Meet Mike.
Mike is 30, has a girlfriend, and on the evening we talked on the phone, he was preparing to do laundry at his local Laundromat.
And, oh yeah - Mike is a seminary student and minister with the evangelical Church of the Nazarene.
Mike called me because he's writing a paper on homosexuality, and I've written about being gay and Christian. And he's writing that paper, he said, because he really didn't understand the issue. He doesn't know anyone who is openly gay.
"I didn't grow up in a Christian family," he said, "After becoming Christian I jumped right into all the evangelical Christian nonsense, 'hate the sin, love the sinner,' all of it.
"But in the past two years, I started to think about how this sets up a divide between two groups - you're a sinner and I'm not. Your homosexuality makes me more perfect. That's not how it works. That's where I get frustrated."
He is writing the paper, he said, with two assumptions:
1. Theologically, for his church, homosexuality is a sin (I know, I know, but bear with me. Mike understands it's a selective reading of the Bible - but he's leaving theology for another day.)
2. As he says, "God loves everyone, regardless of - well, everything."
Given those two things, he said to me, he is looking for a third way. A way for his church (and he himself is the minister of a small congregation) to keep its theology while also welcoming gays and lesbians into the pews. A way "to value people as people."
How would that happen? What would that look like?
At first, I couldn't imagine it. Without new theology, how could gays and lesbians be comfortable in evangelical churches? How can we worship at a place that calls our deepest, most important relationships "sinful"?
I sighed. "Honestly, it would be a giant step if evangelical churches just didn't stand in the way of equality for gays and lesbians," I said, more or less (I was taking good notes when Mike talked, but the pen trailed off the page when I myself had the floor).
"Conservative churches can keep their beliefs- it's your church, you can do that. Just don't actively fight for the legislation of discrimination."
"So you can't see gays and lesbians worshipping with us and being part of a community?" Mike said.
"No," I responded. "Not unless they're incredibly self-hating."
But then Mike showed me where he thought his "third way" was.
What if the Nazarene Church could buy into the idea that yes, you can hate the homosexual sin and love the homosexual sinner; and you can hate the heterosexual sin and love the heterosexual sinner?
What if, instead of eliminating this deeply held belief, they expanded it to include everyone, so that everyone was equally a sinner and in the same ways? Where you value the worth of all people?
This is radical stuff Mike is saying. I liked him for it.
"Isn't there a way we can worship together?" he asked again.
"Huh," I said. "Maybe then there is a third way - and maybe some churches are currently practicing it."
Most mainline denominations, like Methodists, don't marry gays and lesbians and won't ordain them (or else they are nearly in schism over these questions, like the Episcopals).
But even though the denomination doesn't honor gays and lesbians, individual churches can and do.
I worshipped happily at a Presbyterian church in Chicago that couldn't marry gays and lesbians or ordain us as ministers. Yet the pastor asked after my girlfriend and we were invited to events as a couple, there was a gay and lesbian group, and I never had to worry about viciousness from the next pew if I held my girlfriend's hand during the service. The minister never condemned gays and lesbians from the pulpit, and in fact talked about us in a loving, flattering light.
That church honored my humanity. And although that is not the same as equality, it was warming enough that the church became a home. That position now seems regressive for mainline denominations, but it would be a leap forward for evangelicals.
Mike thought for a moment. What if, he said, "There was a switch of emphasis. Instead of someone being gay or straight, if there was an emphasis instead on Christ, why couldn't you bring your girlfriend to worship?"
He added, "I feel like, if you lived nearby, we would be friends. And I would hope you and your girlfriend were comfortable worshipping with us."
I wish I could relate here every second of our conversation. I wish I could convey how unexpectedly affirming it was to listen to an evangelical minister as he struggles over this issue.
We don't know about this struggle, we don't hear about it. We assume that all evangelicals hate us - but then there is Mike, who is looking for a way to welcome gays and lesbians within the context of his beloved religion.
And then Mike said the most heartening thing of all. "Know that I'm not the only one. There are more evangelicals where I am than most people realize."
To me, his words sounded like a miracle.
32 Comments for “Not Your Father’s Evangelicals”
posted by Randy on
Well, it’s a good first step. And I hope others take it, too.
But, really, isn’t it an odd religion that says we are all dirtbags and scum and stuff?
But if feeling bad about yourself is what makes you happy, who am I to disagree?
posted by Avee on
It also says were are all made in the image of God. We have a higher nature, and a baser nature. (More traditional streams of Christian thought link the later to the body, though not all.) Nevertheless, we are all flawed and, in ourselves, imperfect, but are perfected through faith in the higher, encompassing power that is God.
posted by Yaakov on
“Wrestling with God and Men” by Rabbi Steven Greenberg is an excellent book to read for Jews and Christians alike who wish to truly understand, at least Old Testament, biblical thought on homosexuality from an affirming orthodox viewpoint.
posted by Craig2 on
Oddly enough, I’m in the process of reviewing a book by a prominent former Australian Pentecostal highflyer whose coming out was long and torturous…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Lori Heine on
“But, really, isn’t it an odd religion that says we are all dirtbags and scum and stuff?”
It isn’t the religion itself that says that. It’s a lot of people who claim to practice that religion. Some, like the man profiled in this article, practice it better than others.
posted by Karen on
If their church called cookie-baking a sin, yet still welcomed cookie-bakers on the premise that we’re *all* sinners in one way or another, I would still have a problem with that church as someone who enjoys cookie-baking and sees no adverse effects (other than an mildly expanding waistline) in her life and her community on account of her activity.
I simply cannot pretend that I do not trust my own judgement and moral intuition in this matter. Maybe it’s because I’m really not a Christian at all, but I think plenty of Christians see the non-wrongness with their own eyes – eyes that God gave them – and therefore can’t help but reject any theology that leads to such an obviously wrong conclusion. Maybe it’s a sin of pride to trust onesself like that, but then it’s just as sinfully prideful to say that you KNOW that homosexuality is definitely a sin. I can tolerate the other point of view, but I won’t pretend I share it by being a member of a church that insists on it.
If it were something less important to me, perhaps I could overlook the difference in opinion, but it’s a key characteristic of my personal romantic life they are talking about.
Sins I can agree on – pride, anger, selfishness, etc – they are something that everyone can recognize within themselves. This is different. This is singling me out for something that they cannot understand or experience – if they could, they would see the folly of saying I ‘chose’ to be gay. It’s impossible for me to ignore the wrongness of that – and though I’m not a Christian, I dare say Jesus might have something to say about the diviseness and exclusionary nature of such a stance.
posted by Jimmy on
Lori Heine wrote,
“It isn’t the religion itself that says that.”
Yes, it is. The religion is created by the people.
Additionally, it’s also the Bible which says it in Romans 3:23.
It’s unavoidable: Christianity is inherently misanthropic. This might be fixable if the gospel were to be removed from Christianity.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Of course we should give credit where due and not treat all churches whose pastors are in any way opposed to homosexuality as if they are all the same. When a pastor avoids condemnations of gay people from the pulpit, that is a good thing. But I am sorry, as long as a pastor believes that homosexuality per se is a sin, it is not good enough. The standard line about everybody being a sinner in one way or another is merely an evasion, since anti-gay pastors do NOT assert that heterosexuality per se is a sin. Any gay person who is willing to accept spiritual guidance from someone who says homosexuality is a sin, should get his or her head examined.
posted by Lori Heine on
There are several problems with what Jimmy has said. Where do we begin?
First off, the Bible verse he quoted has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with religion having been created by people. Look it up. This guy uses the Bible the same way the Fred Phelps clan does. They underline the slogans on their pickets with Bible verses which — when you look them up — have nothing to do with their slogans.
As a Christian, I certainly believe there is a human dimension to faith. But anyone who believes their faith to be based on revelation also believes there is a higher dimension to it. So you don’t believe — we all got that. Just stop using what other people do or say as your excuse, and take ownership of your own choices.
Jimmy, if you choose not to believe, then don’t believe. Be an adult about it. These people who are uneasy about the choice they’ve made, and spend all their time attacking people who’ve made a different choice, are really getting tiresome. Grow up.
“It’s unavoidable: Christianity is inherently misanthropic.”
Yeah, right. Just keep telling yourself that again and again, as you click your ruby slippers together and wish…
If you’re uneasy about the choice you’ve made, then reexamine it. Don’t go pontificating to other people about how “misanthropic” “religion” is, and how much of a gospel purist you are.
Those other people — sigh! Those peasants! They’re all just so…imperfect! If only you could dwell on your mountaintop without them.
Get over yourself.
posted by Carl on
This is what we call lowered expectations.
We expect fundamentalists to tell us we’re going to burn in hell and we are a threat to all of humanity.
If they don’t, then we’re thrilled and overjoyed and we just have to be so grateful to them.
The problem is they still believe we are sinners, they still believe something is wrong with us, and they still work to make other people feel the same way. They work to make *us* feel we are inherently sick. They often prey on the emotionally vulnerable gays and lesbians and try to convince them their lives will be great if only they can be celibate or they can force themselves into a heterosexual relationship.
We hold these supposed people of faith to such low standards.
posted by Colin on
As an alternative to Mike?s ?third way?, I would point out that the Bible approves of men being emotionally attracted to men and it does not condemn any form of sex between men except for male-male penetration.
Nevertheless, men penetrating men is okay if no one is harmed. Full details of this reasoning can be seen on http://www.gaysandslaves.com.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mike is confused, and he is in error. I’m not trying to say that he is right when he says that “homosexuality” is a sin.
But these people start out from a position of being so totally wrong — so far afield not only of the truth, but even (and this is significant) of a genuinely Bible-based and Christian understanding of morality, that even a move to some “middle ground” is still a move.
The question is, will Mike camp out on this middle ground forever, or will he continue to move closer to the truth? It might have a lot to do with whether we are willing to encourage a move forward, as Ms. Vanasco does, or if we must nitpick because he isn’t moving fast enough to suit us.
Some of these people are merely confused, because they’ve been lied to for so long by the Religious Right establishment. Others feel they must somehow save face by not appearing to move too quickly. I have no idea what motivates Mike. God alone sees what’s in his heart, so God alone has the right to judge him.
I would tell him that if the Reformation meant anything at all, it certainly meant that each of us must read the Bible for ourselves. It wasn’t bad enough to have one Pope running the show; the Mikes of this world have thousands of petty little popes, each standing atop his own little soapbox and bellowing into the noise.
I don’t envy them. It has been my experience that many of these people are very good-hearted, and that they genuinely want to do what’s right and to treat others fairly. For the sake of those who are sincere, it might be worthwhile to be a little more patient.
posted by Jorge on
Religious people are funny on homosexuality. Problem is, that assumption is met by an equal and opposite assumpion: “Of course homosexuality is a sin.”
This is old news to me and the evangelicals seem to be the last to get it. As long as they’re not out to hurt me, I’ll take the good. There’s nothing wrong with having an armistice now and then or some places in the middle of this war, as long as it serves a good purpose.
If there is a way for gays and evangelicals to worship together as equals in this day and age, I think the fact that there are surely young gays growing up in evangelical families is reason enough to support a reasonable attempt to get there.
People tend to find the idea of “accepting sinners” annoying because they think it means the speaker is saying he is perfect. For Mike to start with the assumption that straights are sinners is very important.
posted by Jennifer Vanasco on
Thank you to Lori!
Yes, that is exactly what I hoped the column would say. Right now, evangelicals have complete organizations devoted to our elimination (not just politically, but actually. See the ex-gay movement). Neutrality, which would put the “sin” of homosexuality on the same plane as every other “sin”–that is, making everyone a sinner and everyone equal – is a giant step forward. (I don’t believe in the “we are all sinners” mentality of Christianity; but as Mike pointed out, that theology is so deeply rooted that it’s not the place to start).
If evangelicals were some kind of tiny cult, none of this would matter. But instead, they’re a giant voting block, with huge (if hopefully waning) influence. Note the election of our current president. It would be helpful if they are on our side – or at least not against us.
Evangelicals are still back where America was in the 50s. Let’s help them move forward.
posted by grendel on
I dunno. Seems to me there is a difference in saying we are all imperfect and therefore all sinners, and saying our fundamental need for human intimacy and love is itself a sin. Heterosexuals may be sinners but their need for intimacy and love is not itself sinful. If it is sinful, it is only because imperfect humans imperfectly realize it — neither the need for nor the fulfillment heterosexual intimacy or love is itself inherently sinful. In contrast, in conservative christian theology, homosexual intimacy and love are inherently sinful. There is no possible way one can act on this need without engaging in sin.
To me that is still an important distinction. As long as a group is saying my fundamental need for intimacy and love is inherently disordered, wrong and just plain sick, it hard to see how they are welcoming me.
posted by Lori Heine on
“it hard to see how they are welcoming me.”
They are not “welcoming” you; they are moving from a place of rigid opposition to one of neutrality. There is a big difference, and it’s important that we recognize it.
We have to start with the world the way it really is. It isn’t Disneyland. A large and very powerful bloc of people out there hate us and want to eliminate us from the face of the earth — supposedly because of their religious beliefs. We need to deal with that reality, whether we like it or not, because we can’t simply close our eyes and wish it away.
Mike has moved from the position most Religious Right folks have to where he is now. This is a big step for him, and he is taking a tremendous risk. The reason more people have not yet taken the step he has is precisely because it is such a risky step to take. If he does it, more will certainly follow. He does deserve some credit, at the very least, for having been willing to step out to meet us.
We need to get over the touchy-feely notion that everybody has to just LUUUUVE us. Not everybody does. Those who do are flawed human beings, whose love is not perfect. I don’t care if their attitude is somewhat insulting — they probably would be pretty insulted by some of my opinions about them.
In order to get from Los Angeles to New York City, you must — first of all — know where Los Angeles is, and know where New York is. They aren’t going to magically shift to different positions on the earth simply because you don’t like how far apart they are.
posted by Samantha on
Lori said:
“They are not “welcoming” you; they are moving from a place of rigid opposition to one of neutrality.”
And how is that so wonderful? How is that enough for you? I’m glad the admission here is that we’re not really being welcomed. (Although Jennifer may clarify your remarks and say that the pastor is truly trying to welcome us.)
I don’t envy the pastor’s task. He’s trying to figure out a puzzle that’s pre-set with pieces that are oddly cut. He keeps moving around the pieces hoping they’ll fit together. I’m kind of grateful for gay participation in churches, because it provides a presence, but honestly I have to agree with grendel. We may all be sinners, but if our fundamental expression of love is a sin, unlike the straights, then that’s not an acceptable foundation. And many gays themselves don’t even realize this. God’s goal is for us to realize our full potential to love in this world, period. When I did experience true love as a gay woman, it was when I felt closest to God, not furthest. Many of us understand this. That is why I am suspeicious of churches which don’t openly praise gay unions. It’s like don’t ask/don’t tell all over again. In the church, as in life, what is NOT spoken is often more dangerous than what IS spoken. It’s short shrifting not just gay parishoners, but straight ones as well. Straight sit in those pews and get mixed messages, which is not their fault. I wrote on another thread a story about my brother who, to my shock and surprise, recently prohibited the word “gay” or “lesbian” in his household. Yet, I recall attending his church a few years ago, with a young, hip pastor and a lesbian couple in the front pew. False comfort, I’d say. Yet, even then I felt the unlevel floor, the crack in the foundation. Because even with that lesbian couple in the front, the pastor didn’t particularly comment about them or invite them to speak. He did, however insist that new members of the church accept the quote “authority of the bible,” unquote. I even emailed him my semi-discomfort and questions on homosexuality. His answers were ambiguious and placating. How wonderful it would have been if my brother received a crystal clear message about gay love, gay couples, gay families and their relationship with God? Maybe things would have turned out different.
Jennifer says in her article:
“That church honored my humanity. [Although] that is not the same as equality.”
No Jennifer, it’s not. But I can’t fault you for wanting a soft place to land. Yes, people can honor each others humanity. It’s done all the time. In segregated Alabama, black people were grateful to get a seat on the bus. Grateful for the face-to-face respect from some whites, getting that cheerful “good morning” greeting. Yes, grateful for the pleasant treatment. But there was always an underlying unfairness, an assumption of inferiority, and in the less well-lit places there was even some danger. A woman named Rosa Parks thought better of it and one day ended it all.
So the questions remain: Can you take one step forward while you’re taking 5 steps back? Is “neutrality” and “valuing people” (but not their orientation) a seat at the back of the bus or a clever infiltration of gay parishoners who will one day change the foundation of the church? I don’t know.
I wonder, are we enriching ourselves spiritually and feeling the warm embrace of the community, or are we devaluing our core selves? Or, more disturbingly…..are we doing both at the very same time?
Nobody said life was easy, once you accept yourself. But I prefer we move forward without fear, and let the chips fall where they may, rather than trying to fit the pieces all together
posted by Lori Heine on
“And how is that so wonderful? How is that enough for you?”
It is not “wonderful,” Samantha, it is real. We’ve spent enough time sitting around and wishing — and now it’s time to help things get moving. They’ve got a lot of territory to get through before they will be “wonderful.” That’s life. It’s the way it really is.
How is that “enough” for me? Again, because it’s reality. As I implied in a previous post, if it’s still that way twenty years from now, I will no longer be happy about it. But it’s a long way from where it was twenty years ago — when what Mike is doing would have been unfathomable. Again, that’s reality.
Living in a fantasy world isn’t going to help anybody.
Many of us are just as judgmental, in our own way, as they are. We understand ourselves — darnit — so why can’t they understand us?
Belly up to a mirror and ask yourself — honestly ask yourself — how welcoming you would be if you were straight. You may like the answer you get if you’re honest with yourself. And then again, you may not.
Does that justify not being welcomed? Of course not. But I have certainly seen every bit as much rigid judgmentalism in what is euphemistically termed our “community” as I have ever seen in an evangelical church.
It does not help that the churches that do welcome us don’t seem to believe in much of anything. I, and many other gay Christians, struggle with that. We haven’t changed our beliefs, but now we’ve got a different bunch of self-absorbed and self-congratulatory straight people to appease. They welcome us (wonderful them!) — but they are continually dictating to us what we can and cannot believe.
Rigid dogma, in other words, is okay — as long as it’s “progressive.”
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Many of Mike’s ilk have problems not only with gays, but with the whole raft of other ideas — many of them considered wacky even by a lot of gay Christians — that “progressive” churches tow around with them. This, too, is a valid issue. And if we don’t address it honestly, no one else will.
It would be nice if life were as simon-pure and simon-simple as you’d like it to be, Samantha. But you do no one any favorts by sitting on your little mountaintop and wishing it were so.
Real life is going on on earth, and earth is a long way from being perfect.
posted by Samantha on
Lori, there are many gays like yourself who are too conservative for gay churches and would prefer to stay in their own traditional church, hold hands with their peers, and welcome any mechanism to smooth that path. I understand clearly why you would feel dictated to in another church.
We forget sometimes, that in a sense, there is really no “gay community.” Instead, there is a group of ethnically and culturally unique people, black, white, hispanic, asian, southern, eastern, corporate, anti-corporate, gun-toting, non-gun toting, etc., who just happen to be gay. And their allegiance will be to their culture and beliefs first, their sexual orientation second. So, in that stark reality, it is difficult to get anything accomplished politically.
Although you didn’t answer any of the conundrums I posed, I’ll answer one of your questions: How welcoming would I be to gays if I was straight? Answer: Probably as welcoming as my straight siblings, which would mean finite tolerance. But is that a good thing? Does that mean we leave it as it is? Leave ignorance to flourish and fear and discomfort to prevail? Or rather, do we encourage respect and understanding? Do we value the constitution, value the ideas of equality,..my god even value the original ideas of Jesus,…or do we say, well If I was straight I would hate me too.
I’ll ask you one more question as a follow-up to one of your comments. What if in 20 years it’s WORSE, not better, did you ever think of that? I’m not sure what makes you believe progress and tolerance is a straight line, naturally progressing forward with the march of time. No, in fact successive generations can be more conservative than prior ones, depending on their life experiences.
The only thing that will guarantee our safety and equal rights as gay people will be our own actions.
posted by Lori Heine on
Samantha, I appreciate your questions, and though I believe I’ve already answered them, I will try again.
“Does that mean we leave it as it is? Leave ignorance to flourish and fear and discomfort to prevail? Or rather, do we encourage respect and understanding?”
Why do you regard it as an either/or decision? If we don’t like how slow the progress is, we — do what? Throw up our hands and walk away? How would that “encourage respect and understanding?” Mike is where he is. How does our own intolerance — based upon abstract shoulds — move him forward?
“What if in 20 years it’s WORSE, not better?”
If we are intolerant and arrogant and hectoring and self-righteous, then in 20 years it probably will be. I have actually known straight evangelicals who tried to reach out to us, were swatted down in a very humiliating way because they hadn’t come far enough to suit somebody, and got discouraged and disillusioned. At least with those particular people, we were worse off after that than we would have been if they had made no effort toward us at all. I believe that the “all-or-nothing” mentality is more likely to bring about that than anything else. Rigidity encourages nothing but more of the same.
“The only thing that will guarantee our safety and equal rights as gay people will be our own actions.”
I agree with that exactly. And our own actions can be either smart or stupid. A lot depends upon which we choose.
posted by Samantha on
Well there’s your out, then – according to you, if things are worse off 20 years from now it’s only our own fault, due to our “arrogant” insistance on claiming our twice-given rights (God-given and Constitution-given), and not at all due to ignorance, bigotry or religious intolerance.
You and Mike have a lot in common. You’re both trying to fit puzzle pieces together to suit your religious preferences, instead of looking at a human being and seeing what he or she deserves – freedom, dignity, and equality, and then structuring the culture around THAT.
If we go by one of your assumptions, which is that we are making slow progress, yet progress nonetheless, then that would be fine with me. Maybe not fine with others, because frankly maybe they don’t HAVE 20 years. But, I’ll go with that, if it was true. If it was guaranteed. But we don’t know that it’s true, and there are no guarantees in life. So any time a small group of people who don’t enjoy a majority in the culture can solidify their position with laws and social equality, they are wise to do so. Not counting other factors, immigration alone will change the face of this country, and since most immigrants today come from cultures which do not respect homosexuality, that is a concern.
To your question as to how we “move Mike forward,” I would answer thusly: Mike can only move himself forward. He has to find his own peace. But, you know what? When we make the effort to change the culture, (as for example working to make gay marriage legal), the new social atmosphere will make it a heck of a lot easier for Mike to embrace gays while not worrying about losing his position in the church. It will make it easier for our families, easier for our bosses, easier for the hotel clerks when they wonder what they should do when a gay couple asks for a room or wants to rent a hall for a wedding reception. Because let’s be honest, here. It’s not about good vs evil. Many people just find it plain old easy to not deal with the whole mess, and predictibly reject it. (Poll question: Should we change the marriage laws you’ve known and trusted your whole life in order to make gay marriage legal? Answer: Hell, no!)
It’s OUR obligation as gays to get things ironed out, and life will be easier for everybody.
So you see, it’s not arrogance. These rights empower and free not just us, but straights as well. On the other hand, if we continue to offer the straight community only mixed messages, and tell them that we deserve to sit at the back of the bus, then we only get what we deserve in the end. Which, in eyes of some governments of the past, meant pink triangles.
posted by Lori Heine on
Samantha, you need to disengage your fingers from the keyboard for a moment and BREATHE. While you’re at it, stop and think.
Wherever did you get the idea that I do not favor legalizing gay marriage? As I never said that anywhere — on this blog or anywhere else — you certainly didn’t get it from me. You seem to be making an assumption out of total ignorance and stereotype. I am an evangelical Christian, therefore I MUST be “just like Mike.”
If you want to find out more about what I really believe (not just what you want to make up about me), there are certainly ways to do it. I have my own blog, and I write regularly for the GLBT Christian webzine Whosoever — in addition to other publications. You don’t have to play guessing-games. If you think you’re going to find ANYWHERE where I have ever said I don’t support gay marriage, then happy hunting.
Whether we fight for equality under the law has NOTHING to do with whether we change the minds of people like Mike. We can do the one totally independent of whether we do the other. You are setting up false either/or’s all over the place.
It will help to bring down the wall of conservative evangelical ignorance toward gays. But even before we have done that, we can still do plenty. The extremists are discrediting themselves, and they will continue to do so.
As a matter of fact, people like Mike will do more to discredit them — by providing a more positive and reasonable contrast — than will any number of howling and shrieking gay leftists.
Before you go making asinine statements about my supposedly attempting “to fit puzzle pieces together to fit my own religious preference,” you really ought to stop and think. Do you REALLY want to make yourself sound that stupid? You are extrapolating such fantabulous notions from very little information. I have told you only how I think we ought to deal with people like Mike. How dare you make such slanderous assumption about me?
You keep confusing what this article was all about — which is dealing realistically with people who don’t understand us — with creating some utopia in which all our rights have been won. And because I live on earth, and deal with the current reality, you wish to slander me. All I have said is DEAL WITH REALITY. I’m sorry if you’re so far removed from it that you can’t.
posted by Samantha on
You know, I hate to say this, because I consider myself a feminist, but you can often tell when it’s a female who is disagreeing with you on the internet, when the tone turns incredibly catty and insulting. I’d rather talk to straight Mike! lol.
Lori, I really have no interest in researching your opinions or blogs. I am commenting and posing important questions to an article on the Independent Gay Forum (Not the Evangelical Gay Weekly), which involve what direction we should go in, how far to compromise while still keeping our self-identity and self-worth, and what effect our actions would have.
The article was about a “third way” of solving the problem of evangelical rejection of gays which would require that gays acknowledge that their unions are a sin. Obviously, this proposal posed all kinds of problems and I presented some of them here.
Mike is actually fine and needs no convincing. He is already convinced, otherwise he wouldn’t be “looking for a way” to welcome gays into the church. He’s looking for a way because he’s taken a step back, looked at reality, and saw that the aggressive social and political behavior of evangelical churches toward gays has recently shown to be failing. Evangelicals in the pews are discouraged, are sick of the attacks, and are wondering if this is why they became evangelicals in the first place. Family Values in 2007 no longer means supporting a failed Republican Party, pushing for a constitutional ammendment against gay marriage, supporting war, or allowing the environment to be destroyed.
Evangelicals in droves are pushing for a new agenda, and are teaming up with tree huggers to protect the environment and address global warming.
It’s very fatiguing to hate. So all this is not that unexpected. I welcome it. There will be more Mikes. Godspeed to all of them, and we welcome their soul-searching and reassessment of their mission. We can do that while still affirming ourselves, validating ourselves, loving ourselves and our unions under God.
posted by Lori Heine on
Samantha, you are hilarious — a real chameleon.
You call yourself a feminist, then claim you’d rather argue with Mike — tee-hee! Sweet flirty, breathless, ditzy little you, sitting there in your flower-print dress. Mommy told you how wonderful you are, and teacher said you were SMART! Don’t tarnish your pattened-leather shoes!
You slander me out of total ignorance, then turn around and say you’re not interested in researching my ideas. I have no interest in whether you are interested in my ideas or anyone else’s, but don’t expect anyone to respect you when you make ignorant remarks about them because you’d rather run your mouth or your fingers than your brain. I guess, for you, ignorance really is bliss.
At least I got you to actually read the article this thread is about, instead of going on raving about backs of buses and pink triangles and making a damned ass of yourself. If you start researching articles before you comment on them, you may be able to look a little less foolish. Then you won’t have to run around putting down other people.
Just a few helpful suggestions.
posted by Samantha on
Well if it’s over your head, Lori, just say so. You don’t have to get snide about it.
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, Samantha. And you’re calling me catty! You turn it into an art form.
Whenever I hear “I consider myself a feminist, BUT…” I know what’s coming. And I’m seldom wrong.
I suppose the concept of treating other people fairly is beyond your comprehension. Oh, well.
Thanks for revealing your character. Or should I say, the lack thereof. Not that it matters very much. You’ve merely discredited everything you’ve said. Whatever may be “over my head,” that much isn’t.
posted by Samantha on
Sigh..
posted by Lori Heine on
Sigh…Oh, the trials of being Samantha.
And we call MEN drama queens!
posted by Rob (a.k.a Xeno) on
Well what I wanted to say on this subject has already been said.
Nice that Mike is taking a baby step, but he outright fails the litmus test for most gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians. Even my religious ex-bf wouldn’t consider joining his church. Don’t expect much Mike.
posted by Brian Miller on
This article underscores why religion is such a bad idea in the first place. It’s all about “feelings” and “beliefs” that may or may not changed based on political and economic factors evaluated by the “clergy.”
Why not just think for oneself, rather than seek validation from mystical con artists who fancy themselves “closer to God?”
posted by Craig2 on
Ahem. My review of Australian gay Pentecostal Anthony Venn-Brown’s “A Life of Unlearning” is now online on Gaynz.Com.
Read and reflect, folkses.
Craig2
Wellington,NZ
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Hey, Lori! I agree with you (except for the whole Lori vs. Samantha thing) — we have to look at people like Mike as taking “baby steps.” We cannot expect things — whether in religion or politics — to change overnight. But since most Americans have become used to and spoiled by a “I want it right now” philosophy, patience seems to be a waning commodity these days. Having grown up in a fundamentalist church, I don’t think those who have any experience with it would understand just how major a step Mike is taking. Have we won him over? Not yet, but you have to start somewhere. People like Mike are presenting us with an opportunity to reach out and explain who we really are and what we really believe. It’s up to us to decide whether or not we want to reach out.
And Brian, I love ya, but, as I’ve said before, people like you commenting on religion is like Jimmy Dean commenting on vegetarianism.