Church Sign
Saw this text on a church sign in Springtown, TX which is where our Grandfather's funeral was held. My sister and I had what could be called a "gasp" of a reaction that might be expected from two theologically progressive New Yorker's.
But it has stuck in my head for the last few days. I have been thinking about these questions.
As Christians, how do we uphold the ideal of God's laws and still protect the dignity and give grace to people who don't live up to that ideal?
Follow up:
What language can we use to take moral stands, that help people become receptive instead of alientated? Especially in light of the postmodern society we live in.
Finally:
Do you agree with the sign?
16 comments:
I can't read the sign -- could you repost it?
You're assuming that one CHOOSES to be homosexual, whereas some believe one is BORN a homosexual. Have you ever asked a homosexual person their opinion on this topic?
Holy cow. That is some sign.
I'm currently reading and adoring GOD'S POLITICS by Jim Wallace (I know, I know--everybody else was reading this nine months ago. I'm working off a backlog!), and much of his time is spent talking about how Christians who believe in justice and life and family--but not necessarily with the ways our country has hijacked those terms for political gain-- can phrase things in ways that do not offend people right off the bat on either side. It has really made me consider how thoughtfully and sensitively people on all sides of these "hot button" issues have to be approached-- to stop myself from going, "Dude, you're wrong! And mean! Wrong and mean!" not thinking about how to be respectful of the fact that those actions and words are coming from someone's equally deeply held convictions.
Still, wow. Not the image I would pick to represent all of Christendom.
i'm kind of scared to comment now, in light of that last restaraunt post! that's what happens when you comment on the blog of someone you don't know! noting the sarcasm makes it even funnier now
i struggle with this so much...it makes me so sad to see things like this and the latest pat robertson ignorant utterings...i have friends caught in sinful lifestyles, and while i want to see them change, i don't always know how to address those areas of their life without them feeling as though i am betraying or judging them...i have not found a whole lot of solid answers, and i am not great with words but i do know this...Jesus, while graceful and loving, was also very straightforward to people about the way they were living...however, I am not Jesus...I choose to live in a way that shows people his love and grace and leads them to the place where they can come to know his love and his law...i think we need to exercise great caution when considering whose job it is to enfore that law, we are iron sharpening iron, not the fire to put the iron in.
Great questions, J-Wild...
Personally, I think Paul has a lot to offer us on this subject. Jesus, too.
It seems pretty apparent that Paul was okay with a double standard: one set of rules for Insiders, and one for Outsiders. I'm not sure how we will treat homosexuality among "Insiders" (I think this could be the defining issue of our generation), but as long as we're talking about worldly rules, I think you're right...we have to do what we can to make sure we don't alienate people and make them unwilling to listen to what we have to offer.
If Christians are perceived by gays as hateful and spiteful, how in the world can we expect to develop relationships? That's one reason I can't understand why churches were so quick to press for the passing of Proposition 2 here in Texas...if you really think gays are nasty sinners who need converting, is passing laws against them really the best way to get them to come to church for saving?
Although I'm not sure how Christians should act in a political situation like ours (where we could conceivably pass laws that mirror our Judeo-Christian ethic), I think we should be okay with a double standard...
Sandi - the sign reads "Moral Wrongs Don't Make Civil Rights"
Maybe it is just my Christian upbringing in the less conservative Northeast, but the whole gay debate has alwasy puzzled me. One of the first principles of Christianity I was taught was that no sin is greater than any other. How can these ultra-conservative churches not appreciate this understanding which seems SO BASIC to me. The leaders of these churches are all sinners as well - how come they aren't passing laws against their own sins? I think if Christians did a little more loving and a little less lobbying this country would be a better place. I'm just sick of the Pat Robertsons of the world. Almost everyday I hear something else in the news that makes me wish I went by some name other than 'Christian.'
I have way too many thoughts on this subject. One of my best friends is gay, and we've had long conversations about how he struggled to overcome his feelings because he was a Christian, but in the end, just couldn't. He genuinely wanted to be straight because he knew it would be easier.
Signs like the one you saw are so hurtful, and are the reason why so many gay people feel they can't be a Christian if they are gay. I'm not sure exactly what I feel theologically about homosexuality, but at the core, I don't believe it's my place to tell anyone how they should live. That should be between the believer and God. If we believe that a genuine relationship with God will transform lives, then we should do all we can to bring God into the lives of everyone. Intolerant attitudes don't accomplish that.
As a side note, I've been reading a blog about a guy who is trying to decide if he can be gay and be a Christian. Visit www.twoworldcollision.blogspot.com if you're interested.
kenny, i agree with your comment, and am also so frustrated with the unfortunate way that Christianity is viewed by so many because of some of the people claiming to represent it...in fact, my latest post was about pat robertson...i agree with you that we need a lot less lobbying and a lot more loving...how are we reflecting Christ's love to the world when things like this are posted outside of our churches...i can guarantee if i was a non-believer and saw that sign, i probably wouldn't want to come in either
I wise person I know said this in responce to this post "we all too often worry about protecting our own civil rights while pointing out other people's moral issues instead we should worry about examining our own moral issues while always protecting others civil rights." well said
Clark says:
I am sad to see that it seems that all who are responding to this post buy into the assumption that there is something inharently sinful in someone's sexual orientation that is not hetro.
Although I don't know all who have posted on this sight I would guess that most endorse the idea that women should be free to participate in a leadership role in whorship services. We would agree that historical context should be used to properly interpret verses like I Tim. 1:10-15. It was not too very long ago that women were fighting for not only civil rights but also their voice in the church.
We are now in the midst of another group that is both seeking civil rights as well as a voice in the church. We all need to take a critical look at how we apply our own hermeneutic. We are willing to apply historical and cultural context to some verses and not others. I would argue that it has to be an all or nothing proposition. You either read the Bible word for word and try to live it word for word or you have to always use historical and cultural context. Decades ago church goers and scholars a like were arguing over womens ability to participate in leadership roles in church. Some would argue the issue is still largely undecided. However, I think for this post most agree that women can and should participate in whorship.
I argue that it's our responcibility as Christians to not simply except or tollerate those who identify with a sexual orientation other than our own but to embrace them as brothers and sisters and fellow travelers. We must take a critical look at how we read the Bible.
Finally, as Americans as human beings we should always protect people's civil rights. Whether they are Muslim, Hindu, Homosexual, Transgender, Black, White, Female, or Male.
I would suggest we answer some different questions?
How can we build a more excepting culture and church? One where someone's ability to be who they are is never put to a vote? Why is the Christian right so desperate to make it illegal for gays to be married? What harm does it bring society or to any person?
I encourage anyone who hasn't read The Alphabet vs the Goddess or What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality to read them.
I do agree with the sign, because I dont believe any sexual orientation in and of itself is a moral wrong.
Respectfully
Clark
I want to thank everyone for their great comments.
When I originally wrote this post I thought I was asking good questions. In hindsight I can see how my own impression of the sign really colored the subsequent discussion.
It is really interesting to me how this discussion has become so focused on the singular issue of homosexuality. I think that is a very important topic to discuss, but I don't think that is what is at the core of this sign.
To me this sign is a rejection of the premise that society needs to influence the moral direction of the church, or even morality in general. I agree with that to some degree. The problem is that there have been times in the history of the church where the church wasn't bold enough to stand in defiance of some of the moral wrongs that society was engaging in. There have also been times where the church was the moral force that produced change within society. The difficulty is recognizing when the church is doing one and not the other.
I want it both ways. I want the church to influence the world for justice, mercy, peace, and grace. But I don't want it setting curriculum policy for high school science or health class. I don't want it to be in places of such power and influence that it becomes corrupted by that power and influence. I want it to be independent and clear in it's moral compass.
This to me is the real dilemma of the sign. I don't want a church to operate within a vacuum of culture, but I don't want it to be determined theologically by culture.
I think Greg hints at the complexity of this dilemma in his comment. I do not believe we (church goers) are very good with reconciling Christian ethics and morality for the "insider" as opposed to the "outsider." There could even be a substantial debate as to whether there that distinction exists at all.
Finally I would like to say that before discussing homosexuality we (the church) must first begin with a better understanding of sexuality period. There is so much about sex that we don't talk about within the context of our faith, that jumping to homosexuality misses bigger fundamental questions about sex. Mike Cope has a great post dealing with some of the more comprehensive issues regarding sex which you can read here.
I also have to disagree with the commonly made assertion that the defining moments of the church for this generation will be how it deals with homosexuality. Far more people are disenfranchised from the church by extreme poverty, sickness, or their gender. How the church responds to those issues will have far greater ramifications on the direction of the church as opposed to it's rejection or embrace of homosexuality.
Jason - are you saying that you don't believe the core message behind that sign was the issue of homosexuality and Proposition 2? Or are you merely suggesting that there are other ways to look at it? Maybe my judgement is clouded, but I think it is pretty clear what that sign's motives are.
I have no doubt that within the context of what was happening in Texas with prop. 2 that the church was definately referring to homosexuality. But I wanted to examine the statement in a much broader context.
I was privledged enough to attend a lecture last night by an amazing speaker and author. Mark Jordan gave a lecture last night at UCONN's Stamford campus. He has written several books on the subject of sexulaity, homosexuality, the American family, sex, and others.
He gave an excellent talk last night and I encourage any who are interested in the topic of homosexuality and the Bible to join me in reading The Invention of Sodomy, his latest book. Those who have trouble with Spong's credibility might find Jordan refreshing.
This blog thing is pretty cool. I am a new commer.
Clark
Wait a second, I'm Clark. Who is this imposter that thinks he can just comment at will by using my name in a falsified manner. I scoff at the "i'm a new comer." If you're going to impersonate me man, here's a hint: do some research pal. How dare you...you...cottenheaded ninimuggins!
Random note, I (the real Clark) saw a church sign that wisely stated: "Don't sit on your knees when wearing spurs." I'm pretty sure they ripped this from those NBC 'the more you know' commericals.
Post a Comment