In a Washington Post column called “Civilities,” a lesbian mother, worried about being “insulted,” asked the columnist if she and her partner with their daughters should walk out of their Catholic church if their bishop again preached against same sex marriage, as he did once before in their absence.
The columnist essentially advised yes: “Kids need to know that there are adults in the church who will stand up for them, their moms and their families. Who better than you to be the first?”
So does walking out on a sermon model “civility?” And is a sermon that provokes disagreement therefore unacceptably insulting? How far does this line of reasoning go?
If I as a Methodist visited a Catholic Church where the homily stressed Catholicism as the true church and the Catholic mass as the only complete understanding of the Eucharist, should I be insulted and walk out? If I attend a Baptist service where adults are being robustly dunked, should I storm out over the implication that my own infant baptism is invalid? If a Presbyterian sermon emphasizes the Calvinist understanding of election, should I angrily bolt for the door, hurt by the suggestion that I may not number among the elect, or at least have no choice?
If I attended Jewish or Muslim worship, and upon confirming that my deeply cherished faith in Christ’s deity and the Trinity were not affirmed, should I huffily make a scene with an early departure? Would these hasty protest exits from places of worship model “civility” with their expectation that long established religious groups may not teach their historic positions if they disagree with my own convictions from a lifetime of Methodism, from a family that dates back two hundred years in Methodism?
And should I interpret religious doctrinal and ethical teaching at odds with my own preferences as a personal insult mandating a retort? Or does civility actually call for respecting the theologies and ethics of religious communities while pursuing my own beliefs with kindred spirits?
The drama of stalking out of church as a public statement is appealing, but I’ve never done it. The closest was when I left before a service began, upon reading the congregational prayer in the worship bulletin directed at Mother and Father god. Joining in goddess worship seemed at odds with Christianity, so I quietly walked to another church.
Protesting sermons or worship profoundly at odds with the historic, official teachings of a religious body seems appropriate for faithful adherents of that community. Getting publicly angry when the clergy accurately present their longstanding teachings seems fatuous. In the Christian and Jewish traditions, the message is often supposed to challenge and even discomfit. Therapeutic affirmation is not typically biblical, and while superficially pleasing, it also fails to spiritually satisfy.
In the Jewish and Christian tradition, teaching God’s word sometimes results in martyrdom by decapitation, or crucifixion, among other unpleasantries. But the prophets, apostles and their successors continue on, in season and out.
In our current culture of the empowered self, disagreement and disapproval are increasingly interpreted as personal attacks. In a truly tolerant and pluralistic society, difficult views from the pulpit or elsewhere are heard, received, absorbed, maybe critiqued and ultimately rejected. But angry refusal to tolerate an institution’s or community’s message, or demanding it immediately surrender long developed beliefs to accommodate personal preferences of the moment, is unreasonable and uncivil. A column on “Civilities” might have so observed.
Comment by Namyriah on July 22, 2015 at 9:25 pm
Mark, I’m curious: this church you walked out of, with the prayer to Mother and Father God – what denomination?
Comment by RoverSerton on July 23, 2015 at 7:47 am
If someone fundamentally disagrees with a tenet of their church, they should walk out. And, they should never go back. Find a church that mirrors your understanding of God or try being a None. Going to a church that teaches you are less than others is a losing cause.
Comment by Edison Frisbee on July 23, 2015 at 8:10 am
Exactly! You should find a church that tells you only what you want to hear….the truth is irrelevant….God must bow to man’s inclinations, perverted or otherwise.
Comment by RoverSerton on July 23, 2015 at 8:18 am
But isn’t that why there are over 30,000 different christian religions? Every one believes they are the true interpretation. Even Catholics have different sects. Truth is obviously relative to your belief. So, picking and choosing your belief makes sense.
Comment by Torin on July 23, 2015 at 8:28 am
This was what the Carholic Church argued during the Reformantion. The Protestants taught all believers where priests and didn’t need a central authority to interpt scripture. Everyone was free to interpt scripture based on what God was saying to them. The RC church was right. Every a church today has its own revelation based on scripture with each believer stating their’s is the correct way.
Comment by Edison Frisbee on July 23, 2015 at 8:49 am
You make my point (good explanation from Torin). There are different rites in the Catholic Church, but not different beliefs…..you are either orthodox (in communion with the Church) or heterodox (outside of it).
Comment by RoverSerton on July 23, 2015 at 9:00 am
The author is apparently a Methodist so he is not in communion with the RC. If the Christian church had remained only RC, it would be unified…. but not necessarily true. One of the big problems with a God concept is that your beliefs are regional. The God you worship is the one your region follows.
If it was important for God to be followed, he would have given a more universally understood path to truth.
Comment by Edison Frisbee on July 23, 2015 at 9:37 am
That’s why Christ established a Church, so He could be understood. Only Catholic Church can trace it’s history to that founding; the Protestant sects came 15 centuries later. Christ stated the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, which clearly they would be doing if it taught error and was subject to 30,000 interpretations. I suggest you look at The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, written by an Anglican….even he traces the Catholic Church’s lineage back to the Church as founded by Christ.
Comment by RoverSerton on July 23, 2015 at 9:54 am
I agree that that is what the RC teaches.
But, what about the competing religions. Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Thor, Druid. So many gods to choose from. Pascals wager only works if there is only one choice of god or religious practice.
I’m gonna sign out now, busy day ahead. Be well.
Comment by Edison Frisbee on July 23, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Ultimately the element of faith must come into play but that does not mean your religious decision should be devoid of reason or ignore natural law and historical facts…..how many Thor worshippers have you met lately? Did you find their belief system intellectually compelling? I think it died out for a reason. As to Judaism and Islam, the former is the promise of Christianity, while the latter is clearly a man made religion inspired by earthly concerns.
Comment by RoverSerton on July 23, 2015 at 2:40 pm
1. I don’t believe number of followers is a legitimate proof of a thought. Christanity is not a majority religion, just the largest of many.
2. Christianity has an amazing lack of historical facts or non biblical authentication. (josephus won’t help here, written too far afterwards).
3. I find no religion intellectually compelling and devoid of reason.
Three things must be true in christianity for it to be worth following. Adam and Eve made origional sin by doing something they couldn’t know was wrong. Jesus was born of Mary but his father was not human. Jesus died to make up for Adam and Eves failure and is now physically in heaven. Those beliefs are not compelling nor reasonable.
Every religion is a “man made religion”
But, I’m open to evidence.
Comment by Walhei on July 23, 2015 at 9:22 pm
I suspect you have not really tried to find evidence.
I suggest you spend, more than a few hours, at reasons.org
You can find much evidence by goggling Christian Apologetic.
Comment by johnschuh on July 24, 2015 at 12:18 am
Adam and Eve very well knew what they were doing was wrong because they had been told it was. The Creed we recite each Sunday says that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father, making his relationship with the Father very different from that between Zeus and Heracles. By the Holy Spirit, Jesus is made incarnate. Thus Jesus is not a demigod but a God-Man, a very different thing. In Christianity the central and most definitely historical fact is the man Jesus, a Jew who lived a certainly time and place. Which is why when modernists abandoned Arianism for liberalism to atheism, they decided fist to deny the dignity of Jesus and then his very existence.
Comment by Veritas on July 23, 2015 at 9:52 am
If He gave us a more universally understood path to the truth, how long would it be before we again strayed off the path?
Comment by Neil Bragg on July 23, 2015 at 8:36 pm
That’s really stupid. That’s like saying all Christians ought to live in houses that are just alike. I thought lefties were big on “diversity” and “multiculturalism,” but when it comes to discussing Christianity (about which you are hopelessly ignorant), you claim diversity is bad, every church on earth ought to be exactly the same. Says who? You? Christians have been running our own affairs for 2000 years, we get by just fine with no input from atheists. We reached a point several centuries ago at which we tolerate different denominations instead of killing each other over minor differences – I think most civilized people would say that Christians tolerating different styles of worship is a much better thing than executing people as apostates and heretics.
Every atheist wants to set himself up as arbiter of what “real” Christianity is, and wants to dictate how we should run our affairs. History shows that when you people gain enough political power, you do more than just talk, you start executing people. So, thanks for your input, but no thanks, your kind is not exactly our go-to source for how to run the churches.
Comment by Mike Ward on July 23, 2015 at 2:30 pm
Exactly, people may pick the church that agrees with them, but they think they are simply picking the church that agrees with God.
I’m critical of all the division, but I don’t know how to solve it. Even simply discounting all the people who I think are deliberately putting their own opinions ahead of Gods, I think that it’s simply impossible for all sincere people to come to the same conclusions. But I can’t fault anybody for thinking he himself is right.
Comment by johnschuh on July 23, 2015 at 11:55 pm
It is impossible to imagine 30,000 permutations of Christianity. There are, of course, many,,many sects because Christianity is a congregational faith. but most of these are Protestant. Yet even here the real differences are easily exaggerated. Despite the great number of Baptist sects, The substantial differences among them are few.
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on July 23, 2015 at 10:50 am
So your idea is that the complaining party didn’t know the Catholic Church position on SSM until she heard it from the pulpit? Please. If someone fundamentally disagrees then they don’t have to attend in the first place. Making a scene is not civil or polite.
Comment by Veritas on July 23, 2015 at 11:00 am
Do you think the post planted the question to elite this type of protest in the future?
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on July 23, 2015 at 11:24 am
*elicit
That might be too strong a word but, yes, I do think that the Post feels that church members who disagree with leftist values should not hesitate to be vocal about that within religious circles. The Post would take a completely different view about right-wing values, which is where to find the hypocrisy.
Comment by johnschuh on July 24, 2015 at 12:26 am
The problem is not whether the views are “left” or “right”, which are political terms, but whether they are Christian or not.
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on July 24, 2015 at 1:58 am
Well, OK, but that turns out to be a matter on which Christians have differences of opinion. And it turns out, further, that those differences align very closely with explicitly political views and ideologies. So my comment was apt while yours just begs the question. Hope that helps.
Comment by johnschuh on July 24, 2015 at 12:01 pm
Differences of opinion about what? I am talking about dogmatic differences such as those that can be expression in a creed or confession of faith.
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on July 24, 2015 at 12:36 pm
Differences of opinion about matters such as the one about which the article was written. Wasn’t that obvious already? Gee. I don’t know if you’re being intentionally opaque or are just dense, but if you have a point to make, it would be interesting to know what the heck it might be.
Comment by RoverSerton on July 23, 2015 at 12:03 pm
This time I DO see it your way (lol). Not attending is the correct solution.
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on July 23, 2015 at 12:28 pm
🙂
Comment by Neil Bragg on July 23, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Yes!
There are plenty of gay clubs around, and they have no moral standards at all. You’d be more comfortable with your own kind – that’s true of all human beings.
Comment by Dan Horsley on July 23, 2015 at 2:06 pm
I don’t think that any church on earth “teaches you are less than others.” Christianity has a level playing field – everyone is a sinner, everyone who repents of his sins enters into a new relationship with God and embarks on a new life. To be in this relationship with God, you have to love Him more than you love your sins. Any church that condones people’s sins and tells them to celebrate those sins is not Christian – but, as you said, you can find a religion in America that suits your lifestyle. It’s truly a win-win situation when people who hold on to their pet sin decide to head for the exit – they find a new church (or no church), and the church they leave has one less unrepentant sinner in it, so it’s a good thing all the way around.
Christianity has always been a counter-cultural religion, that’s why we’ve been getting killed for 2000 years. It is not a religion for the fainthearted or for people who don’t love God enough to give Him control of their lives.
Hope you find the sort of religion that suits you. All the pro-gay churches would be thrilled to have you, because all of them have been shrinking for the past 50 years or so, so they need all the members they can get.
Best wishes!
Comment by Torin on July 23, 2015 at 8:19 am
So, what about race. Would you walk out of a church where the minister was quoting scripture to support racism? Would you expose you children to that? One on hand, I would just to teach them the narrowness of such ideas, but then again I would feel setting there I would be condoning such ideas and walking is a teaching moment for my kids as well. The good thing about the US, there is always another church around the corner!
Comment by Veritas on July 23, 2015 at 9:55 am
Even if an abhorrent message were proclaimed, I would not walk out. My children would be taught that this message was wrong, in no uncertain terms, and that all that is said from the pulpit needs to be prayerfully contemplated. Even contemplating hatred leads us to the truth of that hatred.
Comment by Torin on July 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
As a general rule I agree with you, but I would have to take into account the temperament of my children and the age of my child too.
Comment by Mike Ward on July 23, 2015 at 2:23 pm
If I really found it abhorrent, I’d leave even if my kids weren’t there. But if you are using abhorrent hyperbolicly I understand.
Comment by Mike Ward on July 23, 2015 at 2:21 pm
I don’t think anyone should say there is never a time to walk out of a church (and I don’t think Tooley said that). It should be done hesitantly though I think. I understand people will disagree over what constitutes grounds for walking out, but if you have to ask if you should walk out, you probably should stay. If I ever hear anything I find so offensive in church I feel I must leave, I’m not going to ask anyone’s opinion first.
Comment by Veritas on July 23, 2015 at 9:45 am
i have to agree with the author, that it is uncivil to protest the sermon by walking out, despite what may be said during the service. Should we be going to church, or mass to hear what we like and to be entertained? Isn’t the purpose to worship our creator?
If we disagree we can include that in our prayer and be open to the truth, we may be wrong…and then what would our protest be? If we are right, we have not made ourselves bigger than the worship.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 23, 2015 at 10:03 am
I’m pretty sure Catholic reverence for Mary comes closer to goddess worship than interpreting the holy spirit as Sophia(Wisdom), a feminine hypostasis of God, which has deep Biblical roots. Your criteria seems to be strictly “historical”. So if it’s what you consider an old heresy, you’ll stay in the interest of civility, but if it’s a new heresy(in your eyes) you’ll avoid the place all together. That action may not be rude but it does demonstrate an arbitrary refusal to hear something that might be “discomfiting”, something you say Christians should value and embrace. Your hypocrisy has made you avoid the possibly important thing you might need to hear.
Comment by Mike Ward on July 23, 2015 at 2:17 pm
Catholics don’t worship Mary as a goddess, and even if you feel that they do, other Christians are not being inconsistent simply by disagreeing with you.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 23, 2015 at 4:50 pm
You’ve misread me. I said worship of Mary “comes closer” to goddess worship than the concept of wisdom or the holy spirit as the divine feminine which I assume(perhaps incorrectly) the prayer in the article referred to. I did not accuse Catholics of goddess worship. However, there is no shortage of conservative evangelicals that do. As for inconsistency, other Christians don’t enter in to it. The only inconsistency is between Mr. Tooley’s assertion that Christians ought to be willing to listen to things that might discomfit and his admitted unwillingness to do so. The inconsistency is entirely his own.
Comment by johnschuh on July 23, 2015 at 11:45 pm
You seem not to understand that the Mother/Father God reference brings to the mind of many of us the pagan concept, strongly rejected by the Israelites, of God having a male/female duality. quite inconsistent with the God of the Law but quite consistent with temple prostitution.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 24, 2015 at 12:14 pm
On the contrary, I’m aware that many peculiar things come to some peoples minds. Like dual gendered pagan gods. Can you name one? Also does the God of the law have balls? I’m unfamiliar with that text. The argument for mother as an appropriate attribute for god is simple. All human beings are created in the image of god, men and women. If a woman carries the imago deo then using a female term is just as legitimate as a male one. Objecting to this minor adjustment in metaphorical language(all god language is metaphor since god can’t be described) simply makes you a misogynist. Not being able to tell the difference between this modern convention and ancient Israelite’s concerns about their neighbors religions just makes you daft.
Comment by johnschuh on July 24, 2015 at 1:13 pm
The God of the Jews was “sexless”, a spirit hence the prohibition against worshipping images. The intent was to deny any reality to the fertility gods of the Canannites who were the competitors of the God of the Law. In our own time we have seen a resurgence of this very thing they you have declared old hate, because our society is obsessed with sexual display . Ever notice how nothing can be sold without a display of almost naked women. Talk about misogynism when women are so often reduced to sex objects.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 24, 2015 at 1:32 pm
You didn’t answer my questions. If you want conversation I’m all ears. If you want to preach, find a church.
Comment by johnschuh on July 24, 2015 at 6:14 pm
The conversation that the Bible has is mainly about the God of the Israelites and about the gods of the Canaanites. Regarding gender it says only that the Lord has no gender, nor any form. As for male and female, these terms refer to the complementary nature of the human being. The God of the Bible has no consort. The divine nature is not divisible. As for the use of “He” or “She” We have no word for a sexually neutral person, except angel. As Christians, however, we have to start with the fact that Jesus was a male born of a woman.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 24, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Actually the Bible discusses dozens of peoples and gods other than the Canaanites which tells me you haven’t done much actual Bible reading. The Bible also does not state anything explicit about Gods gender or form as such(burning bush, fire, wind, etc.). Those conclusions are implied from the text, not stated. As for a consort, well in fact until the time of Josiah, God had a wife named Ashera(or Ishtar) who was worshiped in Solomon’s temple. From 2 Kings ” 6 He brought out the image of[a] Asherah from the house of the Lord,
outside Jerusalem, to the Wadi Kidron, burned it at the Wadi Kidron,
beat it to dust and threw the dust of it upon the graves of the common
people.” Archeology has also revealed many examples of prayers to Ashera from ancient Israel and Judah where she is referred to as “Yahweh’s Ashera”, in other words God’s wife. I should also mention the serpent idol that was worshiped in the temple, made at Gods command by Moses in Exodus and was later broken up by Hezekiah. We do have a word for genderless people, androgynous and they do exist. Angels are definitely sexed. They had intercourse with human women and created the Nephillim(again read your Bible or better 1Enoch). Sorry, using Jesus is an obvious cop out. By the way, if the divine nature is not divisible, how do you get the trinity?
Comment by johnschuh on July 24, 2015 at 8:49 pm
There were many syncretic versions of Yawehism in ancient Israel, both before the establishment of the monarchy and after the breakaway of the Northern Kingdom from Benjamin and Judah. It was the mission of Prophets such as Amos et al. to wean the Israelites away from the rivals of the Jerusalem temple. And of course, the efforts of Ephraim to reestablish some unity between North and South aimed at the opposite course. Reforms by “good”kings like Josiah began by removing idols from the Temple precincts. The Bible makes it clear that not all of the Israelites, and perhaps only a minority of them worshipped only Yahweh. The most inconsistent theme of the Bible is the unfaithfulness of Israel. We don’t need archaeologists to tell us that.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 24, 2015 at 10:20 pm
We do need archeology because it tells us that the early Israelites where polytheists and didn’t embrace monotheism until the Babylonian exile. In other words it tells us some of the Bible is factually incorrect. You also didn’t answer for the serpent idol, made at Gods command. The “no idol” rule seems to have had exceptions. That’s actually easy to answer since Josiah suddenly “discovers” the books of Moses that nobody seems to have read before that point. The truth is, the first five books of the bible are works of fiction from the exile period. The old testament, which was first written down during the exile, projects the (then)present monotheist bias on to their cultural memory. Of course if you read your Bible literally, I’m wasting my breath. I will point out however that George Washington did not cut down a cherry tree and Lincoln was not born in a log cabin. All history has mythological aspects.
Comment by johnschuh on July 25, 2015 at 6:25 pm
The “truth” is that you are making assertions that is in no wise “proved” by archeology. Were the Israelites “monotheists,”? The books of Samuel and Kings make it clear that the cult of Yahweh was always in competition with the gods of Canaan. The ark was moved to Jerusalem as a sign that David consolidated his power with the blessings of Yahweh and he proposed the building of a temple to centralize worship and deny legitimacy to the gods of the region. His empire was the completion of the “Conquest” only begun by Joshua. The monotheism
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 25, 2015 at 7:13 pm
Your confusing the Bible for history. In some respects the Bible reflects history, in some cases not. For instance, exodus appears to be entirely mythological. There is absolutely no physical or written evidence(outside of the Bible) it ever happened. On the contrary, the archeology shows that the Israelites grew out of Caanan locally as a culturally distinct group but of the same race. In other words, the first Isralelites we’re Caananites. By the time of David the Caananites as a seperate cultural group had ceased to exist. If you read your old testament you will encounter the phrase “El Adonai”. El was the creator god of the ancient semitic pantheon that included Baal(storm god) and Yahweh(warrior god) before the rise of Israel. Yahweh was a local tribal deity before his promotion over time to the “one god”. Again I refer you too Genesis where Yahweh refers to the gods as plural. This is all established scholarship that is undeniable. You can believe what you want, but it’s simply factually incorrect.
Comment by johnschuh on July 27, 2015 at 1:14 am
You seem to buy Ranke’s notion of scientific history. There is not such thing. History doesn’t exist beyond the narrative created by historians. That narrative is constantly changing, not only because new evidence is found but because historians are always trying to change a narrative based on evidence already known. The archaeology of the Holy Land consists literally of what people have dug up, and rather than consider the possibility that the Bible gives us a truer picture of the reality of the period, some people choose to assert that we much rely on the evidence they have dug up. Of course the Israelites were immeshed in a “ Canaanite culture.” That does not mean they could not be as distinct from them as the Arabs who conquered the Holy Land were distinct from the “Romans” whose culture they appropriated. How is the story of the Israelite Conquest seems to me no more improbable than
the Muslim Conquest of the Holy Land. Think of Joshua as a mini-Caliph. The difference being that there is no surviving history of the region at that time that corresponds with our history of the
Muslims.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 27, 2015 at 12:04 pm
History isn’t real? Arabs appropriated Roman culture? Half of the things you write seem to belong to some schizophrenia generated alternative reality. If you choose to remain in a world of make believe there’s not much more to say. I think it was Thomas Paine that said speaking to someone who has given up the use of reason is a waste of time. I’m definitely wasting my time.
Comment by johnschuh on July 27, 2015 at 3:51 pm
By “Romans” I mean what is normally called Byzantine culture. They also appropriated the Syriac and Persians culture of the peoples their conquered. The Muslims were barbarians and in this respect like the Germans who conquered the Western Empire. They had to depend on the people they conquered to build up their civilization. Not until after 1000 were Muslims a majority in their empire and they brought no more skills of civilization than the Gothic kings brought to Italy. Except the ideas and values of their religion, they gave nothing.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 27, 2015 at 5:52 pm
The guy who doesn’t believe in history presumes to give me a history lesson, and a bad one at that. While it’s true the nomads of the desert had a fairly primitive lifestyle, Mecca itself was a major stop on the eastern spice trade route for centuries before the rise of Islam. It was a cosmopolitan center for trade, cultural and religious exchange, and literacy long before the prophet. How do you think Islam came to be in the first place? There was already a rich civilized culture in place with out conquering anybody. Not only is your history wrong, it’s racist. And speaking of literacy it’s “appropriated the Syriac and Persian cultures of the people they conquered”. You sound kind of like a barbarian to me.
Comment by johnschuh on July 28, 2015 at 12:19 am
Barbarians refers to any of the peoples who live on the fringe of great cultural centers. The very name Arab tells us about their status. Even today, Muslims sentimentalize about the bedouin culture as somehow purer than that of the Arabs who live in towns.IAC. The Muslim Conquerers enlisted the talents of the peoples they conquered as the Germans did the peoples of the Roman Empire whom they conquerered. Mecca make have been an important city on the trade route but was not a major cultural center like Alexandria or the great cities of the Fertile Crescent and Persia. What they brought to their new empire was military power and a new faith and eventually, the language of the Koran which gradually replaced Aramaic and Greek as the principle languages of the region.
Comment by trytoseeitmyway on July 23, 2015 at 10:47 am
I’m going to attend a Planned Parenthood meeting and then walk out demonstratively when they start discussing abortion. I take it the Washington Post would approve. Nice to know.
Comment by Fr0sty on July 23, 2015 at 9:10 pm
I read the Post column and as many of the comments as I could stand. What struck me was the overwhelming ignorance of Catholicism exhibited by nearly everyone, but especially by the lesbian mother. Is it really possible for someone to grow up in the church and raise their children in the church and still be surprised that their bishop disapproves of same sex marriage? And the columnist’s suggestion that she sit down with her priest and bishop and demand that such “inappropriate” comments not be repeated was hilarious. The bishop’s comments are completely appropriate, given that they reflect the church’s teachings about human sexuality, which haven’t changed for a couple of millennia now, and are unlikely to change just because a couple of lesbians threaten to get huffy and walk out of mass.
Comment by Jason P Taggart on July 24, 2015 at 8:19 am
Regarding the lesbian who walked out:
I think a key word in the social movements of today is “targeting”: we see Christian businesses deliberately targeted by homosexual activists, in the hope that the Christian business will be fined (to the point of having to shut down) or at least harassed. Obviously these people have lots of other choices as to who supplies their wedding cakes or whatever, but clearly the point is: find someone and do them harm. In think most people with a modicum of conscience would find this unethical.
It’s also unethical for homosexuals and feminists to target churches and rant about being discriminated or (I see this word used more and more) dehumanized. This is America, folks, most people are within a reasonable distance of many types of churches, some of which accept (even celebrate) homosexuality, others do not. Even in the Bible Belt of the Deep South there are still plenty of churches that hang the rainbow flag out front. So the only motive for homosexuals or feminists to attack conservative churches (I’m including the RC church here, along with evangelicals) and moan “I don’t feel accepted there!” This is America, we don’t have a state church (thank God!), we have an open market place in religion. Remember the old joke: “Doctor, it hurts when I do this!” “Well, then, don’t DO that!” Apply that to the gripers: “I don’t feel comfortable in this church!” “Well, then, don’t GO there!” Seriously, there are people who would rather whine and moan than find a church that suits them. But of course, their real goal is not finding the right church – it’s to find a church that does NOT suit them, and whine and moan until that church conforms to their expectations. So pardon me if I don’t seem too sympathetic to people in this situation: “I don’t like this church, they don’t ordain women!” “I’m not comfortable here, they regard gays as second-class citizens!” If you feel this way, do the adult thing, and MOVE ON, OK? What you’re doing is not right – it’s just as wrong as joining any organization and then making a nuisance of yourself.
Stop trying to coerce other people to fit your worldview. Christians have been accused of doing that, and if you don’t like Christians doing that, then at least be consistent and don’t do it yourself.
Comment by Benjamin Wortham on July 24, 2015 at 8:52 pm
You’re entirely correct when referring to someone outside of a given community objecting to the tenants of that tradition. However someone born to a tradition, like the lesbian noted in the article, is critiquing their own faith. Wouldn’t you consider it your right as a lifetime member of your own faith community to speak out if you thought the community was engaged in an unethical practice?
Comment by Dr.Charles Klink on July 24, 2015 at 8:54 am
I find it so interesting that the “tried (trite)-and-true” methods of the 1960’s are still being used in today’s culture. When are the “left” going to come up with something different to use as a statement of their position — like talking with the Roman Catholic priest. They may not agree, but at least they are willing to share differences. Why do we have to make such a demonstrative gesture to share our opinion? Is the person afraid to talk with the priest? What does the person think the priest will do — exoricise her? Excoriate her? Maybe the priest will have a cordial and, even if non-resolvable, discussion about the issue and they can “agree to disagree” (isn’t that an option for dialogical discourse?!).
Comment by Jason Wert on July 28, 2015 at 7:08 pm
Perhaps it would be better if she stopped resisting the fact she’s living a life of sin and repent. 🙂