New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
On a dark rainy night in England many years ago, a young man tries to escape the clutches of those who want him hanged. Deep down he knows that he has committed a terrible crime. He is not yet ready to die. Faster and faster he runs throughout the city, as fast as his legs can carry him. His body shakes of fear and he becomes increasingly weary. Only his mind and his heart pushes him through “just a little further”. In the background he hears, “Stop him!” Even though his legs ache, the young man continues to run. As he looks back to see if he is safe, he trips over a pothole. The mud, water and gravel cover his face and sting his eyes. His leg is cut, blood dripping from the knee. And just as he starts to lose hope, he looks up and see the stained glass windows of a church. The young man picks himself up and heads toward the church. As he stumbles inside, he cries out “Sanctuary!” An elderly priest greets the young man and assures him that he is safe.
Ok this is a bit of a historical exaggeration, but back in the day the church was a place where criminals could be safe from persecution. All they had to do was cry “Sanctuary!” and they were safe until they could decide whether or not to confess.
This is how I envision the church: a place where people can find some rest without condemnation. Guys, we need to get back to the concept of church being a place of safety and willingness to share. With a community that cares for you regardless, one could be set free by sharing their life.
A situation like this happened to me not too long ago. As most of you know, I am in grad school and I’m not the best with time management. Because of this, everything literally snowballed me towards the end of the semester (huge exit exams, projects, papers, etc). On top of that, I struggled with an intense desire to just “chuck the whole Jesus thing” cause I didn’t see anything coming from it. I avoided these feelings by trying to focus on other things, but they did not nothing to ease my fear. I decided then to just share everything with my small group ( a group consisting about 8-15 people from a church for those who do not know). I could barely look up as I shared my heart. What I received in return was empathy, words of encouragement from those who have been there, and a few hugs. The relief I received from sharing my life while not being condemned was amazing. And I’m getting better. Slowly but surely.
Sadly, I think some in the church (and I say some because I know there are many Christians who are) aren’t a sanctuary for people anymore. We do something worse. We ignore. We focus on our jobs, our friends, and not give a second thought about others. Why do we ignore? That’s not what Jesus did. That is not what the church in Acts did. And this is something the church of today should not stand for. Not only should we be a place for safety but we should also be out there where “they” are. The broken. the needy. The “least of these.” To offer comfort, peace and a place for others to share. Not just for 40 days, but for life.
So this is my challenge, Christians: let us be this broken world’s sanctuary.
This comes to mind when I think of this topic.
Popularity: 20% [?]
So this is my challenge, Christians: let us be this broken world’s sanctuary.
Kristen, I’m happy for you that Christians turned out to be your sanctuary. My experience was very mixed. When I most needed them they turned out to be my anti-sanctuary.
I don’t think you can turn people into sanctuaries just by urging them to be safe. Especially if they have a belief system making it easy for them to think they’re supposed to point out to hurting people that their problemsing people are caused by their sin.
It’s wonderful when you open up to people and they show you grace rather than judgment. I would urge people to be very careful who they share with because it’s very painful if you’re looking for grace and get judgment instead.
I pay a professional counselor because he’s trained to be safe. No-one trains Christians to be safe. And as I mentioned they have beliefs which often encourage the opposite.
Helen, I’m sorry that your experience was so negative. Unfortunately, Christians have taken certain things out of context and made judgment the number one priority when it doesn’t seem that Jesus did this. And I see the church in Acts of providing needs for everyone and no one was in need. That’s what I want for our church. To provide needs for all.
Also, even though the church is meant to call out actions or whatever, I don’t think this should translate into abandonment or just being hateful. For example, I have had Christians call me out on certain behavior only to offer help in the process.
I know this is a little cliche but in a way I have to disagree with the idea of Christians not being trained to be safe. I agree that it probably is not on the same level as a counselor but they do have some ideas (aka the Bible). We are called to love and when I try to figure out what that means, I go back to 1 Cor 13 (Love is patient, love is kind, etc etc)
Thanks for your response, Kristina.
I know this is a little cliche but in a way I have to disagree with the idea of Christians not being trained to be safe. I agree that it probably is not on the same level as a counselor but they do have some ideas (aka the Bible). We are called to love and when I try to figure out what that means, I go back to 1 Cor 13 (Love is patient, love is kind, etc etc)
I used to think that too. Then I found out that some Christians interpret ‘love’ as ‘it’s loving to tell you what’s wrong with you’. Maybe you’ve never run into a Christians like that. I have. In my experience the Bible hinders at least as much as it helps. I feel safer with people who don’t care what the Bible says, who for whatever reason want to be kind to others. I’m not saying Christians who believe the Bible can never be kind but as I said in my experience the Bible tends to get in the way. I’m not just talking about others - part of the reason I walked away was because I found myself becoming meaner than I ever intended when I was a Christian.
Ain’t that the truth. I’ve often wondered about how all these untrained pastors (particularly of nondenominational churches) get away with passing themselves off as counselors. How is that legal? It’s so dangerous.
But I understand Kristina’s thoughts here. The problem is, if Christians are after getting people to convert, they can never truly be an all-welcoming, accepting sanctuary.
When I went to church I noticed that there was “unconditional love” for sinners (outsiders) who visited the church, but after you signed up (were born again and started attending the church), the love was not unconditional any more. You had to conform to the rules or you’d be shunned, if not outright ostracized. I noticed this over and over again in many different churches, so don’t tell me that it’s not that way in “good” churches and I just got in with the wrong crowds. The false “unconditional love” is used to lure people in — especially people who are at a really down point in their lives — and then it is taken away if they don’t play the game right. Very sad.
So I guess I agree with Kirstina. The church and Christians would be better to truly offer unconditional love and a safe haven for people in time of need. But by using the vulnerability of people as a way to lure them into conversion, well, you lose all of your credibility.
Yes, I know that’s now how you Christians see it. You think you are helping people find a way out of their despair through salvation. But that’s how it looks to outsiders — even to outsiders who used to be insiders. We don’t trust you.
Kristina, I should add - I’m glad you want the church to be safe place.
I just don’t see how it’s going to get there without training and a change of mind about whether it’s loving or not to point out someone’s sins to them.
Helen
If one is to follow 1 Cor 13 as a guide to love, then I would find it more difficult to be more cruel. Also, when you look at Jesus telling parables of how we should not allow ourselves grace but not give it to others, it’s hard to think of becoming meaner for the “sake of the gospel”.
Plus, like i said before, I don’t think it is necessarily wrong to lovingly correct someone if they see a certain are For example, if someone is having a crappy marriage and he/she is out sleeping with someone else, another person could easily say “well maybe you should knock off the extramarital activities”.
However, I don’t agree with the idea that everything bad that happens in your life means that it is your fault somehow.
In fact, if you look at Job, when Job lost everything, his friends were fine just loving and supporting him by simply being there. However, when they opened their big mouthes and blamed him for his troubles, then they went downhill.
writerdd, you hold nothing back do you? ;)First off, many pastors (or at least the ones that attend seminary) have received some form of pastoral counseling. I don’t think it is the same as a secular psychologist.
Second, I’m sorry that you don’t trust us. I have also seen the problems of “missional befriending”. What I notice is that these people actually care about believers and nonbelievers. They just want what they think is the best thing ever. Those who don’t have it are missing out. They also see nonbelievers as “wanting a medicine that they don’t like the taste of.” Sounds offensive? If I wasn’t a Christian, I would be offended too. But deep down, there is a loving concern even though it comes across as obnoxiousness.
As for the churches you have gone to and the love becomes conditional upon being saved, here’s my thoughts. First, I think these churches you have attended (though they may be “good” or “bad”) have a major flaw. See just because a church is “good” doesn’t mean they do not make mistakes. That’s why other Christians maybe need to point it out, being the lovely rebuker if you will. Tis my humble opinion.
Second, I don’t think the love becomes conditional. In order to grow in a fulfilling relationship with God, people in the church want you change negative behaviors. Not because they just want you to “conform” but because they want you to have a fulfilling relationship with God.
For me, I’m not a big fan of the whole “friend to convert” The idea of converting someone implies that I am the person that brings someone else to Christ. That’s between them and God. All I can do is love. Plus, I got my own relationship to work on.
helen just to add- I think Christians are getting training (not professional I admit but at conferences and link groups). Sigh. There is change happening. It’s just that no one talks about it.
safe and free from condemnation for whom?
perscuted innocents, rational/scientific questioning minds, racial minorities, homosexuals, women?
liars, cheats, racists, homophobes, mysogynists, thieves, rapists, paedophiles, murderers?
can you see why it cannot be all of the above?
sadly, i’d argue that churches are typically bad at supporting the former list, and generally rather good at sheltering many amongst the latter.
That’s not good enough. Do the people at the conferences have any real education in counseling? It’s just another a loophole for religions to get away with not obeying the laws that everyone else has to follow. Anyone else who opened a counseling office and did not have adequate training would be arrested and yet pastors who were trained as firemen and used car salesmen and businessmen (all pastors who I knew personally) are allowed to counsel people who have serious mental and emotional problems — um, why?
And you said exactly what I knew you would say about the churches I attended being flawed. Sigh. And sorry, but it is most certainly “unconditional love” when you stop loving and nurturing someone because they don’t live the life you think is right for them.
(No, I don’t hold back. I just say what I think. Why beat around the bush?)
ash-”can you see why it cannot be all of the above?”
Why not? What can’t it be all? Who says?
I know that churches have had a bad reputation and some are still not doing so well in this department. But as shocking as this may sound, we actually are changing. We are learning and realizing that maybe just maybe we need to go back to square one.
And with all due respect, I have to disagree wholeheartedly on your last statement about the general nature of “churches being bad at supporting the former list and good as supporting the latter.”
First off, your statement is WAY too general. Some churches may condone or condemn certain behaviors or may have in the past but that should not be generalized for every church or church member.
Even religious leaders like Jerry Falwell (yes he was a homophobe not where I am going) realized his racist flaws years ago. Also, yes the church has screwed up. A lot. We get it! However, we have realized (and continue to realize) our mistakes and we are working on it.
Yes we have had examples of the Catholic Church with sexual molestation. Yes, they were wrong. But what are you talking about with rapists, murderers, and thieves being accepted in the church more so that racial minorities? What churches have you explored?
Mysogynists? Men who basically treat women like dirt? Please! Men are suppose to cherish women and in God’s eyes, we’re all equal. (Galatians 3:28) How are these guys protected?
Homophobes I can see where you are coming from sort of but even those who don’t agree with homosexuality or what they believe is someone who “chooses” the lifestyle or a homosexual still love someone who is gay. It happens. It is happening. NO ONE FREAKING TALKS ABOUT IT THOUGH! That’s NEVER in the news or whatever. Everyone else just talks about how we screw things up. My gosh!
And rational/scientific minds? Not as much. It’s interesting because religious leaders (even if they don’t agree) are willing to allow members to believe in evolution. I don’t think they are kicked out of church for it. (At least not anymore and not as much which again shows that the church is CHANGING for the better!)
Also a lot of the things listed on your “latter” list are not happening in the public eye of the church. These are private matters that sadly are not being discussed because no one thinks it is an issue. But where do you get the idea that people like mysogynists are accepted above racial minorities? That’s not a church thing. That is a personal matter. Nowhere in the Bible does it allow racism ever especially in the New Testament.
Sorry if this got a little heated but I am so tired of hearing that churches aren’t doing anything positive when it is happening everywhere!
“do these people have any real training?”
A lot of times they do. Licensed counselors (Master’s in Psychology, Ph.D.) will come in and discuss certain topics with whoever attends. And like I said before, pastors ARE trained to counsel (at least those who go to seminary). It is part of their course work.
Maybe I was a little off in saying that we offer “training” so to speak. It’s not like people in link groups ever claim to be counselors. Actually writerdd, you may have inspired to help churches and church members by offering training. Maybe this is part of my life calling since I am studying to be a counselor at the moment.
As for your response on what I said about churches being flawed, what about it? It’s true. We make mistakes. All churches are flawed. Some more than others. Mostly because we are humans. Do you expect us to be perfect or something? For the most part, we try and move forward but it seems like everyone else has us stuck in the past (remember the Crusades? Uh yeah that was like hundreds of years ago).
And what makes you think that we somehow “stop loving someone” when people don’t live the way we want? We may be sad and want someone to live a certain way but the love itself does not go away when they are living a certain life.
And you’re right. If Christians stop loving people because of a certain lifestyle, then it is not unconditional love. But my question is “When Christians do this, are they following God?” My response is no. Christians do follow other paths at times and then God brings them back to where they are.
With all due respect, generalizing such negative traits to an entire group is not fair. If I were to say that because a large number of criminals happen to be African American (not saying that this is true), African Americans are prone to crime, I would be a racist (and weird since I am also African American).
I really am sorry that you had such a negative experience with Christianity. But we don’t suck at life. Yes certain Christians have given us a bad name but that’s not everyone.
It is happening? Like a movement or groundswell of support? Or do you mean in your particular life, small group or church?
Because I’m pretty sure (and please let me use the broadest stroke possible) this is, in fact, NOT happening. Many people don’t vocally oppose the homos anymore because they know it’s becoming unpopular (i.e., more people are willing to say it’s wrong to think that way).
As long as Christians in general still consider homosexuality as wrong regardless of the amount of “love and acceptance” they show, your words will still come out as “Even though you are gay, I still love you”. This is very hurtful and actually conveys the opposite message than you think you it does.
Of course if this were 50 or 100 years ago, the hurtful remark would be “Even though you are a Negro, I still love you”
I’m really not trying to be an a-hole. I just trying to help you understand why some of the messages you are trying to get out there are not being received the way you think they should be.
Oh and when you say, “Everyone else just talks about how we screw things up.” I agree it sucks that Christianity (and by proxy Christians) gets a bad wrap sometimes because of the jerks who use it as a weapon but sometimes Christianity gets a bad wrap because it’s just plain wrong.
Also, when you are the largest group in America and you have that much influence over the hearts and minds of so many, you should be held to a very high standard indeed.
When I mean changes are happening, I don’t just mean me. I mean groups all over are realizing how they have treated people in the past is wrong and that no matter how you interpret certain verses in the Bible, you are required to love no matter what.
“I’m really not trying to be an a-hole. I just trying to help you understand why some of the messages you are trying to get out there are not being received the way you think they should be.”
no. I understand. And I think members in the church are recognizing this. However, I disagree with the idea that you not liking a behavior that someone does that this then means they do not care about them. It may hurt someone’s feelings but the person who does not agree with the lifestyle (and I mean becoming involved in a homosexual relationship not being attracted to the same sex. That’s a whole other can of worms.) Trying to find the balance is hard but it’s a work in progress.
“Also, when you are the largest group in America and you have that much influence over the hearts and minds of so many, you should be held to a very high standard indeed.”
I guess I can understand that. But like I said before we are changing and we admit that we are not perfect. Maybe we should say this more.
“Because I’m pretty sure (and please let me use the broadest stroke possible) this is, in fact, NOT happening. Many people don’t vocally oppose the homos anymore because they know it’s becoming unpopular (i.e., more people are willing to say it’s wrong to think that way).”
When I mean churches are changing, I mean that churches are no longer hating people because they are gay. I didn’t mean that people are accepting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.
That’s great. But until pastors and others in the churches who act as counselors are required to be accredited in some way by the government so we know that all pastors have some standard training, then it won’t matter on any large scale. And I don’t see churches running to be regulated.
Regarding flawed churches and conditional love and Christians not being perfect, sure. But since I don’t believe in God — Christians ARE Christianity for me. There is no perfect Christianity beyond what Christians represent by their actions. So while they are claiming that Christianity is perfect, I have to say BS. It’s not me that expects Christianity to be perfect on any level, but Christians who claim that. To me it is just another philosophy that helps some people and harms others. It’s not worth any more or less than any other philosophy EXCEPT in the results and from where I sit, I can’t say that Christianity does more good than harm.
I had a good experience with Christianity actually. I was very happy when I was a Christian but after I stopped believing I was able to look at it without my rose-colored glasses and see it for what it is, not for what I wanted it to be.
“But until pastors and others in the churches who act as counselors are required to be accredited in some way by the government so we know that all pastors have some standard training, then it won’t matter on any large scale. And I don’t see churches running to be regulated.”
but I’m telling you, the pastors DO have the training and CAN give counsel. There are standards. Are they different from the government? kind of but not really.
“Christians ARE Christianity for me.”
Yeah that’s not how Christians see Christianity. Christians are FOLLOWING Christianity. But this is where we disagree I guess.
“There is no perfect Christianity beyond what Christians represent by their actions. So while they are claiming that Christianity is perfect, I have to say BS.”
There is a perfect Christianity. One of compassion and a desire to show people a better life. Christians are just trying to follow it.
“It’s not me that expects Christianity to be perfect on any level, but Christians who claim that.”
We claim Christianity is perfect not ourselves. We are working towards but we would never say we are perfect. If someone does, they are lying.
“To me it is just another philosophy that helps some people and harms others. It’s not worth any more or less than any other philosophy EXCEPT in the results and from where I sit, I can’t say that Christianity does more good than harm.”
I argue otherwise. Those who seem to have a “bad case of Christianity” have either been told misinformation by those who have either misinterpreted scripture or corrupted it for their own meaning.
“I had a good experience with Christianity actually. I was very happy when I was a Christian but after I stopped believing I was able to look at it without my rose-colored glasses and see it for what it is, not for what I wanted it to be.”
Hmm. this is what YOU believe the world really is not what is definite. No person knows everything about the world. Just as I believe that God exists you don’t. We both have faith.
writterdd
I disagree with you when you say that pastors are passing themselves off as conselors. In my experience pastors only claim to be pastors and nothing else.
Also a person is free to choose any type of help they want. If they want spiritual guidance for the problems they’re having and go to a pastor that is probably a good decision.
Sure their are some “faith healer” which I would agree with you pass themselves off as something they are not. But excluding them I disagree with your characterization of pastors as pretending to be something they are not.
My synod’s pastors all have over 4 years of pastoral education, plus a few more years as a understudy to longer serving pastor. If a Christian is looking for Christian help, I would advise them to go to their pastor as the first thing. They have a vast knowledge of Christianity and most have an abundance of the ability to communicate and comfort their fellow Christians.
If it turns out the person has a mental problem as well, I’d advise them to go to a trained conselor.
The bottom line for me is that I don’t think pastors pretend to be trained mental health proffesionals. I have never heard of a Christian pastor helping with the problems of a non -Christian or a Christian that needs help with an issue that doesn’t relate to Christianity.
If you can think of some examples then you’ve got an arguement.
Kristina wrote: but I’m telling you, the pastors DO have the training and CAN give counsel. There are standards. Are they different from the government? kind of but not really.
Here’s a post about a conversation I had about two years ago with a pastor whose title was the ‘pastor of caring ministries’
I’d say it was the most hurtful conversation I ever had with a Christian.
It was only two years ago. I don’t believe everything has changed since then.
Helen:
I fail to see the connection between calling sin, sin…and the Church not being a safe place.
If sin is what separates us from God…And the only solution to this ‘sin’ problem is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ…Then why would you not find a way to lovingly share that with everyone? Why is it that the only way Christians generosity or sincerity can be accepted is if it doesn’t come with scriptural truth; or at least not the whole truth? Isn’t telling someone the truth the loving thing to do?
Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:23). What part of this message is unloving?
None of us are exempt from the reality of sin. So to tell someone about their sin is neutral ground, as long as it is done with humility and love. We are all sinners in need of Salvation. So an evaluation of someone else’s sin must first begin with an acceptance of my own depravity.
Would you warn someone about a washed out bridge if they were driving towards it? Why would you not do the same for someone when their eternal future could be at stake?
I would argue that to do the opposite [to say nothing at all] is what is truly unloving.
Helen
you’re right. Not everything has changed. I’m just saying things are changing. There is progress.
They give advice to their parishioners, don’t they? And in many cases they also discourage people from getting real help because they don’t recognize the symptoms of mental illness as such. I’m speaking from personal experience, not hearsay.
I fail to see the connection between calling sin, sin…and the Church not being a safe place.
The “sin” thing is exactly what makes it not a safe place. You are not being accepting when you think you or your church knows what is right for another person. Sure, some things we all agree are wrong, but Christians (on the whole) think a lot of things are right that I think are flat out wrong and they think a lot of things are “sin” that I think don’t make a whit of difference. It’s very arrogant to think you know what is right for everyone else, and it is not a safe place to go where people are going to tell you that they know what is best for you regardless of your feelings.
Oh, and — sigh — the bridge is out is such an old and lame example. As if we’ve never heard that one before.
whoops, forgot to block out Jason’s quote about sin….
Writerdd:
Come on now…that isn’t very accepting of you to say. In fact it’s downright judgmental of you to assume that my bridge analogy is lame. Just think of it as aged cheese….The older, the better…or the older the stickier. Whichever you prefer!
I’ll try to work on my ‘lame examples’ a bit…but in the meantime lets deal with the points you raised:
Authority comes from scripture alone. My thoughts, feelings and opinions are of no significance next to the revealed word of God, which I hold as absolute truth. If someone comes to me, looking for truth, we will go to the Bible which stands above all things.
Once again, this thought process only holds up if you believe that truth is a relative thing. But how far are you willing to take that? There has to be a standard for truth correct? Otherwise we would have the ability to say that “some things we all agree are wrong”. Besides the issue is not if you think certain sins make a whit of difference or not. The issue is what does God say about them?
I don’t want people to follow “Jason’s 12 steps to Salvation”. It would be a load of rubbish. I will never point people to what I think is right. I will point them towards what God has revealed as right and wrong. A standard has been set. Not by me, not by the Catholic Church, or by Moses, Abraham or Rob Bell. The TRUTH has been revealed to us by God, through his Scripture.
Also, feelings should never be “trusted” by themselves. If we run solely on our emotions or feelings we would all be in a world of hurt. Feelings must always be examined by some sort of standard. Now the question is which standard are you going to choose?
do you really not see the incompatibility of a ’safe uncondemnational’ enviroment that throws the persecuted in with their persecutors? kids with paedophiles? women interested in equality with the sexists? homosexuals with homophobes? c’mon, really?
and when, exactly, did i state my argument as anything but a generalization of christianity? generalization means just that - that i was not talking about specific, or ‘every’ church + church member.
again, where did i say that? you claimed that a church should accept all-comers regardless, i was challenging that by asking where your boundaries were. and you’ve demonstrated you would put limitations on that acceptance by clarifying between same sex attraction and practising homosexual relations. you may also wish to re-read my original comment where i said “generally rather good at sheltering many amongst the latter.” that’s ‘many’ not ‘all’.
woohoo! quote war! 1 corinthians 11:7-10, 1 timothy 2:11-15, 1 peter 3:1, ephesians 5:22-24…the point being, you can use the bible to justify a lot of things, including racism and sexism. or, after chastizing me for generalizing too much, are you now claiming that there is only one ‘right’ way to approach the bible and that you have exclusivity on it?
ok, this is going to be offensive (and no, it’s not what i actually think), but bear with my whilst i make a point…
i love black people, i just don’t think they should have equal legal status, i don’t think we should hear about their cultural heritage, and of course they should wear a burkha in public so we never get exposed to their skin colour, but hey! i love black people.
that’s ok as long as i keep affirming that i love them, right? thought not…
Ah yes the good old “Moral Compass” that handy tool all atheists are required to leave at the church doors on their way out. The tool we all use is human judgment. There’s a reason black people are considered human today despite the bible being used to say otherwise in the past. I can assure you the bible isn’t the thing that changed. Slavery in general is considered bad today, again, I assure you it’s not the bible that has changed. Homosexuality is gaining acceptance and will some day be seen for what it is, a perfectly legitimate lifestyle, and I will guarantee you that it will not be the bible that will change to accomodate it. Women are allowed to vote, again, it is not the bible that has changed. Many churches now allow women into the clergy, again, it is not the bible that has changed. [insert future issue that will eventually gain acceptance] it is not the bible that has changed.
My question is what Fixed, Immovable Truth do you speak of? And how has that Truth informed all of the previous issues I have mentioned.
The TRUTH, as you say, may be in the Bible but it’s the Interpretations and the Men who interpret it that I have a problem with.
That is nothing more than your opinion.
I wonder which verse in scripture says that black people aren’t human?
I’ll keep looking…and will address your other points a bit later!
Jason
“do you really not see the incompatibility of a ’safe uncondemnational’ enviroment that throws the persecuted in with their persecutors? kids with paedophiles? women interested in equality with the sexists? homosexuals with homophobes? c’mon, really?”
No. Not in the same room, obviously. But seeking protection? No there isn’t. Actually I read in the book “traveling mercies” by Anne Lamott a situation where a woman who was a homophobe and a man who was gay lived in the same church. In time, the woman came to love the homosexual just like anyone else. These things do happen, ash and often people change.
“and when, exactly, did i state my argument as anything but a generalization of christianity? generalization means just that - that i was not talking about specific, or ‘every’ church + church member.”
That’s still making a HUGE assumption on your part without looking at the other side of it.
“i was challenging that by asking where your boundaries were”
And I said there are no boundaries. Hence the “unconditional love” idea of Jesus
“woohoo! quote war! 1 corinthians 11:7-10, 1 timothy 2:11-15, 1 peter 3:1, ephesians 5:22-24…the point being, you can use the bible to justify a lot of things, including racism and sexism. or, after chastizing me for generalizing too much, are you now claiming that there is only one ‘right’ way to approach the bible and that you have exclusivity on it?”
Hmm, interesting… well I don’t have the all-access pass to interpreting the Bible I admit. However, I do look at context. I do not believe simply take words about the Bible and applying it to a situation. We should at least observe history before making decisions.
Also, with the verses about the women, men should “submit” in a way by loving their wives like Jesus. Jesus submitted unto death. Jesus did everything for his people. And that is what a man should do for his wife.
I still do not see how racism is justified in the Bible (a.k.a. “we should all hate those because they are another race.”)
as for me calling you out on generalizing, that doesn’t really relate here as I am not talking about another group.
“and you’ve demonstrated you would put limitations on that acceptance by clarifying between same sex attraction and practising homosexual relations. you may also wish to re-read my original comment where i said “generally rather good at sheltering many amongst the latter.” that’s ‘many’ not ‘all’.”
Then why did you add all of the negative traits if you did not mean all of them? Which ones were you specifying to the church?
And whoa. I did not mean to put any limitations on who receives safety between those who are attracted to the same sex and those who are actually engaging the lifestyle. They are treated the same. See my opinion of homosexuality is that no one “chooses” to be attracted to the same sex at least not for the most part. But people do choose whether or not they have sex with someone of the same gender. The latter is an action or choice. But both are protected. My sentence (where I assume you got it from my response to Skeptigator) was not completely finished. I was only clarifying what I meant by someone who is gay. Oftentimes, this word and homosexual mean different things (i.e. desire versus behavior) and explaining how a person can love someone but not their actions. Even though we may not like what they do, we still value them (or anyone else) as people.
Your example of “black people” is different because you can’t choose to be black. You can choose to have sex with the same gender.
As for the legal status thing, I personally don’t believe that is right to deny gays the right to marriage. In the minds of those who don’t believe gays should have the same legal status (i.e. marriage), they see loving the person who engages in the homosexual lifestyle as someone who steals (sorry if this is offensive but I’m just the messenger). They still love the person (will offer their home, will give them food, will protect them from those who want to hurt them) but still not be cool with them getting married.
“do you really not see the incompatibility of a ’safe uncondemnational’ enviroment that throws the persecuted in with their persecutors? kids with paedophiles? women interested in equality with the sexists? homosexuals with homophobes? c’mon, really?”
No. Not in the same room, obviously. But seeking protection? No there isn’t. Actually I read in the book “traveling mercies” by Anne Lamott a situation where a woman who was a homophobe and a man who was gay lived in the same church. In time, the woman came to love the homosexual just like anyone else. These things do happen, ash and often people change.
“and when, exactly, did i state my argument as anything but a generalization of christianity? generalization means just that - that i was not talking about specific, or ‘every’ church + church member.”
That’s still making a HUGE assumption on your part without looking at the other side of it.
“i was challenging that by asking where your boundaries were”
And I said there are no boundaries. Hence the “unconditional love” idea of Jesus
“woohoo! quote war! 1 corinthians 11:7-10, 1 timothy 2:11-15, 1 peter 3:1, ephesians 5:22-24…the point being, you can use the bible to justify a lot of things, including racism and sexism. or, after chastizing me for generalizing too much, are you now claiming that there is only one ‘right’ way to approach the bible and that you have exclusivity on it?”
Hmm, interesting… well I don’t have the all-access pass to interpreting the Bible I admit. However, I do look at context. I do not believe simply take words about the Bible and applying it to a situation. We should at least observe history before making decisions.
Also, with the verses about the women, men should “submit” in a way by loving their wives like Jesus. Jesus submitted unto death. Jesus did everything for his people. And that is what a man should do for his wife.
I still do not see how racism is justified in the Bible (a.k.a. “we should all hate those because they are another race.”)
as for me calling you out on generalizing, that doesn’t really relate here as I am not talking about another group.
“and you’ve demonstrated you would put limitations on that acceptance by clarifying between same sex attraction and practising homosexual relations. you may also wish to re-read my original comment where i said “generally rather good at sheltering many amongst the latter.” that’s ‘many’ not ‘all’.”
Then why did you add all of the negative traits if you did not mean all of them? Which ones were you specifying to the church?
And whoa. I did not mean to put any limitations on who receives safety between those who are attracted to the same sex and those who are actually engaging the lifestyle. They are treated the same. See my opinion of homosexuality is that no one “chooses” to be attracted to the same sex at least not for the most part. But people do choose whether or not they have sex with someone of the same gender. The latter is an action or choice. But both are protected. My sentence (where I assume you got it from my response to Skeptigator) was not completely finished. I was only clarifying what I meant by someone who is gay. Oftentimes, this word and homosexual mean different things (i.e. desire versus behavior) and explaining how a person can love someone but not their actions. Even though we may not like what they do, we still value them (or anyone else) as people.
Your example of “black people” is different because you can’t choose to be black. You can choose to have sex with the same gender.
As for the legal status thing, I personally don’t believe that is right to deny gays the right to marriage. In the minds of those who don’t believe gays should have the same legal status (i.e. marriage), they see loving the person who engages in the homosexual lifestyle as someone who steals (sorry if this is offensive but I’m just the messenger). They still love the person (will offer their home, will give them food, will protect them from those who want to hurt them) but still not be cool with them getting married.
I love Anne Lamot.
On Monday I write about the wedding of two friends of mine for off the map. They are a lesbian couple. They were helped to marry by a local vicar who felt that their love had a place in the world and that God wouldn’t deny that love.
His diocese did not agree. The church did not accept that a gay wedding was appropriate. There was no sanctuary or acceptance for them, not officially. Instead they had their wedding in a pub.
You might say that the vicar was offering the sanctuary and acceptance that my friends wanted and that a church is just a building. Maybe, but I have two friends who disagree.
Maybe it would help to understand something about my friends. Tracey had been “out” for many years but Sarah had only come “out” about six months earlier to her work mates and family. She was still sensitive and in need of acceptance and compassion. To have her vicar agree to perform her wedding ceremony meant a lot to her but to have the church refuse her was a blow to her self esteem.
Kristina, I’m sure you mean well but do you think that the vicar was right or the church was right?
writerdd, you love Anne Lamott even though she’s a Christian? Her faith doesn’t bother you?
Jason wrote: Helen:
I fail to see the connection between calling sin, sin…and the Church not being a safe place.
The point is that Christians think sin is the answer when it isn’t. Some Christians even think every physical illness is caused by sin. Do you think that, Jason? If not then I don’t expect you’d want to go hang out with those Christians if you were physically sick - so, not only would you feel back physically but they’re telling you your lack of faith is the cause.
I don’t equate having false guilt sent my direction with safety.
No, why? Should it? She’s an excellent writer, a very funny speaker, and she doesn’t seem to be out to convert everyone who reads her books. I read a fair amount of books by Christian authors and have a few favorites.
writerdd - no, it shouldn’t necessarily bother you. I was just wondering. I’m not as interested in her books as when I was a Christian but I do agree she’s a great writer and funny too. Which other Christian authors are your favorites, if you don’t mind me asking?
also ash when I talk about accepting all groups of people (racists and racial minorities) I don’t mean condone certain behavior. You can still love a person and still not like their behavior.
hoverfrog, that’s a toughie. Like I understand the vicar’s decision but I understand the church’s as well. I’m sorry that your friends felt
But for a topic like homosexual relations (and I specify this because I assume that your friends are choosing to be together in a sexual relationship which would entitle a choice) and all the ambiguity around it, I almost feel that we need to give on both sides. Now for someone who is simply having thoughts of homosexual attraction, for me this is a completely different subject because I don’t believe the thoughts or attraction is a choice. But that’s just me. Same with anything that a person can’t choose (i.e. race, sex, physical disability). In these situations, I feel that the person who has a hang-up for no biblical reason or misinterpretation of biblical reason needs to give all.
My question is how did the parishioners treat the women? Did they deliberately shun them (i.e. not welcome them to church picnics) or did they just say “we love you but not what you do” type of thing?
writerdd loves certain Christian writers?!?!?!?
Holy crap I see some red guy with horns and a tail passing out snowcones. j/k
Randall Balmer, with whom I mostly agree, C.S. Lewis, with whom I seldom agree, and John Shelby Spong.
I guess some of the fiction authors I read may be Christians, but I don’t read “Christian fiction.” Does Ann Rice count?
But I have no interest in reading her Jesus books.
You seem to have said the exact opposite in your post about lust and sex.
I got Anne Rice’s Christ the Lord book on CD out of the library because it hardly has any books on CD. I was quite apprehensive and not sure I’d listen to it but I was bored one day and started and it turned out I really liked it. I found it quite moving how she depicted the aloneness of being different from everyone else and the confusion and rejection Jesus felt the first time the attitudes of the elders in his community became known to him - which was that they thought he was illegitimate. I was very impressed with it and found it quite moving - I had expected it to be cheezy and cringey but it wasn’t at all. For me anyway. It was my first Anne Rice book. I haven’t read the Vampire ones.
I really like some of John Shelby Spong’s writing. At other times his arrogance towards traditional Christians bothers me - because it contradicts his saying how open he is. He doesn’t have to agree with them but I think he unnecessarily disrespectful.
I haven’t tried CS Lewis lately - used to like him. Never have read any Randall Balmer.
I think I still like Henri Nouwen. I used to like NT Wright, don’t read his books anymore but I heard him lecture last year and loved that because it was like experiencing a work of art - he was so eloquent and so visionary and so English
I like some of Brian McLaren’s writing especially Generous Orthodoxy.
I like Adrian Plass (English) because he’s sooo funny.
I think I may be forgetting some other Christian authors I like. Not sure.
“You seem to have said the exact opposite in your post about lust and sex.”
No I didn’t at least I didn’t mean too. What I said in my article on lust was that that initial attraction to a person was not a sin but constantly choosing to think about about that person
Now if a person constantly “lusted” (i.e. constantly thought about having sex with someone) it doesn’t matter who they are lusting after (same or different gender).
Kristina, regarding homosexuals, you say that you don’t believe the thoughts or attraction to the same gender is a choice, but having sex with the same gender is, and that that choice is wrong.
Say one day you are attracted to a man, so much so that you pursue him, get to know him, fall in love him and he with you, and you decide to get married and live together in a respectful and loving (ideally) life-long partnership that, luckily for you two, because you’re of opposite gender, happens to include the joys of conjugal bliss. It is your and your husband’s right to express your love in such an intimate manner. You, by luck of your happened attraction to the opposite gender, have the right to choose to share your heart and body with the one you love.
But you’re saying that those who happen to be attracted to the same gender, admittedly not of their own control, do not have that same right to choose to share their bodies with the ones they love? In no way is that fair.
Kristina I don’t know if you expected these responses to your post - I’m impressed with your patience responding to them all and not getting frustrated. It’s not easy to post something and get a bunch of people basically pull what you say apart rather than saying “Way to go Kristina - I completely agree!”
“Kristina, regarding homosexuals, you say that you don’t believe the thoughts or attraction to the same gender is a choice, but having sex with the same gender is, and that that choice is wrong.
Say one day you are attracted to a man, so much so that you pursue him, get to know him, fall in love him and he with you, and you decide to get married and live together in a respectful and loving (ideally) life-long partnership that, luckily for you two, because you’re of opposite gender, happens to include the joys of conjugal bliss. It is your and your husband’s right to express your love in such an intimate manner. You, by luck of your happened attraction to the opposite gender, have the right to choose to share your heart and body with the one you love.
But you’re saying that those who happen to be attracted to the same gender, admittedly not of their own control, do not have that same right to choose to share their bodies with the ones they love? In no way is that fair.”
See Sara. This is what I am still trying to figure out in my faith. I have been so back and forth on this issue for quite some time and sometimes I often come up confused and arguing with myself. I have heard arguments that homosexuality is ok as long as it is in a loving relationship and there aren’t that bad. Honestly, I’m personally up in the air about it. All I know is that homosexuals should be treated with the same respect as heterosexuals.
Also, when I talk about things like homosexuality being a sin or whatever in the Christian community, I don’t necessarily mean that I myself
In fact, I don’t think a lot of Christians share my opinion on homosexual attraction (maybe Tony Campolo)
Trust me, Helen. I have definitely been a little frustrated trying to explain certain positions of this topic. Thanks for your support though.:)
Ditto.
Then your apparent cool is applaudable.
thanks sara! also much appreciated!
A very Christian attitude that is unfortunately not shared by many Christians. By popular account 10% of the human population is gay. How big is your church? Let’s assume that 1000 people attend at various points during a week. Statistically speaking 100 of those attending will be gay.
Or, look at it another way. Gay people generally are not made to feel welcome in mainstream churches. That means that they, in general, won’t attend church. Want to increase the influence of your church? Make it gay friendly.
Obviously I’m simplifying but you can see my point. If homosexuality is not a choice, which I agree with, and homosexuals should be treated with the same respect as any other group then they should be given the same rights and privileges as others. I don’t see any tough choice or dilema here, just living up to the message that is preached.
I have a question: does “sin” always include a conscious decision? In the so called gay issue the decision to be gay is not made but the decision to have sex is. Given that homosexuals are denied marriage by the church they have no option, if they want a full and committed relationship that is the equal to a heterosexual marriage, but to have sex outside of marriage. Their choice is removed.
different rooms? different churches? segregation isn’t usually compatible with equality…
never said they didn’t, never said people don’t. it’s worth keeping in mind that the woman only faced her prejudice when confronted directly with it + i’d be interested to know if she had a choice in the situation.
again, i said ‘majority’, not ‘all’. which part of ‘generalization’ are we disagreeing on?
are you talking about the context of biblical authorship, or general history in which the bible has had to be re-interpreted to fit the changing social and moral climate?
your interpretation, not shared by all christians. and i’d argue that it doesn’t matter how much a woman is loved if she’s still expected to be subservient to anothers will. a woman being ruled with love is still being ruled (which also plays merry havoc with the idea of free will!).
because i was asking how far you’d push the idea that church should be a sanctuary for all. to which you seem to have answered ‘all of them’. out of that list; “liars, cheats, racists, homophobes, misogynists, thieves, rapists, paedophiles, murderers” the only examples i can’t think of as already being sheltered by churches are rapists and murderers . although rapists and murderers in prison who embrace christianity apparently get it easier from the parole boards.
no, you may treat them the same; helluva lot of christians + churches do not and will not. and many more would conclude there’s no difference and treat them just as badly on principle.
i don’t believe you can choose to be not-gay anymore than you can choose to be not-black. having same sex relations is a choice. indulging in black culture and not covering up your skin colour is a choice. it’s quite purposefully a nasty little analogy because it makes the point.
*applauds Kristina*
…i was going to use the lil clapping smiley face, but it looked too sarcastic…
p.s. to do blockquotes, it’s () before the text, then (/) to close. without the brackets.
damn…i shall try that p.s. again…
arrow pointing left (above comma), the word blockquote, arrow pointing right (above full stop). no spaces.
then, arrow pointing left (above comma), backslash (above question mark), the word blockquote, arrow pointing right (above full stop). no spaces or commas!
Kristina wrote: Trust me, Helen. I have definitely been a little frustrated trying to explain certain positions of this topic. Thanks for your support though.
I did suspect you might have been frustrated at times. I suppose what I meant was, thanks for not taking out your frustration on other commenters!
I don’t think anyone here is against the sentiment of Kristina’s post. I think it’s a worthy sentiment to want to provide sanctuary and nurture to those in need.
The way that most churches are now, at least evangelical and conservative churches, what Kristina wants is not possible and I think we’ve been pointing out why. I am just learning about the emerging church, but I believe they may be able to accomplish this type of goal, as can some liberal denominations who do seem to be better at truly offering unconditional love and not forcing people into their mold in order to be accepted. Unfortunately, over the past 20 or 30 years, people seem to be moving away from the liberal churches and into the conservative churches, which I think is moving in the opposite direction of the goal Kristina is expressing here.
So, I know I play devil’s advocate a lot, but I do think Kristina has a worthy goal here and I support her in finding ways to achieve that and I think those of us who point out how and why we don’t think churches are sanctuaries can possibly be giving her some useful critique that she may be able to use in the future. (But I personally think she will have to ditch some of the evangelical doctrine to reach that goal.)
I also love Madeline L’engle.
So many questions to answer so little time! I might have to break up my answer.
ok first hoverfrog
You are right in that church has not in the past or is still having trouble with trying to find the balance between loving people (particularly homosexuals) regardless.
“does “sin” always include a conscious decision?”
hmm I think so at least that is how I always see sin.
I don’t know if the choice is removed because one can still choose to be in a relationship but not have sex.
Like I said before I am still trying to figure out the whole “is it ok to be gay?” in the church.
now for ash
“different rooms? different churches? segregation isn’t usually compatible with equality…”
hmm mistake on my part. Could still belong in the same church but adjust to meet certain accommodations.
“never said they didn’t, never said people don’t. it’s worth keeping in mind that the woman only faced her prejudice when confronted directly with it + i’d be interested to know if she had a choice in the situation.”
But ash no offense but sometimes it appeared as if you never heard of these situations (a.k.a. you can’t put these groups together)by your tone. I’m only going by what you told me.
“again, i said ‘majority’, not ‘all’. which part of ‘generalization’ are we disagreeing on”
All I saw where you said “churches are” not a majority of churches. Plus, I would also argue the idea of assuming that the “majority” feels the same way about certain marginalized groups. What’s wrong with saying many or a large percentage? Maybe this is a bit of semantics but still.
“your interpretation, not shared by all christians. and i’d argue that it doesn’t matter how much a woman is loved if she’s still expected to be subservient to anothers will. a woman being ruled with love is still being ruled (which also plays merry havoc with the idea of free will!).”
True it is not shared by all Christians but it is shared with many.
I doubt that it plays mere havoc on free will. Any Christian is called to love God before man. It is presented throughout the Bible. If the man decides something is not godly, I don’t feel that the woman has to agree. Granted, you have to take certain laws of the Bible to adjust to each situation. For example, in the Bible it says not to lie right? Yet Rahab lied to the guards who were trying to capture the men who hid in her house and she is regarded highest among women.
Ok break
“because i was asking how far you’d push the idea that church should be a sanctuary for all. to which you seem to have answered ‘all of them’. out of that list; “liars, cheats, racists, homophobes, misogynists, thieves, rapists, paedophiles, murderers”
And so?
“although rapists and murderers in prison who embrace christianity apparently get it easier from the parole boards.”
Because there is a change (at least that is what is expected). and in Romans 8:1, “there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.”
“no, you may treat them the same; helluva lot of christians + churches do not and will not.”
Sadly true which is changing within the church community one by one but we should be more vocal about it.
“and many more would conclude there’s no difference and treat them just as badly on principle.”
which churches argue this principle? I have to call bull on their part.
“i don’t believe you can choose to be not-gay anymore than you can choose to be not-black. having same sex relations is a choice. indulging in black culture and not covering up your skin colour is a choice. it’s quite purposefully a nasty little analogy because it makes the point.”
true which is why I explained the difference between the homosexual lifestyle and same sex attraction. the attraction (in my opinion) is not necessarily a choice but the lifestyle of having sex with someone of the same gender is a choice. Which is why I didn’t agree with your analogy because being black is not a choice while the homosexual lifestyle is. A better analogy would be that “hey you are a liar and I love you even though you lie”.
Kristina,
Rock on, girl. I admire your patience and persistence. =d>
Seconding what ash says: if you type
<blockquote>I want this indented as a quote</blockquote>
then when you submit your comment it will come out like this
dang it I forgot to do the block quote thing before I sent it.
Ok writerdd, I still do not see why my goal is not possible. Like I keep saying, you can agree to disagree in a church and still offer love and compassion. Love and compassion does not mean that we necessarily accept every single behavior that a person does. For example, one of my closest friends in my church is a hard-core Republican (a.k.a. in love with Ronald Reagen). Me? Not as much of a fan. On political beliefs (which I am somewhat passionate about), we disagree hardcore, mostly how to handle the poor. However, we still love each other in spite of it. If we are given that same grace by God, who are we as mere mortals to then not give grace to others? Not saying “hey your sins are cool” but to say ” I love you” offering warmth, comfort, shelter for any one in need?
As for giving up evangelical doctrine, where does it say we have be jerks for Jesus?
Some evangelical doctrine is inherently jerkish.
You don’t love someone — regardless of what you say — if you reject who they are at the core of their being, such as someone who is gay. It is not like a shirt they wear.
I’m just saying, if you want outsiders to think more highly of you (I mean evangelical Christians as a group), then you will have to change so that what you say and do is not offensive.
if you don’t care what outsiders think about you, keep on doing what you’ve been doing and your influence will fade further and further into the past.
Find it and then put it against constant themes in the Bible particularly with what Jesus said.
who says? It happens all the time. People disagree (i.e. political beliefs are a part of people, part of their identity.) As for homosexuality, when it comes to homosexual behavior, people can still feel comfortable that they can be loved and respected as human beings.
First off, I’m not trying to have people “think highly of me”. I’m not here to impress anyone. I have my opinions some you guys agree, some you guys obviously don’t.
What you have given are two options. Those aren’t the only options. If you want to limit us to those options, then go right ahead. Because in the churches I have seen, I have seen people from ALL backgrounds and beliefs (Christian, agnostic, atheist, Muslim) come in even though they COMPLETELY disagree with what we believe. They know the doctrine but they still come. We don’t push doctrine because that’s their choice but they are still welcome. These things happen and churches all over the country are either being created to offer this or realizing that changes should be made.
As for the influence, it may change sure because it is not as direct as it has been but I don’t believe it is going to change.
It’s interesting how people so limit the ability of the Church and apparently God.
what the crap? that didn’t work out like I expected.
But you guys can read it.
This is what I mean:
http://www.utne.com/2008-05-22/Spirituality/Rapture-Ready-Excerpt.aspx
Have you guys heard of the band mewithoutYou? I think Aaron from that band is great.
I think those of you who are Christians have an uphill battle.
Hmm. I thought I posted another comment but I don’t see it. Maybe it went into moderation.
Kristina, I’m just trying to show you how outsiders see you and tell you what would make you more effective from my viewpoint. I guess you don’t care if you’re making a bad impression in Jesus’ name. shrug.
Gotcha.
I think you missed your closing slash in the blockquote.
I think that it is a matter of perception. In the olden days or yore the church had the power to protect people from the unjust treatment of local lords who were abusing their own power.
Nowadays the power of the church has been severely curtailed. Perhaps this is a result of abuses of their own or perhaps it is political in nature. It doesn’t matter because the fact is a church falls under the power of the law. The law protects people, or at least tries to, so the position of church as protector is over.
We don’t have feudal lords or the threat of civil war. The role of churches has changed with the times. I think it fair to say that churches became the centre of a rural community, a place to meet and exchange news and to come together in common effort, not just to pray.
Industrialisation shattered to ideal of the rural community. People sought their fortunes in the city and the factory. Churches adapted to become a place where the moral ideal could be displayed and held up as an example. Communities lost cohesion and with it churches began to decline.
We’re now in the information age. My friends and family aren’t in the same village, town, city or even country. They move around a lot. In a century our children’s friends may not even be on the same planet. The community church has lost it’s place in society not because there is no place for it but because society has changed while they’ve stayed the same. Not just in terms of focus but in the ideas that they put forward.
That’s my opinion anyway.
Ouch writerdd. This is exactly what I am trying to avoid. And not all outsiders have an issue with my beliefs. If people want to ignore me because of my beliefs or who I am as a Christian, that’s on them. I will still love them (i.e. offer assistance if they need it, protect them from harm)but if they don’t want to talk to me, that’s their choice. My job is NOT to put on a show and dance for people to make them like me. But there are non-Christians out there that accept me for who I am. In fact, I have had someone say to me that they feel comfortable with sharing questions that they wouldn’t with other people so apparently I’m doing something right(Not to brag or anything). In fact, almost all of my friends who aren’t Christian accept me and my beliefs. Even if we decide we disagree with me passionately about something, we both agree to disagree and move on. They still know I care about them and they still care about me. They also know that a lot of what I do is for God, so I don’t think I give off a bad impression of Jesus. I try as hard as I can to give the best impression of Christ. But I can only do so much. If a person still has a bad impression on Jesus, then I can do all I can and it still would not be enough. With all due respect, the rest is on them.
And the band “mewithoutYou”? I completely agree. Not my mission to convert people. My job is love which I thought I had been saying this whole time. No violence. No obnoxiousness. But unconditional love of the individual.
And you’re right. We do have an uphill battle. But that’s doesn’t mean we can’t win it. We’re not giving up. Whether you believe me or not, change is happening. Slowly but surely.
hoverfrog
true the church doesn’t have the same political power as they used to.
But actually I was meaning when I talked about limiting the power of the Church and of God, I meant that a lot of people so far have told me that the Church can’t be a sanctuary, can’t be a safe haven while I argue that we can.
Praise God that someone is willing to stand for truth.
Can, you imagine what church would look like if they were more concerned with appealing to the culture then they were of preserving the words and truth of God. Yikes!
For His Glory,
Jason
How about a feel good story? Involving churches and gays and mutual respect!
All this talk just reminds me of a friend of mine, for whom I am so happy. He’s kind and intelligent and optimistic (usually), and more than anything he wants a ‘complete’ life: he wants to be a good husband, a good father, and a good Christian. Up until recently he’d been Catholic. For as long as he can remember he’s been gay. You see how all of this is incompatible?
(Not a feel good component of the story)
His parents flipped when he finally told them, because, good Catholic family that they are, they were expecting all kinds of grandbabies from him, their only child. The fact that he’ll be able to adopt means nothing to them. The fact that he can even donate his own sperm to have a child, thus making it biologically just as much his child as if conceived the conventional way, means nothing to them. They will not accept any of his children as their grandchildren. Very sad.
(Feel good component of the story)
He’s a man firm in his faith. He loves God and Jesus Christ, and religion and religious philosophy are incredibly important to him, and if he’s to ever settle down with someone, that special someone must have the same fervor for the Lord as he does. This strict standard makes the ideal man difficult for him to find. He was actually dating someone for a long time with whom he was absolutely giddy in love. It was adorable. He even thought he may have been ‘the one.’ But months later this guy brings up the fact that he wants to be a priest, which obviously puts a damper on the whole ‘getting married’ thing. This guy had apparently wanted to be a priest for several years, but waited till after my friend had already fallen head over heals in love to tell him. How rude is that?! Anyways.
The trials and tribulations of a Catholic homosexual who just wants to be a family man.
So he decided to drop Catholicism. He loves the structure of the Catholic church - ‘The Church’ if you will - and he’s found the Episcopal Church to be very similarly structured, and they allow their priests to be married, and they recognize gay marriage! Wooo! He’s joined the local Episcopalian community and he’s never been happier. He’s in an environment where he’s not told constantly that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive, he’s not forbidden from being a church leader, and he’s able to thrive now in every aspect of his life. He’s growing personally and spiritually in ways that were never before possible.
His parents still don’t accept him, but at least everyone else in his life does now.
Kristina said:
The church as a group of people with the same views can be a haven but they need to leave behind the rules and structure of a church as a building and rule set. A person can offer compassion and succor to another, you don’t need a church to do that. In fact I think adding the church can make it much more complicated than it needs to be.
Jason said:
Like a Megachurch? That wasn’t how I meant it though. I find that church goers are aging and tend to lament the lack of new blood to replace them. The old style church doesn’t interest people as much. It doesn’t appeal to them, it isn’t relevant to them. Instead they seek solace elsewhere. Now this might be a megachurch or it might be something apart from faith.
Sara, I like your story. It does show how one church essentially drove out a member though so maybe it’s not that much good news (for them). Maybe his parents will get over themselves.
Hoverfrog:
I see your point, and I would agree. However, chuch is not a popularity contest. God didn’t change his mind because people changed, nor should the church change their beliefs because the culture now considers “sin” acceptable.
I never said it had to be a church. I’m just saying the church should be this way because of what our guide says about people.
also I’m a little confused about this
What do you mean?
Jason said:
why a New Testament then? What was wrong with the old one? No, if there is a God and he is involved in the day to day lives of humans then the progress of faith is an iterative one and not a static one.
Kristina, sorry it was clear in my head. :”>
I’m working with two definitions of “church”. One is the people who make up the church, the life and soul of the community and the other is the building and the order of observance, the structure and hierarchy of the church. The people can offer help and guidance. I’m just saying that the structure needs to be ignored sometimes if the help offered is to be well received.
ok that makes sense. and when I mean the “church” I don’t mean like the actual building but the body (or group of people) that follows God.
Oh and ash I forgot to mention when talking about my interpretation of men being submissive in a way that is not explicit in the Bible. True it is not but men are suppose to follow the example of Jesus. If Jesus did this and that, then men should do this and that. Since Jesus loved and submitted to the point of death, then men should submit until death.
Sadly, a lot of guys don’t realize this. but I have seen many that do.
The New Testament is both the promise of the Old Testament fulfilled and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit displayed through the lives of the early Christians and the Church.
God made promises in the O.T. and the N.T. is where those promises were accomplished. Christ came as a new covenant (Heb. 8:6-13). His birth to a virgin, his life and all it encompassed, his death on the cross with thieves, his resurrection and his ascension to heaven where he sits at the right hand of the Father. All of these were spoken of in the O.T. and all came to pass in the N.T. to show the Sovereignty and Glory of God. Amen.
I agree. The progress of faith is interactive. But even if faith is dynamic, the foundation for that faith [revealed in God’s word] is the same for everyone. It is our standard, and it has been written on our hearts.
The sanctification process may be very different for each Christian. However, God’s moral standards are absolute. What God says is sin, is sin…and what God says is righteous, is righteous…this has never changed. Some of God’s covenants were given to specific groups, but the moral standard, to which we are all held accountable for, remains the same regardless if a good-intentioned ‘evolving society’ deems these things acceptable or not.
writerdd I like Madeleine L’Engle too.
Btw (sorry, off-topic) there’s a well articulated deconversion story from Bible-believing Christian to atheist posted on Off The Map’s the ebay atheist blog today.
Kristina, i like your style + feel we agree on many issues (but with obvious diverse motivations). just thought i should mention that.
i have heard of some of these situations; usually because they haven’t worked out well - such as Hover’s example. i think you can *put* (i.e. coerce or force) these groups together, but that’s why i was interested to know if the woman + gay man you spoke of had a choice. people will not generally *choose* to gravitate towards opposing opinions unless it is either to take advantage of a situation or change the others mind (in real life anyhoo, not necessarily online :d), not to learn or co-exist. i’m also thinking of the specific dichotomies already mentioned - misogynists/woman, paedophiles/kids, racists/racial minorities etc. thoughts and behaviours can be challenged and changed through confrontation, but it’s generally not human behaviour to seek this out, rather to look for existing confirmation of your already held views. that’s also why i consider sites like this + christians like you as important.
whilst i would not deny any person any comfort they feel they may extract from professions of faith, the reason such a profession should not count in parole board terms is because #1 people of questionable morality are likely to use any tool (including lying through their teeth) they think will make it easier on them; confessing new found faith has become such a tool, and #2 the fact that religious people get it easier in such a system promotes the false idea that religious people are somehow ‘better’ than the rest of humanity. oh, and #3, neither of those reasons reflects well on christianity, which isn’t what people like you and Bill (justifiably) desire.
being black is not a choice, being homosexual is not a choice. being publicly black is a choice, being publicly homosexual is a choice. i think we may have to agree to disagree about this one.
p.s. kudos on being able to carry on so many convos at once!
umm, Bill? can you catch my comment? please?
ash,
Got it!
Bill,
thanking you muchly
hmm I don’t think they originally planned to be together but what I always find interesting in the Christian faith is that there are times when people have these situations where they feel uncomfortable but God says do it! And after a while
Another example, Don Miller in Blue like Jazz knew a guy he had nothing in common. thought he was an idiot. As a result, Don treated him a little unfairly. After a while, through a seminar, Don realized that love should be given freely so he prayed to love the person in spite of their differences. After time, they became close. You’re right that’s it’s not natural for humans to gra