Christian image is turning youths off

I am sure glad St. Paul never paid attention to any pollsters.  If he had no doubt Temple Prostitutes would have been a part of the hip, young church that talks to the young.

Long ago, when I was a member of this demographic group, Christianity didn’t have much glamour appeal either.  I didn’t want to be called a Christian, even after I became one, because of the baggage televangelists and nasty tracts (remember Chick tracts, anyone?)brought to the name.  One of the turning points in my life was when I realized if I belonged to Christ, I had to be called by His name and accept that those other, embarassing people were also members of the same family.  (Well, except for Jack Chick, maybe.)  So, let’s not fall all over ourselves in the rush to make young people like us.  Let’s just keep preaching the Truth in love and let the Holy Spirit convict them as they mature.

Gregs, thanks for the refreshing, bracing dose of reality. In the face of an extremely degenerate society, God had one thing to say to Jeremiah: “The ‘prophet’ who has a dream may relate his dreams, but let him who has my word speak my word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?...Is not my word like a fire”, declares the LORD, “and like a hammer which shatters a rock?” (Jeremiah 23:28,29). Paul encourages us to “speak the truth in love.” Greg, you’re quite right. This generation is being bombarded with [essentially] anti-Christian messages up and down, left and right at a rate never seen before, especially with gays being heavily overrepresented in the entertainment industry-guess whose agenda is going to be presented over the airwaves? Yet I think when we’re tempted to panic or despair, I’m reminded of Christs words, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Faith. God knows them that are His, and His word never returns to Him void. The “Hound of Heaven” got to you and I, and He’s no less able to get to those who the Father chooses to give to Christ in this generation.

Count me as one of those formerly of said age group, who used to have the same impression of the Church and is now a devoted member.

IMO, polls like this, especially of this age group, are pretty much useless. They always seem to obscure reality more than they inform because all polls are slanted in some fashion. They take a tiny piece of the big picture out of the whole. The result is necessarily skewed and, by no means, the final word on the subject.

This article also doesn’t explain how it is that the most gay-positive churches (TEC, UCC) are the ones that are declining in membership, while the more traditional denominations (Baptists, Catholics) appear to be holding their own.

In view of the efficient indoctrination of our young children in the public schools and on up into the college years,  this finding in not surprising.  The tendency of Christians to roll over as epithets such as bigots and homophobes are hurled at them does not help.  To quote Dinesh D’Souza, it would help if we learn to use the “horsekick of authentic Christianity.”

That age group is also the age group must likely to have their opinions shaped through the media.

I’m just saying is all…...

St Anonymous,

Exactly. I would add that orthodox Anglican parishes, of all flavors, are also doing well with young people. I often cite the example of my own parish, but that is because it bears repeating. We have no shortage of young single people, young couples and young families at our parish. I would say that 40-50% of those who attend High Mass on Sundays are under 50 and of that number a healthy portion are in their late 20’s to early 30’s.

I will say that the young generations today are more tolerant (or whatever you want to call it) toward gays than previous generations.  And that is an issue that needs to be faced.

I think this is all the more reason to resolve divisions over homosexual activity (with a split probably) and move on.  The current course of perpetually fighting the libs over homosexuality, as necessary as it has been, is not good for witness.  The fight must be brought to a resolution.  And since most of the lib leaders are apostates, I think the resolution must be either discipline (which won’t happen in most cases) or a split. 

(And to be clear, the primary reason for splitting is apostasy and unwillingness to discipline it.  Homosexuality is a side issue, albeit a distructive one.)

What these pollsters don’t understand nor do many other researchers on this type of subject is that the “youth” change their minds, attitudes, outlooks, thoughts, etc…as many times as a Merry-Go-Round turns. In today out tomorrow. Look at their fads….their attention spans….As long as the Gospel and Christianity stay the same it will always be the safe place to come back to when they finally grow up and get with life on the scope of adulthood.

The Church does not need to be concerned with being “cool.”  I wasted much of my youth trying to be “cool” and I discovered (much too late) that the “cool” kids held those who tried to be cool in utter contempt.  The Church needs to be who it is, not who it isn’t.  The Church needs to be the Body of Christ and reach out as that, not as some relevant, hip organization.

As I said to some of the kids in my Inquirers’ class:  “I am a nerd.  I will always be a nerd and I don’t care if I’m not cool.”  One of the kids replied:  “You know, that’s pretty cool.”

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

i wouldn’t say i’m fretting, but these things do worry me.

Warren’s statement is self-consciously glib, and inaccurate to boot. Christian organizations have always been out in front of all major charity and relief efforts, and they continue to be today.

this may be so, but this survey is about image and perceptions, right? i’d say that statement is pretty accurate concerning those things. most people have no idea that christians are at the forefront of most charity work done today.

one thing you didn’t say, greg, was that 300 out of the almost 800 were active churchgoers. i think that’s important to note.

The findings were based on surveys of a sample of 867 young people. From that total, researchers reported responses from 440 non-Christians and 305 active churchgoers.

The vast majority of non-Christians — 91 percent — said Christianity had an anti-gay image, followed by 87 percent who said it was judgmental and 85 percent who said it was hypocritical.

if even “active churchgoers” mostly think of christianity as judgmental and lacking compassion, what does that say? is it still their self-centeredness, and lack of maturity?

also, i think it’s unlikely that most of the non-churchgoers who hold these opinions are going to hit age 30 (more or less), and suddenly realize, “you know, i was really unfair to christians.” i think it’s more than a problem of maturity (self-centeredness is probably closer to the deeper reasons).

admittedly, public perception should not be our primary concern. but maybe we shouldn’t be so dismissive of these numbers. as christians, our first concern is being christlike, and that certainly doesn’t guarantee friends—in fact, quite the opposite. but as a church, i think we should recognize that we are judged publicly as a whole, and, as long as we are being faithful to christ and his word, we should do as much as we can to create a positive perception. as christians we are to be above reproach. people didn’t like christ, but they couldn’t justly accuse him of anything. as a church, we should strive for that as much as possible.

Let’s be comforted by the knowledge that the demographic which feeds on edginess and risk still sees Christianity as something that’s too edgy for them, a risk they’re not prepared to take. When we need to be concerned is when that’s no longer the case.

i think this is an interesting observation (although it sounds a little bit like a lot of hipsters i know today….“we’re so hipster, we don’t care about your little hole in the wall restaurant…we eat at mcdonalds!”). and i think you’re right in that christianity is the ultimate revolution (and if that’s the current definition of cool, then coolest also).

but i think you’re right. i read an article in time, i think, about a whole new crop of young people becoming nuns, priests, etc., and wanting to wear the accompanying robes (whereas older generations had dropped those in an attempt to fit in better and reach people).

for them it was the ultimate revolution in this generation: to be chaste, to give oneself completely to service, etc.

Right on Phil Synder! We as parents to many times will give our kids all the new fad clothing, shoes, electronics, etc…just so they don’t feel like they aren’t keeping up with peer-pressure and are in the cool in crowd.” That is the most harmeful thing a parent can do…as you are teaching your children that they don’t need to be comfortable with who they are and where they come from that makes them unique and one of a kind that God created… but rather we perpatrate that they have to “go along to get along and you will eventually find yourself when you get older” Instead we should be nurturing their individualism and helping them to accept themselves that makes them who they are…..If this was done we would probably have less teen suicides and more kids saying “No” to smoking, sex, drugs, drinking, and social experiments. Because they would be more comfortable within themselves and about themselves. Wouldn’t that be great???? I think so and what a generation they would make if only….

Micahtowery, being “relevant to today’s youth” is the mistake the revisionists made.  Sexual permissiveness and a desperate desire to be culturally “hip” has not won TEC vast hordes of young converts.

Sure, church-attending youths think the services are boring.  What do you expect?  It’s also true that when their hormones settle down and they buy homes and start families, many of them start drifting back.

Authentic Christianity is offensive to those who are perishing.  Our job is to preach and teach the truth of the gospel in love.  After all, it is the only Word that can save.  His Word will not return void, for it has power in and of itself that no amount of rational argument nor misunderstanding can break.  I am so blessed by the preaching at St Peter’s Anglican Church in Tallahassee where the gospel is unashamedly proclaimed.

http://www.saint-peters.net/

Listen to Fr Dudley’s sermon last Sunday (The Light of Christ):

http://www.saint-peters.net/sermons

This is what draws the young and old in.

In the first place, I don’t know how this poll was taken, but it seems to me that I’ve read elsewhere and observed myself as well that many of the youth of today are actually more conservative than their elders. Polls can be skewed. In any case, if they are being turned off be Christianity because they see it as too “judgmental,” that’s possibly because the churches have failed to form them in the faith. Our mainstream churches, including TEC and the RC’s, have failed miserably in handing down the core beliefs of Christianity. The churches have been trying to make everyone comfortable, while they should have been doing the opposite. Jesus didn’t say things that made people comfortable. He said hard things that weren’t easy to follow. Lines between right and wrong have been blurred. Sin is unfashionable. The effort to make religion attractive to young people has failed miserably.

In my mind the real question is how well we are transmitting the faith received from the apostles to the children and youth in our church families.  I commend the book Soul Searching by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton to your attention.  It demonstrates that mainline Protestant churches are doing a very poor job of communicating the faith to their youth.  I am sure that the orthodox congregations are doing better than the reappraisers (you can’t give what you don’t have).  However, none of us can be complacent in this area.  Over 80 percent of current Christians came to Christ as Lord and Savior before age 18.  It seems to me that this should be our focus rather than trying to make the church hip or follow the reappraiser approach of trying to be the church of what’s happening now.  The fields are white with harvest.  Pray that the Lord of harvest will send laborers into the field for his harvest.  Pray that He will show us how to labor in the fields closest to home—the children and youth in our church families.

Another “right on!” to Phil Snyder!

If you look at the moral or quasi-moral issues on which the Church has (supposedly) changed its teaching over time, what we almost always see is that practices that were previously viewed as good come to be viewed as bad.  For example, to go through some of the deconstructionists’ talking points, everybody used to enthusiastically support slavery; now we don’t.  We used to discriminate against women (violently, of course); now we don’t.  And so forth.

What we have here is the opposite: something which we viewed as bad is now to be glorified.  I submit to the readers here that such situations - which I believe are few - may gain measures of acceptance, but, despite the best efforts of their proponents, never become viewed as morally good.

One example might be divorce.  Lots of people do it; there’s no doubt about that.  But, even in the cultural rubble of post-1960s America, few will gleefully boast of a divorce or two as a great thing.  Even as some churches blow off past divorces, none will teach that a divorce is a good thing to do or celebrate one.  (ECUSA will probably be the first, of course.)

What gay activists will never get over to people, even if they succeed in having the government jail their opponents, is that the Church’s objections are based on their behavior - behavior they must choose to engage in, no matter how they’re “made,” just as I, as a heterosexual, choose to marry one woman or sleep with fifty.

We should never concede the absurdity of equating sexual practices to civil rights issues, which, in its own way, is as racist as anything the name “Akinola” drives the deconstructionists to say.  But, even if we do, for the reason I gave above, I don’t believe the gay activists will succeed in reaching a day in which the entire population rejoices over their behavior with much festivity.  Nor will the truly Catholic communities of Rome and Orthodoxy ever flag.

In my opinion.

It’s sad to say that some many young americans find that Christians are judgemental hypocrites, but the fact is that alot of that is true. I’m only 25 years old. I was saved 2 years ago. Before I truely started to seek Jesus on my own and not look at Christianity based on what everyone else was saying, I thought the same as the kids in this poll.  I don’t judge homosexuallity, I pray for it.  Too many times within and outside of the church I hear people, “christians”, bashing homosexuals. Just as I’ve seen “christians” bash the adulterer, the liar, the thief. As far as I know, Christ has taught me to love these, not loving what they do.  Unless there is a restoration within all aspects of the “church”, these statistics will grow far worse.  People can choose to go against anything I say and tell me “oh you’re just a babe, what do you know?!” I know that Christ message was to love one another and judge not lest ye be judged. We don’t have to support bad choices, but we do have to love the people who make those choices. My point is that I’m amongst that demographic and know that once we see how you treat a person and have claimed that you’re a christian, it is imprinted on our hearts that all christians are that way. The heart is the hardest thing to change in a person. Christ is coming soon, so even if “christians” don’t do what God truely intended them to do, I’m not worried, because there is one who can get it done.

One of my favorite quotes from Tozer, appropos of the above:

Let us plant ourselves on the hill of Zion and invite the world to
come over to us, but never under any circumstances will we go over
to them. The cross is the symbol of Christianity, and the cross
speaks of death and separation, never of compromise. No one ever
compromised with a cross. The cross separated between the dead and the living. The timid and the fearful will cry “Extreme!” and they
will be right. The cross is the essence of all that is extreme and
final. The message of Christ is a call across a gulf from death to
life, from sin to righteousness and from Satan to God. The Set of
the Sail, 35,36.

Of course, I’m not sure that Tozer improved on the following:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Here’s another teenager who gets it .

To take a slightly different track, I think there IS something here to be concerned about. In every criticism, there is often a grain of truth.

Josh McDowel points out that for today’s youth, if something is true, than it “works”. If it “doesn’t work”, then it’s not true.

How this plays out practically is that for our generation when a preacher runs off with the organist or steals money, we would say that he has failed to live into his faith. The current generation sees this failure and is convinced that Christianity is not real and is a cover up for weak people.

Although I remain concerned about the doctrinal fuzzyness of the “emerging church” movement, I think their emphasis on warm relationships in the church is essential.

The world and young people will begin to take us seriously again when Christians as a group learn to humble themselves before God and others. They will know we are Christians by our love for each other, NOT by our words of traditional values.

Barna has also documented the fact that “born again” Christians don’t do a much better job at staying faithful to their spouses, keeping their hands out of the corporate account, cheating on taxes and tests, etc. In that context, doesn’t it seem a bit like kicking a man when he’s down to verbally go after the gays, while winking at the lack of integrity among us?

So, I’m NOT proposing that the church stop presenting God’s best for marriage and family. I’m saying that we need to take a good hard look at ourselves and weep for our own failures. We need to be quick to publicly repent for our sins, so that the lost people can see that and begin to understand grace AND law.

There is an old saying that goes: The older you get, the smarter your parents get.

I think a lot of young people are really rebelling against their parents more than they are rebelling against the church. The prevailing attitude is that if my parents are fer it, then I’m agin it. That was certainly my attitude and I spent the years from the time I left home at 18 until I got married wandering lost in the wilderness. It is truly amazing what marriage and children do to your attitude. I really do think that young people yearn for some kind of unchanging structure that they can depend on, not a church that changes with every societal whim.

the snarkster

Yes, there are other things that we as Christians should be thinking about and working on in our lives, but the gay issue is at the forefront right now - put there by those who want to change the church and change society so that same-sex marriage will be viewed as perfectly normal. In the case of the Anglican Communion, the TEC has forced this issue. This is the issue we have to focus on and take a stand on right now. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be working on being honest, faithful, decent people in other areas.

Agreed, Nellie. That’s a bit like saying “since the roof just caved in we need to be focused on getting that tarp up there right now to save what we can.” We also need to address the fact that the leaks continue and the foundation is cracked and the windows are blown out, etc. etc, etc, due to the lack of maintenance for the last 40 years or so.

And I’m not primarily talking about TEC with the decaying house image. I’m talking about our difficulties in passing on the faith to the next generation throughout Christianity.

I just started reading unChristian over the weekend.  It is not based on one poll but over a dozen polls taken over three years.  Those polls include thousands of interviews.  You may dismiss this work, but it might be helpful to first read it before doing so.  To say that our anecdotes and intuitions should be given more weight than thousands of interviews doesn’t make sense to me, but as the cliche goes, everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

ToyinCNY,

I dont think that anyone is saying that we should dismiss the poll out of hand. Only that polls need to be seen in proper perspective. They are pieces of the whole picture. There are other pieces of the picture that counter the poll and bear mentioning to provide balance to it.

There are those out there who would interpret this poll in the most negative way and use it to further the work of discrediting our faith by associating it with negatives blown out of all proportion.

Our task in countering such efforts is not to deny the negatives, but only to put them in their proper place and scale.

We can always improve our witness. Any and all data that help us to do that should be utilized.

First of all, Stay, I am a Tony, not a Toy.  Second, reread what I wrote: this work is based on many polls not one poll.  What I am objecting to is proper weight.  Why would one individual’s anecdotes and intuitions be given more weight than a work based on over a dozen national polls?  The more I read unChristian, the more it makes sense (and that’s based on my experience - see, I can do inconsistency as well as the next guy!).

Some info on the Barna Group here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Barna

Official website here: http://www.barna.org/

I do think there is reason for concern here.  Billy Graham pointed out that over 65% of people who have had conversions to Christianity had those conversions before they were 22.  So I disagree with Greg’s assertion that, if we jsut wait for this generation to get married and have kids, then everything will be okay.

I also think it’s a problem that so many people see Christians as ‘gay-bashers.’  A focus on homosexuality above all other things will NOT draw people to Christ.  Worship Christ, life Him high, and he will draw all peoples to himself.

So, I think that we DO need to consider this information.  I am certainly NOT condoning holding rap-fests in cathedrals, but I do believe that we need to be more focused on praising God.

I’ve been a priest for fourteen years, and I really can’t recall anyone publicly bashing homosexuals. Ever. I have heard people express their opinion concerning homosexuality, both pro and con…both mostly in private. What I have heard publicly is other Christians, including priests, bashing conservatives, stereotyping them as undereducated, vindictive, mean-spirited, homophobic and so forth. Of course, it may be that I live in a shielded environment, and maybe people clean up their language for the priest…I don’t know if my experience is typical or not…and I certainly don’t doubt that these polls are, were representative, etc… But I wonder, in the midst of all this, how much of a role false perception plays. Are Christians really homophobic, as is perceived, or are these perceptions based on stereotypes nurtured by special interest groups and a media that seems ever more agenda driven?

I would have to agree that the Church is “homophobic”—since “homophobia” is defined nowadays as “not caving in to absolutely everything GLBTQI activists demand”.

Polls are polls, and many are notoriously written to elicit the results the researcher wishes to find. One interesting anecdotal event that I was a witness to in just the past two weeks concerns a joint Lutheran and Episcopalian “parish” which meets in Seattle. The Lutheran minister had heard, about the Episcopal parish to which my wife and I belong, that we were very Anglo-Catholic. She attended Sunday a week ago and has decided to come back on a somewhat regular basis. It seems that her parishioners (predominantly in their mid-20s as I understand it) are quite tired of the “contemporary” worship that everyone else is attempting to “sell.” They have been asking for liturgy that goes back as far as they can get, and for music to match. The minister is going to bring her parishioners along with her to see if we don’t just happen to have that for which they have been searching. This youthful parish holds its services other than when we hold ours, so there will be an opportunity to share our modes of worship with them when they attend. I am just struck at how receptive some of the younger generation are to the spiritual vacuity of so much of what the modern culture offers.

I report this not to disprove the research, but simply to point out that it is quite possible that the mega-church and church-growth folks who attempt to inculturate the church have gotten it exactly backwards. But then, what the heck do I know. I am 62 years old and sufficiently anglo-catholic that I have, in recent years, begun to explore the teachings and practices of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy because of my distress at what the progressives have been doing to the historic American arm of Anglicanism. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit will lead me where I need to be led when it is time to go. In this regard I continue to pray that I will be attentive to the Spirit’s leading.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Snarkster,

This is an excellent observation, and conforms to my experience as well.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

st. a; thanks for the links. Bob

*  There are no homosexuals…there are only people who choose a homosexual lifestyle.  We have done a sorry job making this distinction, and this plays right into those who are pushing the “gay agenda’s” hands.
* We love people but hate sin.  We also do a sorry job of making this distinction.
*  It is NEVER “cool” to be on the side of good.  Evil is always more “seductive”, but the gains are also always short-term.
* Kids are not stupid.  They all know in their hearts right from wrong, because God wrote it there.  They can pretend it’s all cool, but they know in their heart of hearts that it is bad stuff.
*  We need to do a MUCH better job coming across as compassionate - that we love the sinner but hate the sin.  But we must not waver from the truth, ever.  “They will know we are Christians by our love”.  Those pushing the “gay agenda” are kicking our butts in the “compassion” space…we need to fire back and not accept this defeat.

Great post, HE IS RISEN.  As you say, if there is not restoration in the Church, there will be spiritual decay and problems of all sorts.  The Puritans would call it “revival,” a term picked up also by other later religious movements.  A prime example of revival is the “Great Awakening” of the mid-eighteenth century, when whole towns were convicted of their sinfulness and converted to Christ, sometimes in a matter of days.  They couldn’t build churches quickly enough to hold everyone. 

Revival comes not from the efforts of humans, but through the supernatural workings of the Holy Spirit.  Revival can only be achieved through prayer for the Holy Spirit to come and work His healing.  We need to be praying constantly for the restoration and revival of the Church.

I fell in love with Jesus when I was 15.  I thank God for the perspicacious priest who came to my Catholic church and organized a retreat in which teenagers who loved Christ ran everything: gave the sermons, led the worship, fascilitated groups….

Until that retreat, I thought that ‘religion’ was a boring ritual for adults. On the retreat, I stared slack-jawed at these teenagers who loved God and were being used by Him to build His kingdom.

God blasted His way into my life when I was 15.  Honestly, I do not think that I would have been as receptive to Him when I was 25 or 35.  At an older age, I probably would have been too full of myself professionally.

I work with teenagers. I find the majority of them to be unabashedly idealistic.  They are absolutely willing to give themselves to a cause.  They just need to find a cause worth believing in.

If there is one place where the fields are ripe for harvest, I would guess it is in American high schools.

Please pray for our nation’s adolescents.

Shumanbean: I am a priest too, and I come across many homosexuals who have been deeply hurt by the Church. Their experiences are often of having been stigmatised and oppressed by Christians who should know better: their sad stories are being expressed widely in the gay press. Unless the churches address this seriously, they will be paying for it in future generations’ antipathy to Christianity.

To the person who said there is no comparison between the situation of gay people and racial minorities: there is certainly the similarity that churches are “in denial” about Christian homophobia in much the same way as they were for a long time about Christian racism (and, previously, Christian anti-Semitism).

Cule, there is a certainty that “homophobia” is a manufactured construction used to label people who find homosexual acts immoral.

Oswe: No, I don’t agree. If you read what 19th c Christians wrote about Jews, they used to say “it’s not who they are but the unspeakable things they do that I’m against.” We know where that led Europe. If the black community tell us white people we’re being racist, then I’m afraid we have to believe them: likewise, if the gay community is saying the same thing to the church, it’s going to have to believe them one day.

The fact is, that the Church has a bad history of demonising minorities (because churches were key definers of the majority culture in Europe). Now we have to speak to a diversity-conscious society. If we don’t, we will die out.

Cule, you’re stretching it. A lot of racists are too happy to say that it *is* who the people are that offends them. And people do cry “racisim” when racism isn’t there - just as they, even more often, don’t see it when it is. But ‘homophobe’ is a great big brush being used to paint a lot of people who don’t fit the meaning intended and in the long run it’s a word that will do a lot of harm, erecting fences that don’t need to be there.

The fact is, that the Church has a bad history of demonising minorities

Tell that to the church leaders who helped usher in civil rights.

<u><font color=“Green”>DEFINITELY (but only momentarily OFF-TOPIC)!!!</font></u>

Culeitreach,

Just out of idle curiosity, and because I strongly suspect that your screen name is (I would guess Irish) Gaelic, and presuming I may be so bold as to ask, to what does it translate in English?

Blessings, regards and Sláinte mhath,
Martial Artist

  If you read what 19th c Christians wrote about Jews, they used to say “it’s not who they are but the unspeakable things they do that I’m against.” 

Cultetreach—Do you have anything with which to back up this statement?

In Newark: yes, I’ve read a lot about Victorian religion. Read Christopher Hibbert’s recent biography of Disraeli.
Martial Artist: if your Gaelic’s so good, you’ll know how to translate it (it means “hero of the wet hillside”, if that’s of any relevance to you at all). Your screen name is less appropriate for a Christian, isn’t it?
Osce: you are in denial about homophobia, and that’s just the same as a white person being in denial about racism, and just as unpleasant. If gay people are telling you you are homophobic, then they are the ones you have to believe. It’s all about how other people perceive us as Christians: what the Barna survey shows is that we are prceived as homophobic. So we (or more accurately, you, in the US) have to respond properly and deal with the institution’s homophobia - denying it will only make the perception gap greater, actually.

Osce: re church leaders who helped usher in human rights. I was pretty shocked when I was in the Southern States of the US to see to what extent churches held out against human rights. I went to one Anglican church (could it have been in Savannah?) where black people weren’t accepted as members until well into the 1970s. The record is not good: it doesn’t do us any harm to humbly admit that (wouldn’t it in fact be rather Christian?), and try and do better this time on the gay issue.

Cul, you are in denial - does it occur to you that pinning labels on people is bad no matter what the label is? That it makes you see the label and not the person? That it makes it easy for you to condemn people out of hand without knowing anything about them? How is this different from other pejoratives? Do tell. I’m all ears. An inaccurate name has been made up and is being stuck on at random. You don’t know anything about me or the gay people in my life (and there are some and they are quite dear to me). You believe your label rather than facts. You believe a label that lets you escape the truth - it’s not about hate, it’s about morality.

Regarding the Christian church in the civil rights movement, I’m very surprised. Did you not know that most of the leaders of the civil rights movement were Christian, many of them pastors of churches, and that they fought for the rights of black people using a very Christian approach??? Or do you think those Christians don’t count because they weren’t/aren’t white? Sad if so, because they are among my heroes.

culeitreach,

And how do you know that this Church would not accept blacks as members? Or was this just a bigoted assumption that you made? And all of those rioters in Boston when busing was introduced were not equally racist I presume? The south has had its racial issues, but so have Boston, New York, Chicago, LA (that’s Los Angeles, not Lower Alabama for those who may have been momentarily confused) remember Watts?.

Most importantly, black is not a behavior, it is a skin color. Homosexual sex is a behavior, as is adultery. Both are sinful behaviors. No behavior, no sin. Your comparison is faulty.

We have made great strides in race relations in the South, and in the US in general. The issues around gays are fundamentally different. Marriage in almost all cultures, in almost all religions, through all of time have been centered around one man and one woman in a nuclear family as the standard. This is for a very important reason, the survival of the human race depended on it. We are now embarking on a new social experiment, the outcome of which we do not know.

Straight people are not perfect either, but there is not a straight version of the Gay Pride parade that flaunts all of the possible flavors of sexual desire in public. There is something very different about the nature of the display. Two people of the same sex may get together and do whatever, but whatever it is is not marriage.

BillS: I was shown round the church in question by a churchwarden, who told me about its history in the terms I have used. I don’t jump to condemn America for racism today at all, unlike many Europeans: I can see what enormous strides you’ve made (although an enormously high proportion of your unlooked-after underclass still seems to be non-white). I’m not trying to be anti-American, merely to point out that churches in general have a bad record as innovators: they tend to be always behind the times. That is all young Americans (correctly) see when it comes to it with the gay debate. Churches are old-fashioned, and produce more advocates for remaining old-fashioned than they do forward-looking people. That’s all it is.

Talking loudly about other people’s sins all the time is another example of just being plain out-of-date. Not a good way to attract anyone, let alone the young. Why not just think of what you can to gay people that is positive and welcoming and then leave it at that?

Culeitreach,

The tone of your response

if your Gaelic’s so good, you’ll know how to translate it (it means “hero of the wet hillside”, if that’s of any relevance to you at all). Your screen name is less appropriate for a Christian, isn’t it?

to what I had thought was a very politely and civilly phrased question strikes me as just the least little bit defensive.

First, I don’t believe I asserted anything about the quality of my Gaelic. Quite the contrary, I thought my question made it clear that I wasn’t even certain your screen name was Gaelic.

Second, if I offended you by asking I most humbly apologize and ask your forgiveness. I attempted to convey my willingness to receive a rebuff by the phrases “Just out of idle curiosity” and “presuming I may be so bold as to ask”.

Third, I have no idea why being a practitioner of the martial arts would be considered inappropriate for a Christian. Perhaps you can make me aware of some consideration which I have missed in my 62 years to date

Arguing that orthodox Christianity, which has a 2000 year pedigree, is like racism because you are smart enough to see it is the height of intellectual arrogance.

Arguing that some 19th c anti-semites apparently (without citation to back it up) also criticized behavior and so orthodox Christians are likewise wrong is a poorly thought out and simplistic ad hominem.

Martial Artist,
I think personally that Cule..was being prejudice against those whom are trained in the Martial Arts field! This is like the pot calling the kettle black….Shame!

ODC,

You may very well be correct, but it is not my preference to hypothesize about another’s motives when I am permitted the option of putting the question directly to that person. I find that approach far more conducive to civil discourse, particularly with someone who may very well not share much of one’s own worldview or beliefs. On top of which if the other person is feeling inimical it can sometimes be a most effective palliative and heap burning coals on his head.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist,
You are clearly the better Christian and walking a much higher ground! And I agree with your assesment. I just think he was being very contradictory to his own words.

Culteitreach- Virtually all of the 19th century authors that I’ve read go to great pains to point out that Jews are “racially” different—thus,their anti-semitism is very much about who Jews are, rather than what they do.  Even Anthony Trollope, who is often sympathetic towards his Jewish characters, makes note of inherited ethnic differences. 
As to where Europe went—Nazi anti-Semitism was fundamentally about race.  Christians and other Gentiles who went to the gas chambers because they had one Jewish grandparent died because of “who they were”, not what they did. 

Certainly, racism existed, and still exists in churches.  The Diocese of Newark, always at the forefront of GLBT causes, has made something of a specialty of closing down traditionally-minded black parishes.

If gay people are telling you you are homophobic, then they are the ones you have to believe.

So if I tell you you’re a nincompoop, you have to believe me.

st anonymous,

So if I tell you you’re a nincompoop, you have to believe me.

Sorry, but you have gotten it ever so slightly wrong. What would be a logically correct proposition would be “So if sober (or wise or intelligent) people tell you you’re a nincompoop, you have to believe them.”

[Note the correspondence between (a) plurals, and (b) a pair of diametric opposites in both logical constructs.]

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

ODC,

I would have to demur in your assessment that I am

clearly the better Christian ….

I would, however, agree to the formulation that my behavior in such instances may be the more Christian behavior. I, like all other Christians, must struggle to overcome temptation and remain faithful to the standards which our Lord has set, and modeled, for us. The fact that I occasionally succeed is testimony to Him and the Holy Spirit, not to me.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

MA,

So if all of us at SF tell Cule he is a nincompoop, then he has to believe us. We are all sober (except when some of you get into the single malt scotch), wise, intelligent people, who are sharing our stories, that in our personal experience, we have experienced Cule as a nincompoop.

Sounds logical to me. I just hope he is “listening”!

BillS,

Sorry, but that is not quite what I said. You have taken it a step beyond what I either stated or implied.

Your proposed conclusion would only be correct if Culeitreach assessed some significant number of us (please note the lack of specificity in how many might be required to be “significant”) to be either sober (meaning serious), wise or intelligent (the opposite meanings of nincompoop) and if he also applied the logical construct analogous to his original. My post only ensured that ODC’s logical construct was, in fact, a correct analog of Culeitreach’s construct.

The purpose of changing the terms of someone else’s logical propositions is almost invariably to catch them in a logical inconsistency. In order to accomplish that one must first ensure that the altered proposition is logically equivalent to the original. Failure to do that the latter is a virtual guarantee of failure to accomplish the former. However, ensuring that equivalence in no way “proves” either proposition. Of course, if one is dealing with a feeling type (in the Jungian sense) rather than a thinking type, the effort is likely to be futile in any event. In saying this, I have no sense of what mode of making decisions is the norm for Culeitreach. I can only state that when I make decisions (and when not behaving neurotically) my mode of deciding is as a thinking, rather than feeling, type.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist