limited perspective of Christianity, gays and lesbians, their views will never change. Protesting in front of their church/sending angry letters will only put church members and their leaders on the defensive and make them feel like victims. Engaging with them, extending a hand in Christian love--even when we REALLY don't feel like it--is probably the best way to move them, at least some of them.
45
I did address them, it was a rather long e-mail. I wouldn't be surprised it gets dismissed as too long, but I always like to back my points up.
46
The Bible doesn't have to be "inconsistent" to be ridiculous. It's a pack of fairy tales about an insecure god who demands constant adoration, along with talking snakes, ladies impregnated by ghosts, a moon that somehow makes its own light, an old lady turned into a bunch of salt, a flood that covered the world, and on and on. It's a pastiche of borrowed mythology that grown-ups convince themselves is real because they think that means they'll get to keep on living after they die.
And don't say, "Oh, no one really believes that." Poll after poll reveals that American Christians really do believe the Bible is literally true.
And don't say, "Oh, no one really believes that." Poll after poll reveals that American Christians really do believe the Bible is literally true.
47
I concur with @44, especially the last two paragraphs.
Twice this week I've seen Dan call for "NALTs" to focus our attention on protesting conservative Christians instead of protesting his portrayal of Christianity. But one of the things that makes me particularly Christian is that the religion taught me to reach out in love rather than judgment. And that's how I approach conservative Christians, when I approach them. I'm not condemning them for their views on gays; I'm doing my best to love them despite their sins. That's pretty central to what being Christian means to me.
So, I can look at the folks condemning homosexuals and think, "That's not very Christian." But I look at the folks condemning the folks condemning homosexuals and I think, "That's not very Christian, either." I don't like seeing either side of that mutual condemnation society defining Christianity. It's the folks reaching out to their enemies with love that have defined it for me since I was a child.
But you won't see them if you're only tallying up who condemns who. You gotta tally up the folks who think being gay is a sin, but love gay people anyway. And you gotta tally up the folks who think condemning gays is a sin, but love homophobes anyway. And you gotta tally up all the folks who think very little on what exactly is a sin, and just try to love humanity with all its quirky faults. That's where "Christian values" really show their worth--not in the particulars of what any given Christian thinks is sinful, but in how they react to whoever they consider sinners. The way Dan frames the religious struggle, though, you wouldn't even go looking for that.
Twice this week I've seen Dan call for "NALTs" to focus our attention on protesting conservative Christians instead of protesting his portrayal of Christianity. But one of the things that makes me particularly Christian is that the religion taught me to reach out in love rather than judgment. And that's how I approach conservative Christians, when I approach them. I'm not condemning them for their views on gays; I'm doing my best to love them despite their sins. That's pretty central to what being Christian means to me.
So, I can look at the folks condemning homosexuals and think, "That's not very Christian." But I look at the folks condemning the folks condemning homosexuals and I think, "That's not very Christian, either." I don't like seeing either side of that mutual condemnation society defining Christianity. It's the folks reaching out to their enemies with love that have defined it for me since I was a child.
But you won't see them if you're only tallying up who condemns who. You gotta tally up the folks who think being gay is a sin, but love gay people anyway. And you gotta tally up the folks who think condemning gays is a sin, but love homophobes anyway. And you gotta tally up all the folks who think very little on what exactly is a sin, and just try to love humanity with all its quirky faults. That's where "Christian values" really show their worth--not in the particulars of what any given Christian thinks is sinful, but in how they react to whoever they consider sinners. The way Dan frames the religious struggle, though, you wouldn't even go looking for that.
49
My letter to the NE Baptist Church:
Hi: I saw the sign in front of your church, and it struck me as good advice. Trust the bible. But sometimes there's a need for clarification: So here's my question: I've been married for several years, but I've know all along my wife was not a virgin on our wedding night. Is it ok for me now, several years later, to put her to death or is there some sort of statute of limitations? Please help: I think the bible has the same relevance in our modern lives as it did back when Moses was writing it, so please clarify for me. I want to follow the letter of the law as well as the spirit.
I know you don't like the gays because of the bible, do you also hate my non-virginal bride. Seems like trust should not be an arbitrary call. And I appreciate how those old strong Moses rules trump the more sissy ones like love your neighbor as yourself and don't judge other lest ye be judged.
Thanks,
tm
Hi: I saw the sign in front of your church, and it struck me as good advice. Trust the bible. But sometimes there's a need for clarification: So here's my question: I've been married for several years, but I've know all along my wife was not a virgin on our wedding night. Is it ok for me now, several years later, to put her to death or is there some sort of statute of limitations? Please help: I think the bible has the same relevance in our modern lives as it did back when Moses was writing it, so please clarify for me. I want to follow the letter of the law as well as the spirit.
I know you don't like the gays because of the bible, do you also hate my non-virginal bride. Seems like trust should not be an arbitrary call. And I appreciate how those old strong Moses rules trump the more sissy ones like love your neighbor as yourself and don't judge other lest ye be judged.
Thanks,
tm
51
Oh man, I'll be up in Boston next week... I wasn't sure where I would go to church but now I know a good place to visit! A lesbian with a Bible College Degree... I'll be sure to make a splash! :0) These people need a little Bible story or two. Maybe I'll tell them about Jesus. From their sign, I wager they have never met him.
~ gail
www.facebook.com/homospirituality
www.rescuejesus.wordpress.org
~ gail
www.facebook.com/homospirituality
www.rescuejesus.wordpress.org
52
@47: So fighting injustice isn't Christian? Hmm. Some one really should have told Martin Luther King that, or those Maryknoll nuns that worked so hard in Central America back in the 80s.
Nobody is asking you to take up arms Jackditch. Just write a fucking email. You can even tell them that you love them if you like.
Nobody is asking you to take up arms Jackditch. Just write a fucking email. You can even tell them that you love them if you like.
53
Opinion from a moderate-liberal Christian:
The New Testament teaches that everyone sins. And since everyone is a sinner, no one is entitled to make value judgments about whether his/her sins are "less sinful" than anyone else's, even if that someone else is a non-Christian (Matthew 7:1-5).
Therefore, any Christian that condemn, carry out hate speech, and ostracize homosexual is disobeying his/her own religion's teachings. I think it's shameful that this church put up something like this.
On a related note: Attacking Christianity as an ass-backward religion on the grounds that Christians don't follow Old Testament laws is a stupid argument. It shows no real understanding of the religion at all. It's just as bad as this church propagating the lie that homosexuality is a choice.
The New Testament teaches that everyone sins. And since everyone is a sinner, no one is entitled to make value judgments about whether his/her sins are "less sinful" than anyone else's, even if that someone else is a non-Christian (Matthew 7:1-5).
Therefore, any Christian that condemn, carry out hate speech, and ostracize homosexual is disobeying his/her own religion's teachings. I think it's shameful that this church put up something like this.
On a related note: Attacking Christianity as an ass-backward religion on the grounds that Christians don't follow Old Testament laws is a stupid argument. It shows no real understanding of the religion at all. It's just as bad as this church propagating the lie that homosexuality is a choice.
54
Opinion from a moderate-liberal Christian:
The New Testament teaches that everyone sins. And since everyone is a sinner, no one is entitled to make value judgments about whether his/her sins are "less sinful" than anyone else's, even if that someone else is a non-Christian (Matthew 7:1-5).
Therefore, any Christian that condemn, carry out hate speech, and ostracize homosexual is disobeying his/her own religion's teachings. I think it's shameful that this church put up something like this.
On a related note: Attacking Christianity as an ass-backward religion on the grounds that Christians don't follow Old Testament laws is a stupid argument. It shows no real understanding of the religion at all. It's just as bad as this church propagating the lie that homosexuality is a choice.
The New Testament teaches that everyone sins. And since everyone is a sinner, no one is entitled to make value judgments about whether his/her sins are "less sinful" than anyone else's, even if that someone else is a non-Christian (Matthew 7:1-5).
Therefore, any Christian that condemn, carry out hate speech, and ostracize homosexual is disobeying his/her own religion's teachings. I think it's shameful that this church put up something like this.
On a related note: Attacking Christianity as an ass-backward religion on the grounds that Christians don't follow Old Testament laws is a stupid argument. It shows no real understanding of the religion at all. It's just as bad as this church propagating the lie that homosexuality is a choice.
55
Jackditch, I wrote NE Baptist a note suggesting that they may want to rethink their sign, that they have a chance to portray themselves as a loving community that follows the teachings of Christ (who had little to say about homosexuality but much to say about feeding the hungry and healing the sick), instead of as a community that judges and rejects. I think SNC has the right idea. Angry letters that tell these folks that they're being jerks will only confirm their expectation that they will suffer for their righteousness. Letters from fellow Christians inviting them to prayerfully consider their position have a chance--perhaps a small chance--of getting through.
This is an excellent place for the more vanilla among us to get involved. These Christians would see me as their kind of person. I'm in a heterosexual marriage, I identify as a Christian, I'm a mother, I have light hair/eyes/skin, etc. It's especially important for people like me to stand up against anti-gay bigotry, because we're not the big bad fags/dykes/etc who scare bigots right out of their socks. There is some chance that they'll listen to a message from those they see as peers, a message that says I am not a bigot and you don't have to be one either.
This is an excellent place for the more vanilla among us to get involved. These Christians would see me as their kind of person. I'm in a heterosexual marriage, I identify as a Christian, I'm a mother, I have light hair/eyes/skin, etc. It's especially important for people like me to stand up against anti-gay bigotry, because we're not the big bad fags/dykes/etc who scare bigots right out of their socks. There is some chance that they'll listen to a message from those they see as peers, a message that says I am not a bigot and you don't have to be one either.
56
Come on folks let's chill out a bit ok? Yes, we absolutely should be able to dictate laws to protect gays from discrimination. Gays should absolutely have all the legal rights, including marriage, that straights have. We can not make these people not believe in the bible. We can't dictate what they believe or say or what they post on their signs on their property (with the possible exception of hate speech calling for violence). Are they royal douchebags? yes. Are they hypocrites? damn straight but they have the right to their beliefs just as you have the right to yours.
Let's not bash them for their beliefs. Stick to bashing them for trying to take legal rights away from other people.
Let's not bash them for their beliefs. Stick to bashing them for trying to take legal rights away from other people.
57
@47 So, I can look at the folks condemning homosexuals and think, "That's not very Christian." But I look at the folks condemning the folks condemning homosexuals and I think, "That's not very Christian, either."
Not being a Christian why should I care if my condemning assholes for being assholes is seen as being Christian or not?
Not being a Christian why should I care if my condemning assholes for being assholes is seen as being Christian or not?
58
@54 When the ones being attacked are the assbackwards ones who claim they're against gays because of the old testament -often arguing that one can't pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow in the process- it seems completely apropos to point out that they themselves are picking and choosing what parts of the bible to follow. Quite frankly it's not about us not understanding the religion it's about you not understanding the specific arguments we're trying to counter.
59
@55: I agree. I'm a little tepid about letter writing campaigns because even the most lovingly worded letter from a stranger has a way of putting people on the defensive and leaving us arguing about abstracts rather than really communionicating. But you and s.n.c. at least seem to have a handle on the point I'm trying to make.
The tactic I use for changing hearts and minds is friendship. I've watched several of my friends change their hearts and minds about homosexuality through the years, and it didn't come so much from attacking their faith as it did from showing them a bit of the kindness, forgiveness and love that I think exemplifies Christian faith. I think the personal relationships really matter--loving one another isn't something we can do if we don't even know one another. I feel like kind of a hypocrite when I'm writing to scold people I othewise have no interest in befriending. I certainly wouldn't pay much heed to someone whose interest in me begins and ends with telling me I'm wrong.
I don't have a deep problem with politely-worded letters. I'm mostly just taking chagrin that this should be used as the measure of whether or not progressive Christians are doing something. The most important work to be done is really to be done one loving relationship at a time. And I feel like that work is completely overlooked in these parts.
@52: So fighting injustice isn't Christian?
It's about how we fight it. I've quoted this before and I'll quote it again, as MLK Jr said, "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
The tactic I use for changing hearts and minds is friendship. I've watched several of my friends change their hearts and minds about homosexuality through the years, and it didn't come so much from attacking their faith as it did from showing them a bit of the kindness, forgiveness and love that I think exemplifies Christian faith. I think the personal relationships really matter--loving one another isn't something we can do if we don't even know one another. I feel like kind of a hypocrite when I'm writing to scold people I othewise have no interest in befriending. I certainly wouldn't pay much heed to someone whose interest in me begins and ends with telling me I'm wrong.
I don't have a deep problem with politely-worded letters. I'm mostly just taking chagrin that this should be used as the measure of whether or not progressive Christians are doing something. The most important work to be done is really to be done one loving relationship at a time. And I feel like that work is completely overlooked in these parts.
@52: So fighting injustice isn't Christian?
It's about how we fight it. I've quoted this before and I'll quote it again, as MLK Jr said, "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
60
@59: Then write a fucking e-mail to this church like Kim and MN, letting them know that you are disappointed in them and the way they are misrepresenting your faith rather than chiding those here who don't share your faith for not being as full of love as you are. How about you go do that?
61
@60: Did you even read what I wrote?
"I'm a little tepid about letter writing campaigns because even the most lovingly worded letter from a stranger has a way of putting people on the defensive and leaving us arguing about abstracts rather than really communionicating."
I've mostly just been explaining why I'm not so eager to join you in chiding others, in the face of Slog's onslaught of chiding lefty Christians for not doing so. Slog as of late seems to think it's accomplishing something positive by putting lefty pro-gay Christians on the defensive.
You want good Christians to stop asking y'all to lay off attacking Christianity? Stop attacking Christianity. Fight the war against the terrorists, not against a fucking billion-member hugely diverse generic top level of religious categorization. Pointing to a whole bunch of assholes who identify as Christian and saying, "Oh but they're so much worse and more prevelant!" only makes you tolerable by comparison; you're still lumping in over half of all the good, supportive people I have loved into the group you're attacking. That's why I ask.
Otherwise, y'know, when it comes time for me to go chat with my bigoted relatives who would be delighted to conflate anti-religious and pro-gay sentiments into a single liberal conspiracy, I gotta work extra hard to show them us gays are Not All Like That.
"I'm a little tepid about letter writing campaigns because even the most lovingly worded letter from a stranger has a way of putting people on the defensive and leaving us arguing about abstracts rather than really communionicating."
I've mostly just been explaining why I'm not so eager to join you in chiding others, in the face of Slog's onslaught of chiding lefty Christians for not doing so. Slog as of late seems to think it's accomplishing something positive by putting lefty pro-gay Christians on the defensive.
You want good Christians to stop asking y'all to lay off attacking Christianity? Stop attacking Christianity. Fight the war against the terrorists, not against a fucking billion-member hugely diverse generic top level of religious categorization. Pointing to a whole bunch of assholes who identify as Christian and saying, "Oh but they're so much worse and more prevelant!" only makes you tolerable by comparison; you're still lumping in over half of all the good, supportive people I have loved into the group you're attacking. That's why I ask.
Otherwise, y'know, when it comes time for me to go chat with my bigoted relatives who would be delighted to conflate anti-religious and pro-gay sentiments into a single liberal conspiracy, I gotta work extra hard to show them us gays are Not All Like That.
63
I sent in my comments that, as a straight, married, Christian man, I didn't believe that homosexuality was any more of a choice than heterosexuality and that condemning our gay brethren is probably not the most effective way of reaching out to them. I also agree whole-heartedly with 61.
65
To anyone in the area looking for an alternative (read: not douchey) church: my nearby alma mater, Tufts University, has excellent faith services of various stripes and they are more than accepting - I'm sure they'd give a good tip to anyone looking for a LBGT-friendly church in the area. There is one that comes to mind that has a pride flag waving off the facade of their building, and I believe it's on College Ave in Somerville between Davis Square and Powderhouse Circle, but I can't remember what it's called.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (65) RSS