Soulforce Disruptive?

[dsdrane]

Hi, Folks!

Me and my big mouth are currently getting into a whole heap of hot water over at GCN for taking to task someone who asserted that Soulforce has disrupted religious services and (here's the good part), having done so, they/we are basically no better than the Minutemen United preachers who disrupt gay or gay-friendly services.

I maintained that any comparison with these two groups was grotesque (a word that got me noodle-whipped).

So...it occurs to me that I might want to make sure my facts are straight; to wit: has Soulforce ever disrupted a religious service...and, if so, how and was it something officially condoned by HQ?

Thanks!

[andrewlittle]

Hi, Folks!

Me and my big mouth are currently getting into a whole heap of hot water over at GCN for taking to task someone who asserted that Soulforce has disrupted religious services and (here's the good part), having done so, they/we are basically no better than the Minutemen United preachers who disrupt gay or gay-friendly services.

I maintained that any comparison with these two groups was grotesque (a word that got me noodle-whipped).

So...it occurs to me that I might want to make sure my facts are straight; to wit: has Soulforce ever disrupted a religious service...and, if so, how and was it something officially condoned by HQ?

Thanks!

Can't answer your question, but can you tell me the screen name of the person you were discussing this with? It may be important.

Edit: Actually, I'll be more specific - was it "t-cash money"?

[Jamie McDaniel]

has Soulforce ever disrupted a religious service...

I can imagine this being presented as a loaded question... like, GASP, who would ever do such a thing (Jesus of Nazareth comes to mind, as I note someone wrote in a thread over at GCN.)

I would describe Soulforce as a disruptive force in terms of the status quo, and that nonviolent civil disobedience is inherently disruptive, but I don't think the organization has ever disrupted a religious service. The Southern Baptists would likely argue that point however, due to Soulforce sending 12 activists inside the 2002 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in St. Louis. (The Southern Baptist's annual convention is part business meeting, part worship time.) The plan involved sending the 12 in as men/woman pairs. They sat several hours through the meeting until the time for the president's speech, at which point the first couple would stand up, proclaim "God loves gay people" or something similar, such as "My gay son is not a sick and sinful person." The couple attempted to make their way to the podium in hopes of asking the president to allow them to address the convention (the team thought big, eh?). After the first couple was arrested, the next couple would begin.

The action caused some dissent within Soulforce. If I recall correctly, the dissenting opinion was that, in 2002, a fair number of Southern Baptist messengers seemed to possess a genuine fear of homosexuals and thus standing up and proclaiming in a loud voice "God loves gay people" and disrupting SBC president James Merrit's speech might be counter productive.

The argument for doing the action was that Southern Baptists were the largest protestant denomination in the U.S. and, since the fundamentalist takeover in 1979, they were such a powerful anti-gay force in America and their teaching were killing LGBT people. Soulforce had asked the SBC president to do one very important thing and the protest would be called off -- publicly refute Justice Roy Moore's statement. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was a Southern Baptist in good standing. In a legal opinion earlier that year involving a lesbian child custody case, he wrote:

The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle.

The twelve were arrested and held for 10 hours. More info can be found here (http://www.soulforce.org/article/33).

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Soulforce also "disrupted" the 2004 General Conference of the United Methodist Church (the second largest Protestant denomination in the U.S.) for 20 minutes.

We insisted on walking on to the floor during a business session (which arguably also included moments of worship). There were several hundred of us. Business was stopped for between 20 and 30 minutes.

The truth is that we had negotiated this "disruption" with the Bishops who presided over the meeting. The Bishops essentially permitted the "disruption" to occur without any resistence or objection on their part. However, this meant that the Conference itself never got to vote on whether they wanted to permit the disruption of their business session (which, arguably, was their privilege)---this made our adversaries in the Conference very angry at both Soulforce and the bishops.

Soulforce volunteers and others have also engaged in the practice of standing silently during anti-gay sermons in services of worship. I know of cases in Madison, Wisconsin of Roman Catholics doing the same when the local Bishop insisted on the playing of a video message in the masses of the diocese that urged Catholics to vote for the Wisconsin Marriage ban. Even though this is a relatively non-violent protest, it can be disruptive, especially if it provokes either the preacher or the ushers to respond (which it has at times).

As a member of a liberal United Methodist congregation, I have been on the receiving end of disruptive anti-LGBT protestestors standing outside our house of worship. In some respects the trauma of that event is still with me. I'd like to think there are differences between our protests and those of our adversaries. I think, generally, we try to be less verbally and psycologically violent. We would not try to blast people's ears with megaphones nor would we yell at them that God will send them to the fires of hell. But even non-violent protest can be very provoking to our adversaries.

Jamie refers to Jesus (who disrupted the activities going on in the Temple--an act that may have been one of the things that provoked his crucifixion). Although we try very hard to be non-violent, it is (it seems to me) part of the method of non-violence to provoke violence from our adversaries. Look at how terribly violent was the reaction to the non-violent lunch counter sit-ins in Nashville during the Civil Rights movement.

We pledge ourselves to the "nonviolence of heart, tongue or fist." I think we take that very seriously and that it does make a difference in how our protests are conducted. But these are not easy questions you are debating on GCN. Perhaps the debate should be shifted towards the question of what is violence and who is committing the violence? In the case of the Southern Baptist Convention or the United Methodist General Conference, was Soulforce violent, or were the meetings that were being disrupted committing violence? I would argue that Soulforce was non-violently confronting the spiritual violence of those church meetings.

Steven Webster

[BrentRichards]

I think a central idea for me is that we place such a tremendous value in our culture on not being "disrupted" ... don't make me think! don't make me challenge my comfort zone! don't make me see or hear things I don't want to understand!

If this is what "disrupting" is, then let's disrupt, yes?

[sailaway58]

I was told today that Soulforce is a militant group because they want to make everyone agree with them. I said well aren't we all? I asked who they didn't want reach with the Gospel. I said we are all militant by their criteria.

[BrentRichards]

Bingo! "Disruptive" has more to do with message than method ... It's like what I've found in the way evangelicals rank theology: A "liberal" (read not really Christian) is someone who takes the Bible less literally than I do. A "legalist" is someone who takes the Bible more literally than I do. No room for difference.

To them I say:

Plank ........ Speck

Um, which one of these is yours?

[wmanion]

This is bringing back memories of my college days. At BBC in Springfield, Mo. we were taken to a charismatic church that spoke in tongues (which BBC thought was wrong) and people were being slain the in spirt (which BBC though was wrong). We were told we were not to sing their hymns, stand if the stood, nor to say anything...after the service we were taken back to the auditorium of the college and told why these people were actually satanic and not of God. This never settled well with me and I rebelled and left college. In fact, I left the church for several years and sowed my wild oats so to speak. I felt bad that we were judging these people and could not believe that we actually did this.

Bill

[antonyh]

This is bringing back memories of my college days. At BBC in Springfield, Mo. we were taken to a charismatic church that spoke in tongues (which BBC thought was wrong) and people were being slain the in spirt (which BBC though was wrong). We were told we were not to sing their hymns, stand if the stood, nor to say anything...after the service we were taken back to the auditorium of the college and told why these people were actually satanic and not of God. This never settled well with me and I rebelled and left college. In fact, I left the church for several years and sowed my wild oats so to speak. I felt bad that we were judging these people and could not believe that we actually did this.

Bill

You probably visited Daniel and my church since we both were AG in Springfield MO. And here we all are...chatting at Soulforce :lol::pray:

[BrianB]

My post addressed something you weren't really talking about.

[dsdrane]

Ok, if I'm hearing everyone correctly, Soulforce has technically disrupted services; so people who maintain this as a critique are not incorrect.

Yes?

Is there a current policy or a set of guidelines regarding this, moving forward?

[Steven E. Webster]

Ok, if I'm hearing everyone correctly, Soulforce has technically disrupted services; so people who maintain this as a critique are not incorrect.

Yes?

Is there a current policy or a set of guidelines regarding this, moving forward?

If we are talking about doing something like we did at the United Methodist General Conference in 2004 in Pittsburgh, I'm all for it. I would oppose a policy that would exclude an action like that one.

Let me be clear. I do not believe our action in Pittsburgh in 2004 was in any way violent. What I believe we are saying here is that we oppose violence (of heart or tongue or fist) but we do not oppose "disruption." The spiritual violence of the churches needs to be disrupted.

Steven Webster

[kara speltz]

Ok, if I'm hearing everyone correctly, Soulforce has technically disrupted services; so people who maintain this as a critique are not incorrect.

Yes?

Is there a current policy or a set of guidelines regarding this, moving forward?

I'm sorry, but I think to compare conventions with services is idiotic. We have disrupted conventions, I do not believe we've disrupted services. I also would not call standing in silent witness during an anti-gay service disruptive.

As someone who took part in both the Baptist and Methodist actions, I really feel strongly that we did not disrupt services.

As for policies, there is no policy concerning this issue because it is not something we have done. I might add that I could possibly imagine a situation where a disruption of a service might, and I underscore might be something to consider. Just as Walter Wink says in his book, we have to be willing to consider violence, before we can really make a full commitment to nonviolence. Gandhi says the same, that it is better to respond to injustice with violence than to acquiess to it.



Kara

[dsdrane]

...I am in no way critiquing our organization.

I'm all for disruptions where and when warranted.

What I'm trying to do is arm myself -- and others -- to address misinformation that I've encountered out there regarding Soulforce, its policies and its practices.

Everybody clear?

[Steven E. Webster]

...I am in no way critiquing our organization.

I'm all for disruptions where and when warranted.

What I'm trying to do is arm myself -- and others -- to address misinformation that I've encountered out there regarding Soulforce, its policies and its practices.

Everybody clear?

Non-violence of "heart and tongue and fist" seems to me to be at the core of Soulforce policies/practices. I think that can and should be distinguished from the spiritual violence of our adversaries.

I don't have much direct information about the church-disruptions that are occurring in Ohio. (Do we have enough links to articles about that?) If there is violence, spiritual or otherwise, involved in our adversaries' disruptions, then that is an opportunity for these LGBT-supportive congregations to engage in nonviolent responses. If these disruptions continue, they will need to find a way to respond positively and not in anyway be intimidated or defeated by them.

I have to admit, when my own congregation was subjected to this kind of violence, I'm not sure we came through it so well. We did eventually reach out to a Quaker trainer in nonviolence who did help us a great deal. Unfortunately, we had a pastor at the time who was not well prepared psycologically. I believe the abuse we experienced resurrected memories of childhood abuse for our pastor. With our pastoral leader not able to bear up well under the pressure, we all suffered. I still feel some of the trauma from that time.

That will be the test for these congregations in Ohio--how do they respond to the violence they are experiencing? It isn't always easy. We need to keep them in our prayers.

[u-dog]

What those Yahoos are doing is violence, pure and simple. Ask them to leave the premises and then if they don't, call the cops and have them arrested. period, paragraph. If they had called the pastor and asked for a public debate or a townhall meeting or a private conversation.. that would have been different. This isn't about witnessing... this is about harrassing and attacking.

[kara speltz]

...I am in no way critiquing our organization.

I'm all for disruptions where and when warranted.

What I'm trying to do is arm myself -- and others -- to address misinformation that I've encountered out there regarding Soulforce, its policies and its practices.

Everybody clear?

Sorry if I came on too strong, I was feeling a bit defensive. Right after the Baptist action several people criticized us royally about disrupting and I suspect that pushed a few buttons:mad: Kara

[keltic63]

I don't have much direct information about the church-disruptions that are occurring in Ohio. (Do we have enough links to articles about that?)
.


Here's a link to a blog about the church disruptions: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/08/18/ohio-church-services-crashed-by-homobigots/

I've been away most of the day, so sorry if that's a repeat of info someone else posted. I'm just now getting to review today's posts.

a news story (http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/faith_values/stories/2007/08/17/minutemn.ART_ART_08-17-07_B4_5F7K25N.html)

[antonyh]

Well all I can say is I'm glad Simpleman is not here because I can only imagine what he would say LOL :D

[sailaway58]

I think Soulforce is just a name put on the disruption. What we do is disrupt and challenge the very security of others. If they are wrong about the Gay issue what else might they be wrong about?
I don't remember signing a membership form when I came to this site, This is a place I have conversation. Yet when I use my right to free thought and derive a conclusion that is not traditional I am labeled a deceived tool of Satan taking refuge or receiving misinformation from a militant group.
Our daughter has been listening to our conversations (12 yrs old) and said last night, "I would like to tell them that I don't appreciate what they said about you, does this mean they think we are all deceived?"
If my existence is cause for disruption, some of you because of your existence create total chaos. Ain't it great?
I just have an opinion, most of you are the real thing.

[kara speltz]

My existence if cause for disruption, some of you because of your existence create total chaos. Ain't it great?

Could someone translate this? I don't understand it at all:confused:

[Steven E. Webster]

Kara,
It looked like a typo to me. It should read "My existence is cause for disruption. . . ." not "My existence if cause for disruption"

How about it, Sailaway--did I guess right?

The existence of queer folks disrupts the straight world view of some folks.

Steven Webster

[sailaway58]

I got to get some new glasses

[sailaway58]

If my existence is cause for disruption, some of you because of your existence create total chaos. Ain't it great?
I just have an opinion, most of you are the real thing.

Does that help? It was clear as mud when I wrote it.

[BrentRichards]

If my existence is cause for disruption, some of you because of your existence create total chaos. Ain't it great?
I just have an opinion, most of you are the real thing.

Does that help? It was clear as mud when I wrote it.

I must have just corrected the typo as I read ... made sense to me, and you're absolutely right ... which is exactly what the "opposition" won't acknowledge ... they're not just threatened by my activism, or my sex life, or ... they're threatened by my very existence. Sad.