As reported in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and elsewhere, the American Episcopal Church now seems irrevocably split between the traditional Episcopal Church and the brand-new Anglican Church of North America, recently formed specifically in opposition to the way the Episcopal Church kept refusing to apologize for ordinating, six years ago, the openly gay Gene Robinson as one of its many bishops.
It’s pro-gay Episcopalians versus anti-gay Episcopalians, basically. The result is that there’s now a new American Christian denomination. I believe that brings the total of Christian denominations to 575, 224,676, 459, 937, if you don’t count the Mormons.
As it happens, I go to an Episcopal church. I am an Episcopalian, actually–I went through the oil-and-ashes ceremony and everything. My wife and I belong to San Diego’s massive St. Paul’s Cathedral. The former dean of St. Paul’s is John Bryson Chane, now the Episcopal bishop of Washington, D.C., and CEO of the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation, which oversees the operations of Washington National Cathedral.
The former dean of my church is now the dean of what amounts to America’s church!
I would guess that 30% of St. Paul’s congregants are openly gay. It could be as high as fifty percent. I have no idea. I just know it’s a lot of its great many members. When we joined up with it, my wife and I had no idea that St. Paul’s was a gay-friendly church. We just thrilled to its worship service–and the more we learned about Episcopalianism, the more we liked it. Plus, the cathedral was really close to our home. So we signed up. And it’s been a great church. A lot of people there aren’t overly thrilled by the church’s gay-friendliness, but they stick with it anyway. Everybody gets along. It’s nice.
A lot of conservative Christians understandably chafe at the reason the Episcopal Church gave for deciding at its recent convention that “any ordained ministry” is open to gay men and lesbians. Many leaders at that convention said their decision to thusly effectively revoke their three-year-old moratorium on ordaining homosexual bishops was less a matter of doctrinal preference than it was a bow to practical reality.
By way of justifying their decision what they said, in effect, was, “We already have so many gay men and lesbians in our church; it’s ridiculous to pretend they aren’t already making all kinds of decisions about who gets elected to what. We’re just acknowledging the reality we’re already living.
But for conservatives, of course—and, again, absolutely understandably—that isn’t anywhere near a good enough excuse for the continued tolerance of homosexuals in Christian churches.
“Show them the door,” has become a rallying cry of conservative Christians toward unrepentantly gay Christians.
My church founded and operates a charity in Tijuana, Mexico called Dorcas House. From St. Paul’s website: “Dorcas House is foster home in Tijuana, Mexico for children whose parents are in prison. St. Paul’s Cathedral is a major underwriter and supporter of Dorcas House, providing operating funds, staff support, medical aid and much more. It is the dream of the Friends of Dorcas House that the children of prisoners have a safe place to sleep, enough food to stave off hunger, and a nurturing environment where they can grow and learn. The hope is that each child may someday understand the love of Jesus Christ through the people who invest in their young lives.”
Dorcas House is an amazing ministry. It saves children’s lives, period.
Dorcas House absolutely depends for its existence upon gay men and lesbians who call St. Paul’s their spiritual home. Without their unceasing support and dedication to it, Dorcas House would collapse overnight.
Are we still supposed to expel from our church our gay and lesbian congregants? How does that work, exactly? Do we just trade the glory of Dorcas House for showing the door to the very people who built and sustain it?
In the name of Christianity, do we really stop giving food, shelter and love to starving, homeless children?
That gays and lesbians shouldn’t be in our churches—that, in fact, they can’t be real Christians—seems like such a simple and obvious truth. But, like all simple and obvious truths, the more you look at it, the more complex and mystifying it gets.
Related post o’ mine: The Confusing Power of the Devout Gay Christian.
Subscribe to my rss feed and/or join my Facebook group
Additional Reading in Christian Issues...
- From hell to Crazy Town
- They’re here; they’re queer; they’ve plenty to fear: LGBT students form secret club at conservative Christian university [now including updates]
- When evil is serious, it reaches for a Bible and cross
- Guest post: “A Good Week to Hate Christians”
- From gay-hating fundie to righteously angry lesbian. Now what?
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }
Newer Comments →
Earlier in this comment thread Redlefty was good enough to recommend this 2007 documentary, which deals with this specific dynamic. I've ordered it from Netflix and look very forward to seeing it:
http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/index2.htm
Hmmmm, so maybe "same as always" isn't the right way of saying it. What I'm thinking (and hoping) I'd say is something along the lines of "I understand that for you this is part of who you are, and I don't want you to feel like you have to pretend around me, or try to be something you're not. You know there seems to be a disconnect between what you're telling me and what I believe God says about it, but I will always keep loving you, and be proud of you, and I will always trust God with you." I imagine it would take on a different dynamic out of necessity, only because my kid then would be different than my assumptions had been…but still my kid.
There's another part though…where I have to go to God and say "Look, I believe you say one thing about homosexuality, and my son is telling me this other thing, and I'm not sure what to do with that, but help me to love my son well." I'd like to think this translates to the world at large, except with perfect strangers I don't need to get into the intricacies of what I believe about homosexuality…unless they want to talk about it. But always, love and relationship first.
And then I would go get therapy because I suck at actually "living out" love a lot of the time, and I need to be reminded a lot.
you know, they say that normal person + anonymity + audience = asshole. The dipshit humbly apologizes for misreading certain critical passages of your post, and for failing to be aware of your context and audience. Humble pie eaten.
Maybe this would be more clear:
Sexuality is not what makes a person human, so love for someone can be separate from that whole discussion.
I get what Skerrib is saying. Personally, I don't believe sexuality is at the core of a person's being, so it is completely possible to love someone irrespective of that issue. In fact, if you continue to love someone regardless of differences, that love is stronger — simply because of the challenges faced. It means more when you love someone in spite of disagreeing with them — because then it's a sacrifice of of love.
I'm sure you understand that if you reject or condemn a person's sexuality, you have, to that person, rejected a good deal more about them than their theology. It means (again, to THEM) that you've rejected something absolutely core to who they are. Imagine your mother or father saying to you, "I love you. Being heterosexual is an offense against God and I cannot accept it–but I love you, same as I ever did." That's a seriously mixed message. After declaring your son's sexuality—which is to say who he is–as something offensive and wrong, you can SAY you love him "the same as ever," but you would have made it virtually impossible for him to believe that.
Why would disagreeing with my kid's theology prevent me from loving him, or prevent him from believing I love him?
Shooting: Julia's been commenting on my blog for awhile. Trust me: She wasn't being ironic.
John, I think you cut Julia off at the knees when she was trying to be ironic — and was actually supporting your argument. She did sound a bit forceful doing it, but she seems to be on your side.
Lance:
I'm just curious. When you say that the bible states:
"in the last days good will be considered evil and evil will be considered good. It also states that in their wisdom they have become fools."
How do you KNOW which side you are on; good and wise, or evil and foolish?
Might the evil & foolishness that you cite in fact be hubris & homophobia? The hubris in your certainty of scriptural interpretation and the evil of using the bible as a justification for an anti-gay position?
According to the bible, your own "wisdom" might in fact be foolishness, no?
Seems like the lesson is one of humility and humanity. Think about it.
Whoa, Julia. Angry much? "Use their funds for their own agenda"? What are you talking about? What "agenda"? The post is about how gay and lesbian Christians save starving, homeless children in Tijuana. I'm sorry, but it's irrationally furious comments like these from you that are the reason I have to moderate your comments before I allow them to appear. You've gotta calm down on this stuff if you want to engage in a realistic conversation about it. At least on this blog you do. Another tirade like this one, and I'll simply blacklist you off the site. Okay?
Oh, I figured it out alirght: Gay Christians arent real Christians. Just like alcoholic Christians arent real Christians, drug addicted Christians arent real Christians, greedy Christians arent real Christians, adulterous Christians arent realy Christians, theiving Christians arent real Christians, lazy Christians arent real Christians, fat Christians arent real Christians…etc, etc…. Got it.
The real crux of gay Christian issue seems to be: do you 'tollerate' gay Christians in church so you can use their funds for your own agenda? At least til the money dries up THEN should you kick them out? God only wants REAL Christians in heaven you know, so maybe you should only allow REAL Christians in Church, yes? By all means use -er, accept- the not-so-real Christians until they have no more real use to the Church then give them the boot. That'll show 'em for being fake wannabe Christians!!
BTW, I am still curious and would like comments on; What would Jesus think of folks born intersexed….?
But if by "being clear where I stood on the topic" you mean you'd tell your gay son that you were against his being okay with being gay—that you think homosexuality is an affront to God, or a moral abomination, or whatever—then isn't it true that from then on out it would be virtually impossible for your son to ever again think that you DO, in fact, love him as you always have?
On the kicking-out I'm leaning toward "no." I'm just not sure that it accomplishes anything productive or Christ-like. Like, if my kid were gay, would I stop associating with him? No. I'd be clear about where I stood on the topic, and then I really feel my job from then on out would be to love him like I always have. So I don't think this should be any different in a church community, where in theory we are like a family.
??
Are you saying then do hundreds of thousands of Christians believe they should kick the gays out…?
Yes, Julia, hundreds of thousands of Christians feel that "gay Christian" is an oxymoron–just like hundreds of thousands of Christians don't. How do you not know this?
Nard: This blog is a mirror blog to the one I write on Crosswalk.com, which is run by the largest Christian media entity in the world. Crosswalk is as conservative as conservative gets. When I say that it seems like such a simple and obvious truth that gays can't be real Christians, I'm talking to the hundreds of thousands of Crosswalk readers, who do believe exactly that. I'm bringing the very cause you're so passionate about into foreign territory, dipshit.
Bravo to Redlefty (Michael) , Allen, and Fred Philippi for their comments on this slightly disturbing blog that I have stumbled across. To your statement, "That gays and lesbians shouldn’t be in our churches—that, in fact, they can’t be real Christians—seems like such a simple and obvious truth," all I have to say is: Is it? You sound like you think you are being broadminded with this post, but spouting assumptions like these makes me a tad queasy. gay friendly does not equal sinner friendly. Thank you to Brian Shields also for adding some humor to the cause of deflating this hatespeech.
OK. But should we tell the unrepentant gays and lesbians in our church to leave our church? I might have missed it, but I don’t think anyone has answered that very simple question, the posing of which was the point of the post.
I think the article points to three positive factors not often discussed regarding homosexual relationships: the profound and mysterious love that can exist between two people of the same sex, the desire many gays and lesbians have to be part of a faith community and secular society in truthfulness as regards who we are, and that gay or lesbian love, given half a chance, will manifest itself in a fecund love towards others. If these are characteristics of "unrepentant" people, I am honored to be counted among them.
I believe a review of Matthew 25:31-46 (The Sheep and the Goats) and 1st Corinthians 5 1-12 (Expel the Immoral Brother!) is in order. We are called to "not conform" to the world. That doesn't mean that sinners are not welcome in church, for Christ came into the world not for the righteous (as if there were anyone of us who is righteous) but the unrighteous which includes us all. However believers are also called to confess and the repent (turn and walk away) from our sins, not to continue in them. Christ didn’t say to Mary go and continue in your sin, to the contrary, he said your sins have been forgiven you, go and sin no more.
There is also Roman's 1 18-32 in which we find out all non-repentant sinners will suffer God's wrath including those who indulge “in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.” That is defined as sexual immorality which includes sex outside the marriage, premarital sex, etc. Romans continues stating that “even their women abandoned natural (and might I add ordained) relations for unnatural ones”, and “in the same way men committed indecent acts with other men and because of that they receive in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
The bible states in the last days good will be considered evil and evil will be considered good. It also states that in their wisdom they have become fools. But God’s judgment is righteous regardless according to 2 Romans 5-11.
In the interested of full disclosure I am a former alcoholic who went to church, told folks and myself that I was a Christian. Truth be known anyone can make that claim. My testimony is simply this, God wanted my undivided love, he did not want to share my love with alcohol. In the end
I could not give up the alcohol, it took understanding this, confessing this to God and allowing “HIM” to intervene which he did in a mighty way. As a result, I have been free from alcohol for 5 years, I had no withdraws and have no desire to return to drinking alcohol.. I guess you can say I am now on a lifetime fast from alcohol for my Lord and savior. A guess a question could be, why do homosexuals get a free pass? The sin of homosexuality is painfully evidenced in the Bible in both the old and new testaments. I understand that the truth isn’t pleasant, but that fact alone does not make the truth less truthful. I believe today there is a big difference between folks that call themselves Christians and true born-again Christians who have an intimate relationship with our savior and have repented. I believe we do people having same sex attraction a disservice by trying to sugarcoat the sin. Hence the problem today – the true church needs to be courageous – fear God not man.
Finally, why do you refer to your church as “gay friendly”? Shouldn’t all church’s be sinner friendly? I think the distinction in interesting and telling.
At any rate, I am truly grateful God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The is also so much more I could add to this, but for the sake of rambling I will close.
God Bless.
And, OK, as a gay Christian who is considered a Lay Leader (but in the nice churchy way), I gotta say it's tempting sometimes to take my good works and go where I'm actually welcome. I'm clearly welcome in God's church, and in my own congregation — but my Denomination (Christian Church – Disciples of Christ) can't bring itself to do anything on the subject of my Christianity. My husband's ordination in the CC(DOC) is not necessarily acknowledged outside our own region of the denomination.
Many of us gays and lesbians of a certain age in the church feel like we need to work extra hard to be acceptable, not in the sight of God or Jesus Christ, but in the sight of our straight fellow-Christians. This is getting harder and harder to do over time, frankly, when inane discussions about whether I could possibly be a Christian are still prevalent. Most of the gays and lesbians I know under 40 don't feel this need to belong and be "accepted" by the church. Which is definitely the church's loss! I applaud St. Paul's for its community building that allows people to share their gifts with the church in the name of Christ.
Sarah, for a pretty good primer on some of the biblical study on the topic of homosexuality, I recommend the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So". It introduces some of the historical and cultural settings that influenced the original text, and now influence the church's interpretation of those texts.
As a result, I've yet to meet a person who has done this type of in-depth study and come away still saying that homosexuality is an abomination. The only people I've met who have the "abomination" view are the ones who read the current English translations of the bible and stop there. And at the same time, they say that the other commands surrounding the "abomination" passages (shellfish condemned, women covering their heads, no mixing of fibers, etc…) are not to be applied today. Maybe they're right, but the logic seems inconsistent to me.
And John, regarding this blog post (which was excellent), the church hasn't historically had an issue in separating money from membership/influence.
For example, you noted that some churches don't want gay members but they might like their donations. Likewise, churches don't donate a dime to the government through taxes, but many churches in my state (Texas) are trying to exert a lot of influence in the political realm.
Well, as an outsider, the Church has always been an advocate of: 'If you are not one of us then you are not welcomed.' Then of course you have to specify what 'one of us' actually means. 'Sinners welcomed' is kind of misleading for it expected of you become a non-sinner once you become a Christian. Keep sinning and you arent a real Christian and thus you make god mad. Keep it up and eventually you will be asked to leave. Which makes me wonder' how many sinners will actually end up in heaven if god only wants non-sinners there….?
On a side note, I wonder what would Jesus say about folks born intersexed……?
Not being a psychiatrist, I don't know for sure where homosexuality comes from. If I were to guess, I would say that someone is born with those tendencies and that they cannot lose those tendencies any more that a heterosexual can "decide" to become gay.
Unfortunately, some homosexuals believe God put them on this earth to be condemned, because of the way they were born. This lie is unfortunately encouraged by the ignorance and intolerance of some in the Church who believe homosexuality is a lie from Satan that some people choose to follow, to their condemnation.
I am glad to have an understanding that there is a difference between being a homosexual and being a homosexual "offender". The latter does not know the Lord and lives their life in sexual immorality.
I hope more people with homosexuality come to know the Lord and understand that salvation was meant for everyone. More proof of this can be found in Romans 9:20 and Matthew 18:14.
Talk about an abomination!
When will the Christian church wake up and get rid of those evil sinners who congregate at Red Lobster and openly eat shellfish? What's worse is some of them actually bring their children and encourage the poor innocents to eat the jumbo shrimp with cocktail sauce.
Repent ye crustacianaries!
Thanks for the thoughtful post, John.
I think your reference to Dorcas House is poetic, even though your comment is based in practicalities. It really resonates when you ask: In the name of Christianity, do we really stop giving food, shelter and love to starving, homeless children?
This is exactly what affirming congregations have asked themselves when deciding to open their hearts to gay and lesbian members. It is these men and women who in many areas have been the homeless children among us. Affirming churches give them love and shelter. They in turn make Dorcas House possible. A coincidence? I doubt it.
You know, I'm not entirely certain about the ordination of gay clergy.
That being said, I'll keep silent about your denomination … Of course, since I'm a Baptist, I don't get a vote anyway.
What I do find disgusting is the "show them the door" attitude. Homosexuality is no worse than other sins that plague all of us. I figure that Jesus wasn't kidding when He said that I should see to the plank in my own eye before I go looking for others' specks.
The whole thing is a sad, sad story, I think.
I feel that if you say homosexuals cannot be a part of the church you are saying sinners cannot be a part of the church. Yes being homosexual is against Gods word, but so are so many of the things you and I do in our daily lives as well. Being homosexual is not a bigger sin than the others named in the Bible. At least it isn't to God. I understand that homosexuality is a lifestyle and not individual sins like we may commit but I still don't think God sees it as worse. That is just my opinion on Christian homosexuals or homosexuals in the church. I would welcome them at my church just as I would any one else. They hurt and need healing just as much as I do.
I like what Sarah says about the story about Jesus and the prostitute and I feel that is what Jesus would say to homosexuals as well. In the Bible it tells us we are to confront our fellow Christians in what they are doing wrong. But it is not our job to make sure that they follow it. If they choose not to heed our words we are to just pray for them.
I do not mean for this post to incite anger, it is just my personal opinion based on what I have learned thus far. And obviously I don't know everything.
I have been doing a lot of thinking about this type of issue lately. I really would like to know what Jesus would do. I consider myself conservative, but I want to be a thinker and not just be a lemming. I keep hearing that what Jesus would do is love gay people, which I know is true, BUT I can't reconcile the concept of loving a person with accepting whatever that person wants to do. I WANT to be able to believe that Jesus is cool with homosexuality. For me, it would be a lot easier to just say, "
Lets all just do what we feel is right." than to make anyone feel like something they're doing is wrong. When Jesus encountered the prostitute, he was very kind and loving to her, but he said, "Go and sin no more." It seems like our society today has twisted his treatment of people like this to be, "I love you and if you feel good with what you're doing then I'm cool with that and we can hang together."
So I'm really searching here. What WOULD Jesus do? Can someone(s) give me some Biblical evidence for how we're supposed to treat this situation? I know that I'm personally kind to everyone and have no intention of showing anyone the door, but I need to know what's right! Thanks.
Another great post, John. The fact that "show them the door" is the rallying cry of any group of Christians is troubling. I have a hard time believing that Christ would share their sentiment.
Newer Comments →