Those flingin flangin emerging churches
Greg the explorer sent me a link to this article which seems concerned to put several nails in the coffin of the emerging church:
In the UK, a nudist beach mission has just finished in Wales. Graceway, a church in Auckland, New Zealand, encouraged its members to ‘pray with your hand around a cup of coffee’ as a way of experiencing the Spirit ‘as warmth in your spirituality’. In Canada, a church called Worship Free House doesn’t offer sermons – but does install art.
According to prominent evangelical church leaders, all are symptomatic of a dangerous protest against biblical orthodoxy. While The Da Vinci Code puts the gospel on trial, the emerging church questions established biblical teaching throughout church history by offering what they says is a more authentic expression of Christianity.
“Some believe [emerging churches] to be the greatest challenge to mainstream churches since the birth of the Charismatic movement,” says Andy Peck, assistant editor of the UK’s Christianity+Renewal magazine in a recent article. “As some churches struggle to grow they will welcome emerging church thinking with open arms. ”Labels are useless to describe this alternative Christian movement, which has exploded out of the UK and the US and is now expanding into Australia.
Proponents like to talk in terms of ‘connecting’, ‘sharing’, ‘re-imagining’. They say the movement is not one as such but rather a ‘conversation’ within Protestant Christianity. They say labels are unhelpful to their cause. It is perhaps easier to define what the emergent movement is not. “This is not biblical theology,” says Canon Jim Ramsay, Director of Sydney Diocese’s Evangelism Ministries. “It’s a shaking of Christian orthodoxy.”
Punch ‘em in the goolies!! Singled out for criticism (implied or otherwise) are people like Cheryl, Steve (or Graceway, anyway), Darren and of course big bad bustling Brian McLaren. Interestingly, the only person on that list who has never commented here is Brian McLaren. He should get his act together. Or alternatively, he should stay away so that he doesn’t contaminate us with his non-orthodox Christianity.
Of course they are particularly worried about a Wales naturist beach mission, described here in an article published on April Fools’ Day, complete with founders Adam and Eve and a Sir Pent who invites Eve to pass some fruit to Adam. Clearly the site which published the article, emergingchurch.info is evil, as it has the temerity to list signposts as a link!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Hi Lance, you said:
Bully for you if you’ve learned how to live with the homo’s in your life…but you can’t replicate that tension on a corporate basis.
Precisely. Whichever culture is dominant struggles (and that’s being generous) with divergent expressions. It isn’t religious, it isn’t political, it isn’t moral and it isn’t economic. It’s power. We’re crap with it.
This is a systemic problem. Whoever has the power uses it to crush those who don’t have it (even if they don’t mean to). If the roles were reversed straights around the world would be writing these posts and feeling the pain!
In some ways I think it is a co-dependant relationship - the dominant culture needs someone(s) to harrass and compare (unfavourably) to themselves in order to feel affirmed and convinced of their own position (therefore it is imperative to keep someone under the thumb), and the oppressed culture uses the situation to appear virtuous at every level (therefore affirming a self righteousness because they perceive they have been abjectly, unjustly wronged). They’re both wrong! And that’s exactly why we need a saviour: no matter our attempts at justice, peace and mercy we end up crushing one another.
And so at some levels I just keep telling my story. I don’t demand people believe me, endorse me or even respect me. I just keep plugging away. In some ways I feel like a third culture - I neither align myself with the outworkings of the dominant culture nor identify with a militant opposition. I am unconvinced that either has led to any genuine sense of dialogue and relationship.
And I keep stuffing up in lots of ways becuase I need a saviour too.
I am lost without Jesus. I don’t really get how God figures all this stuff out, but I sure hope that God is better at it than we are, cause I for one suck!
June 29th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
I have to bail out at this juncture and will check the thread tomorrow if the conversation continues. Cheers everyone!
June 29th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Fraser,
Thankyou for your offer to re-post my words, i am in the process of trying to decide whether they hould be revised somewhat to sound less defensive, whilst at the same time not losing the impact of the question. I’ll ask you to be patient while i try and excercise some discernment.
So much of what you said made sense about talking experience rather than generalising, & i agree that’s what people are most interested in.
I’m going to oblige right now by asking you to imagine something : -
Can you imagine from as early as 5 feeling completely cut off from your own gender, like there is an invisible wall between their experience (other boys) & your own? You don’t know why, just the void-ache & the loneliness, the separation.
Later on in life, say puberty, everyone of your mates can be completely honest if they choose about who their atteracted to, but you can’t & you have to pretend (which also involves stuffing around with girls feelings which you have no choice but to hurt unintentionally).
You have this overwhelming feeling that, even with those who love you most, if they knew what you really were & who you really were attracted to, they would be disgusted & you would be abandoned & alone (a very real fear).
And you are alays looking for ways to disconnect from yourself so that you don’t have to accept it either, like becoming a christian aged 18-21 & thinking if you can just warn others about homosexiality then you can somehow convince yourself (the very essence of homophobia).
Then you reach 25 & realise that you have had no youth, you spent so much time self-censoring (terrified you’d let something slip) that you never had a spontaneous, innocent reaction to anything or anyone.
Add to that, when you finally have enough courage to admit you’re gay, instead of a honeymoon period of celebration you sink into depression when you realise the one thing you always thought was going to be great (getting married & having kids) was never going to happen & that you’re inbuilt, internalised homophobia programmed from the schoolyard years before was probably going to ensure that you never dropped your guard enough to have a truly intimate relationship & that the possibility of growing old & dying alone was now a very real prospect.
Well, that was & is my life & i would love to know what kind of experience any straight youth could offer that is it’s equivalent.
And Fraser? Why would you lose sleep about something you were sure we were wrong about? In my experience conflict is the only thing that causes that.
Oh, & the guy i worked with on mission 10 years ago who complimented on my cred as a missionary?
Was you.
God’s Blessings.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Now i want your beliefs & experiences, Fraser - as you have pointed out we are not taling to Stump here but Fraser,
So i want you to please tell us whether YOU think there should be any problem with a self-declaring & accepting gay man being in christian ministry? Say if his morals matched yours in every way but he was attracted to men & refused to hide it.
Would you honour a respectful committed Gay Christian relationship amongst your friends?
Could we consider you an ally in any effort to integrate Gay Christians into any Christian project you were involved with?
(please notice there are no suppositions in my last 2 posts - only facts - i’m actually glad you showed me that & hope you are duly impressed).
June 30th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Hey guys,
Okay… I’ve come back to this forum one more time as a friend of mine who’s been following it suggested that I should, particularly in the light of Reve’s posting at #93.
It’s all wrapped up in this “I’m a lousy debater” thing, but this simple fact is that this whole forum has very much upset me. Obviously it upsets me that Reve and Lance were making unfounded accusations against me and Stump. It also upsets me that in the majority of posts there is a real sense of attack, possibly against the very people who might be supporting you - in part or in full.
Reve, thanks for declaring that I was the person that you went on a mission with. In my answer, though, I give the response which is the same sense of loss, frustration and incredulity that I’ve had all along here.
Why did you declare to this group that I wouldn’t like, agree or respect you now? What have you based that on? Why have you prejudged me thusly - thus putting a wedge between us that politicises things and makes it impossible for me to give you any real opinion now that isn’t taken in the context of being a reaction to your jibes? Why, instead of declaring to the world what my opinion would be, did you not simply ask it?
The fact that you’ve worked with me and still do this concerning me kind of upsets me all the more. Did I come across as judgemental back then (I take it that this was Manly, rather than Woolgoolga)? Did anything that I personally ever did or say lead you to the opinion you expressed of me a couple of days ago?
I really, really, really don’t want to get drawn into what I know is the central issue here - that of homosexuality and the church. I know that it’s the central issue, and I know that I’m ducking it. But the simple fact is: I have nothing to offer you. It’s not an issue I’ve ever really had to confront and I’ve joined this forum not in an attempt to grapple it but because there were some frankly obscene things being said with a challenge being put out to debate them. I accepted that challenge - I know that some people are angry that I did, and if I did it in any unloving way, then I’m sorry.
I will reiterate what I said in that post, though: guys, when you invent stuff to attack people with, putting words that they’ve never even considered uttering into their mouths to bring them down rather than actually dealing with your actual experiences of them, you’re not doing yourself any favours.
Reve, the answer to your accusation of the other day is: No. I have no issue with you at all. I don’t see you as redundant as you suppose. In fact, I find it incredible and pretty upsetting that you’d think that I would. If you guys go on just trying to stir up trouble and provoking the world, you’re only going to upset the people who, if you approached them openly, would be happy to get along side you.
I don’t envy anyone who is trying to straddle homosexuality and the church. Both camps that you associate will call you a traitor. My personal experience of the gay community from my Uni days was an amazement at how similar they were to the Christian community. You had two groups of people whom the world “kind of” accepted tacitly but, when it came down to it, didn’t really. People who others felt uncomfortable to be around, although there was some curiousity. Two groups of people who had trouble getting past the stereotypes that others placed on them. Two groups of people that felt misunderstood by the public at large, met together weekly to encourage one another and build each other up so that they could face the world for another week. I did a communications degree and majored in radio and the vast majority of people were either gay or Christian (mostly gay - there weren’t many Christians and - as far as I know - no gay ones) and - frankly - we were all there for the same reason. We came from subcultures that just wanted to get their message out, which is why we were doing Communications: because we all wanted to change the world.
Unlike a number of the people in my class, though, I was never confronted with physical violence for who I was. I had it easy.
Now, the above offers you nothing. But I’m sorry, it’s all I have to offer. Your questions of “can you imagine?” seem to imply that I can’t - and that I haven’t. Again, Reve, I encourage you to ask other people their opinion rather than projecting your own upon them.
And, I’m sorry mate, but to answer “Why would you lose sleep about something you were sure we were wrong about?” The answer is because the attack was so unjust, so without merit, that it just got to me. I’m like that. I really, really am a lousy debater. I hate conflict. I turn to jelly. I really, really do. The fact that I now learn that the comments were made by someone who actually knows me rather than someone to whom I’m just a faceless nobody… well, I turn to blubber.
I’m going to join Andrew now and bail on this forum. It’s just had me upset for the past (almost) 48 hours and I’ve been terribly ineffective working over two days both of which have had key deadlines - and yesterday’s was missed.
Lance, I’m sorry I didn’t answer your question yesterday. I was more stunned by the fact that you had appeared to completely ignore my post. It seems pretty clear, though, that when you are asking how “Black Stump” might react to something, then you should ask them. That is what I have been saying on this forum - time and time again. Stop projecting any prejudices you have onto people and ask them. Properly and without aggrevation or loaded questions. You’ll get a lot of answers that you don’t like, but then you’ll get the chance to argue that you seem to crave. But you never know: you also might get some answers that you *do* like, which you will never get if you pursue your current course.
If, by “Black Stump” you want the opinion of the directors, e-mail them. I do apologise at noticing the oversight that their e-mail address is not listed on the website - it’s directors@. If you’re asking for the opinion of Stumpers in general, ask on the forum.
God bless, and signing out,
FRASER
June 30th, 2006 at 10:23 am
See? See?
I tell my stry & now I’ve ben cast asunder!
It’s really true, i am the only gay in the online vullage.
Just call me Daffyd.
(**wrist goes to forehead as if shielding the eyes from an unbearable light, turns away as if ovwehelmed with shame, music reaches crescendo, red velvet curtains drop - not a dry eye in the house**)
June 30th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Whoops! posted in jest to soon! (yes it really was a joke) Fraser did post, just reading it now.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Fraser,
I’m sorry if you’ve been hurt & that you had to take the brunt of all of our frustrations (imagined or real). I’m afraid you walked into the Lions cage & pulled up a chair & you get brownie points from me for that alone. I am actually saddened that you’ve lost sleep & been stressed, & it’s almost completely unjust that you were the focal point for our feelings.
I pray that God dissipates the negative energy in you produced by these interactions as they are not yours to wear alone, nor should they be.
I hope you are not inconsolable over this, i did try to soften #93 a bit - perhaps i wasn’t very succesful.
We were only in the same space for about a week & it was prob more like 12 yrs ago & only interacted once after one of your performances where we had a very short convo that as you know, ended with a compliment. I don’t really know you at all & i very much doubt you’d remember my name from such a short, passing convo so long ago.
It can be a very daunting experience, this blog, to newcomers, i’ve lost sleep about stuff here before & shuddered at the animosity (sometimes my own). I’ve taken breaks of days before before clutching my nose & plunging in again.
One thing you said was right on the money
“You had two groups of people whom the world “kind of” accepted tacitly but, when it came down to it, didn’t really. People who others felt uncomfortable to be around, although there was some curiousity”
That is the concern we have, that even when someone gives lip-service to acceptance, sub-conscious drives will demonstrate their values will not match their words, or that ppl will not be honest about why they’re making the judgements or decisions. This is something that of course cannot be policed.
Think of the church that might accept a gay man as a member but pray behind his back for deliverence to heterosexuality - Clayton’s acceptance.
I suspect you are very sensitive indeed & probably couldn’t accept an apology this early in the piece. But you have one anyway.
(in case Fraser dosen’t check this again, his friend monitoring the blog might pass it on?)
Let’s call it a day, i guess.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Fraser (and Andrew), for what it its worth thanks for taking the opportunity to engage in the discussion. Many people wouldn’t have, and I think that the conversation here has been enriched by this dialogue. I am sorry that you have been so upset by what has been said.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am
I did learn something through all of this though, & that is that pasionate or bitter-talk often flies into generalities & the valuable truth gets lost. It is correct that we should only be speaking from “this i know to be true because i have had this experience”.
I speak of myself here, no-one else.
Poor old Fraser, i forget just how intense & piercing i can be sometimes (although i think he just thought i was attacking him because we were criticising the org he volunteers for?)
In any case, i don’t like making people feel that bad, especially when they’ve made some sort of an effort.
It’s difficult for me sometimes to get my point across with the intensity i want without ostracising. Sometimes i just think i should stay quiet.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Dan, tell the truth….
Am i a prick?
Give me whatever i deserve…
June 30th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
No you are not a prick Reve.
I am going to speak generally here so this is not just you but a comment on some of the people that visit this site generally.
For whatever reason we have a whole collection of people here who have suffered at the hands of the institutional church, religion or even just other people. That crushes me and makes me feel terrible - as someone who has my share of frustrations with the church from time to time but is a white, heterosexual, secularly successful person who has been involved in basically decent church communities so I can’t really claim to know what any of you feel.
What I see is a bunch of people reacting to their grief, anger, disillusionment and sense of betrayal in different ways. Sometimes those reactions are very confronting to others (sometimes that confrontation is intentional, sometimes not). Some people in that situation have an explicit goal to get under people’s skin, in their faces and piss them off. For others, pissing people off is just a bonus (heh).
From an insider’s point of view, this forum is robust and plain spoken and honest, albeit fuelled by strong emotion. From an outsider’s point of view, this “community” is chaotic at best and at worst can be pretty vicious against certain people or groups. For better or worse that is the way we choose to operate our site. However, if someone from the “outside” like Fraser expresses offence and upset over stuff that is said here, I am likely to express more concern for them, even if I don’t agree with them. It is not about “sides” or about my believing you are a prick or whatever. It is more from the fact that while our commenting policies at signposts can be our own little exercise in grace, we also depend on the grace of those that are targetted.
Do I think that you are a prick, Reve? No, I feel for you deeply and the anger, pain and grief that you obviously feel. And I will advocate for your right to metaphorically kick down doors and express your feelings in the virtual plane. But in order for that to work, I hope that we don’t alienate and reject those brave souls from the “other side” (like emblazoned and Kevin and Fraser et al) who actually are willing to enter into a conversation about things and absorb some of the feeling which is being expressed.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Well i don’t feel like one when i’m making my points, but i feel like one when i see someone is hurt by them.
My image of Fraser was that he was a confident showman & performer, impenetrable against hecklers.
It amazes me that he became dysfunctional through contact with us & that gives me some guilt.
There is alot of power & energy around this blog, it’s a real portal of pain & pleasure.
I wish i could just slap his shoulder & say “no worries mate, we’ll let it go, you defended yourself well”.
It just reminded me what i discovered recently when i asked myself what the epitome of lacking in social intelligence was - presumption & assumption.
I must learn to wait & ask questions with a mind clear of what i think i know but have no proof of.
Don’t know what that means about my intuition & discernment.
Maybe just that it should be obeyed only when emotion is absent.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
I think that we all have to be aware that online is not the best way to make assessments of people and the way that they operate. I know that I have been wrong in the past. I have also found it interesting to meet people and see the differences between their online personae and their real life ones. Of course, most people when they start reading this blog think that I am a guy, which is one blatant example, but there are plenty more which are more subtle.
I am an observer in many of these conversations and I sometimes perceive that people talk past each other, whilst simultaneously being offended by perceived slights. Anyway, Reve, you said your bit and apologised when you thought it was warranted. I think that is the thing which enables us to go on being in community - the willingness to admit you may have misjudged and would like to check your assumptions.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Reve,
For what it is worh I don’t think you are a prick. You are like so many of us forgiven and forgiving but still hurting. I haven’t caught up with Fraser in a long time but I knew him at High School and a bit after. He his a great guy who like many people in the performance business portray a thick skin but are really sensitive underneath. I am sure the discussions here have knocked him and made him think about things that are normally not in his sphere. After they have been digested they may even make an appearence in his comedy routines. Fraser if you are reading this please use with care and sensitivity.
Reve, when I read #93 my heart was caught in a wave of compassion. It may not offer much consolotation but I really feel Jesus would have wept for you as I am doing now. This is not pity but compassion a world of difference.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Thankyou Grace Required,
Somtimes you are Grace Personified,
Never change you’re soft heart.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:59 am
Hey,
Sorry to be back so quickly. My friend directed me back in the light of #98. Thanks Reve. As a quick postnote, I was brought into this discussion by a (rather abrupt) e-mail from Lance, bringing me to posts #42-#49. The tone at that point was pretty harsh and adversarial, and my post at #81 reflected that. Thanks for softening things out since then, and thanks to Taby for rightly pointing out that I shouldn’t have met anger with anger (although I still can’t believe I’ve been described as intimidating - I’m sure my post must read that way but I can promise I wasn’t feeling intimidating when it was written).
Yeah, there is - as with all performers (particularly comedians) a massive difference between the on stage and off stage persona (I kind of refered to this at the beginning of #81). I was in a theatresports team with Libby Gore once and she and “Elle McFeast” are absolutely poles apart (anyone under 25 may just let that comment go whizzing over you). I’m not actually particularly sensitive except to certain things, and I’m fine about people critiquing or complaining about Black Stump - it happens all the time on the Stump forums. I reacted because most of the stuff here were pretty specific jibes that were having a go at whoever approves the posts, and that… erm… made them about me. I felt very, very prejudged, which was a pity because I’m usually more than happy to share… but always clam up in an adversarial context. Anyway… enough said. Thanks for the softening since, and for sharing your heart!
My most important question is…
IS THERE ANYONE ON THIS THREAD WHO *DOESN’T* KNOW ME???
Okay, Taby obviously has no idea who I am because he finds me intimidating… :^) Reve’s revelation was a shock, and “Andrew the Pieman” took me by surprise (okay, I’ve figured out who he is since then) but now… Grace Required??? Man, Taby had a go at me for not using my real name, but this is dang confusing being in a conversation with anonymous people who know who I am! ARRRGGGHHHH!!!! Paranoia! They’re coming out of the walls!!!
Next time you all see me, make sure you unmask yourselves.
Grace Required, I generally don’t aim for comedy too much these days (I just aim for wit inside the serious stuff), but it always seeks me out. No plans to work anything here into a routine. I’ll leave the gay and lesbian gags to Steven Moffat: “It’d be great to be a lesbian. All of the advantages of being a man, but without the embarrassing genetalia.”
And finally… to the thing that kicked this whole lot off. Reve: lots of people have been using the Stump web forums over the past 24 hours with no complaints. I’d *LOVE* to know what went wrong the other morning because it doesn’t seem to be a systemic issue of any kind. If you do ever post your question (or just throw in any old post about any old thing)… um… can you… err… take notes for diagnostic purposes?
Seems a rather bland way to end.
No, really… signing out this time…
FRASER
The intimidating pew warmer
July 1st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I don’t know you Fraser if that makes you feel any better.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Some may remember from another thread that i posted an email to an Emerging Church located in Sydney’s Northern suburbs (i believe auspiced by the Baptists).
As this particular group is geared towards arty, bohemian people whom fall outside the Church Status Quo, i really though they might have a liberal attitude towards Christian Gay & Lesbian membership.
I sent the email over a week ago & still no reply.
Lance will not be surprised.
Here is the email that was sent :
——————————————————————————–
Hi Guys,
Just a query..
I am looking for a progressive, “Emerging”church that is happy to have Gay Christians as members.
By that i mean gay people who love God & are morally & ethically responsible, but who also accept their sexuality & do not believe it can be changed, or even that this is necessarily God’s Will for it to be changed.
Are Gay Christians northside welcome ro attend?
I guess there are a few of us excited about these Emergents springing up with flexible, variable & dynmamic characteristics & an inclusive approach & we know that things are changing in certain circles - we’re just wondering how much :o).
I for one don’t want to go to a “Gay Church” in the city, i want to have christian community close to home where straights & gays mix together.
PS. I like you’re website & the description of you’re experimental church style.
What are the thoughts?
———————————————————————————–
You know, i get a little bit sick of this. I live in arguably the Gayest city in the world & yet i still have to plead cap in hand to go along to God’s community.
I feel like saying to them “This is a GAY city” - if you can’t cope then YOU should move to Brisbane or Hobart.
Sometimes i think i should stop asking permission & just turn up & MAKE them deal with it. Not justr this church but any one that is a little too comfortable.
Like it generically states in Venn-Brown’s book - If you want to live in a world where Gay people are welcome in all churches, BE A GAY MAN THAT ATTENDS A MAINSTREAM CHURCH, do not wait for them to wake up. It has to start somewhere right?
I dunno, - thoughts from others?
In the meantime, like Lance warned ………….
EMERGENT = PROGRESIVE? ……………not if you’re gay.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
I think part of the problem is you were asking the church for a position.
And that is just so unemergent.
They just want somewhere where they can meet and light candles…look at photos of sunsets… decry bad coffee … affirm that missional beats attractional …and that paper beats rock.
But they’re still all carrying the baggage from the Baptist/Uniting/Church of Christ etc churches from which they emerged….and so are just as confused and unwilling to think seriously about the gay thing as any other churchgoer or pastor.
You won’t get a half-decent answer out of them..because they don’t have one.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
So, what do you think of the idea of quitting asking for permission & just turning up? Forcing them to make a distasteful scene in front of the congregants like the rainbow-sash catholics do?
Is that the only way we can finally make a change? by “faking it til you make it”? By bringing forward the future forcefully?
Should we be pasive revolutionaries by just saying “here i am every Sunday & every Sunday you’ll have to remove me & your congregants will start asking questions & having doubts about your position when they see my resilience?”
What if there were enough of us that did it?
These are just pipe dreams & i have no real emotional fortitude to do them, although i probably WOULD follow someone elses lead (it’s working with AVB & Hillsong City, i know that).
One thing i do know, the conservative hypocritical Baby Boomers control the minds of naiive Gen Y parishioners in regards this issue. Isn’t it about time Gay Generation X’ers exerted their share of influence?
July 10th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I’m just rambling, just frustrated.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
I think the rainbow sash thing….while courageous…and sets up some embarrassing moments (particularly when straight people wear the rainbow sash and are also refused communion) …it hasn’t really worked…..and I’m not big on disrupting the church service itself anyway.
One thing that might have more success in the contemporary churches..is if gay people just stand at the door (without blocking the door) for the entire service…and not go in until there is a definitive statement by the church that it is accepting of gay people.
It’s become clear that the contemporary churches put a lot of effort into welcoming newcomers…(even if the newcomers end up eventually leaving in tears out the back door) and would be easily embarrassed if some people stayed standing at the door..(although..the gay door-standers might have to endure a couple of hours of ‘…oh….come on mate…just come inside…..” from the ushers.
A fundy pastor though would probably turn it around by saying the gay people were a ‘threatening presence’ from Satan…blah blah blah….but I think most churchgoers’ reactions would be either embarrassment or amused indifference.
I think it would make a point though..that they have to actually deal with the issue of gay Christians….not just keep fobbing it off.
Although I’d suspect at Hill$ong..they’d have the security guards out pretty quickly….ushering the gay person off the property for being a ’significant disruption’….even if they hadn’t said a word..and just stood at the door.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Also…..when the contemporary church asks each week for the tithe…..dump uteloads of agricultural produce in the church foyer.
I never suggested that by the way. *wink*
July 10th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
This is a fascinating blog on the gay people in church subject.
http://sh-out.blogspot.com/
:My gay husband came out of “the closet” long enough to drag me in there with him. Because he is a pastor, this is a really big secret. My secret?
I don’t know if I believe in God anymore.”
July 10th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
“But they’re still all carrying the baggage from the Baptist/Uniting/Church of Christ etc churches from which they emerged….and so are just as confused and unwilling to think seriously about the gay thing as any other churchgoer or pastor.”
I’m curious - as a straight bloke who’s grown up in a very straight looking community (except when I went to the Con for a couple of years), is the unwillingness to think seriously about the gay thing mostly about their own paradigm? (sorry - PM word). ie, they are straight, most others are straight, therefore - the only person with the problem is the ‘non-straight’, therefore - they have the problem, therefore - ‘we don’t have to think about it?’
Over the past 8 months or so, I’ve really enjoyed being challenged about my own notions of church, sexuality, God and the combination of the 3 via this site. However, I’m wondering how gay men & women (and smokers for that matter - let’s not leave smokers out in the cold!) can find fully fledged christian community in their particular city, without having to form their own ‘club’ (gay church) because no-one else will have them?
I’m hearing/reading answers without seeing much in the way of solutions yet. It’s difficult to lobby for gay rights as a straight pastor-type (I’m sure the gays would see me as a try-hard and cringe) but I’m looking for ways forward, both for myself and gay men & women who exists invisibly within the community I live in. I’ll have a look at the Sh-out site as well.
Thanks Lance.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
“I’m hearing/reading answers without seeing much in the way of solutions yet.”
Ok…potential solutions….
1. Ignore Homer.
2. Have the individual church establish a ‘gay issues officer’ (I was going to suggest ‘gay liason officer’…but for the obvious double entendre). The person would have a heart for gay people and be a point of contact within the church for people who are gay….someone in the church who has a gay partner/family member/friend..etc.. or someone outside the church who wants to know what the church’s position/attitude is.
The ‘gay issues officer’ or gay issues pastor..or whatever name you want to come up with …doesn’t really matter……would have their name and title in each church newsletter/weekly bulletin along with the rest of the pastor contacts…
That alone shows the church is serious about grappling with the issues and welcoming the people..and is not running away from anything.
From time to time…maybe no more than once or twice a year…they would get the pulpit/stage for 5 minutes..to talk about who they are ..and what they do…just to keep de-mystifying the whole thing.
I think any church/house church….home group……no matter how small..is capable of achieving that.
If your pastor is uncomfortable with considering this idea..then it shows the church needs a ‘gay issues officer’.
For a larger church (approaching megachurch size)…..I also suggest hiring a ‘Danger is my business’ pastor.
This is the pastor who deals with all the outside-the-square stuff that comes up in church life..that the senior pastor..the youth pastor..the associate pastor ..the executive pastor…..the receptionist ..the worship leader..and all the other staff don’t want to deal with.
A ‘Unusual eventualities’ pastor….who thrives on the adrenalin rush of troubleshooting difficult and unusual situations or problems. A ’special forces operations’ pastor..if you like.
They..in work time…are allowed the opportunity to research the unusual eventuality that’s cropped up.
For example…in the US they have an Office Of Rare Diseases http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/ which co-ordinates information and treatment options for people with unusual diseases.
So…if your worship team member has a cold or a broken ankle….you’re cool …you’re on top of it…..but what if they have Lissencephaly syndrome type 1?
(”Symptoms of the disorder may include unusual facial appearance, difficulty swallowing, failure to thrive, and severe psychomotor retardation. Anomalies of the hands, fingers, or toes, muscle spasms, and seizures may also occur.”)
I think the gay thing falls into the category of ‘unusual eventualities’ that churches never deal with very well….because the existing mindset is…..’don’t bring up anything complicated….we’re busy finding two more people for the flower-arranging roster…and someone to play lead triangle on Sunday night (our lead trianglist had to pull out because they’ve got Lissencephaly syndrome type 1).’
3. Keep ignoring Homer..especially if he’s trying to ‘edify’ you.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
‘de-mystifying’ - Out of all of the clever words you use Lance, I think this one is the best, and perhaps most timely. And, I think it’s probably the best word to describe what’s been happening to me. It’s still happening (nowhere near arrived) but it’s in process.
I’d already figured 1&3, but thanks. It could be a while before 2 comes on board, but useful to start looking for someone who could fill a ‘DangerMouse’ role description to start with, including gay issues, as well as other ‘unusual eventualities’ and then become more specific later as the need arises.
Re Megachurch size - you’re advocating for a Gay TRG aren’t you… is this a uniform thing?
Oh - muscle spasms may help the lead triangulist play those tricky rolls when they need to make an announcement… so Lissencephaly syndrome type 1 could actually be helpful…
July 10th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
“Oh - muscle spasms may help the lead triangulist play those tricky rolls when they need to make an announcement… so Lissencephaly syndrome type 1 could actually be helpful…”
I forgot to mention too..that at Sunset Coast CLC…they had a ‘play the tinkly electric piano softly underneath the end of the speaker’s sermon leading into the altar call’ guy.
He didn’t subtly creep up in the shadows and start subliminally playing….. like they normally do though.
He just wandered straight out on the brightly-lit stage….plonked down the first chord…and Luke Gilbert (the speaker) got the not-so-subtle message that it was time to wind up.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Musos so often feel like the ‘kitchen bitches’ in services (’get up here and play the &@$$%&* piano - and play it nice!!).
I like this guy’s approach!!
Did he play a minor chord? That would be more dramatic!! (and indicate that if Luke didn’t stop talking soon, stormclouds were a’comin’!)