UMC bulletin boards

[suzer1013]

Hi everyone. I've lurked here for a while, but hesitated to post. Spiritually, I'm sort of lost right now, which I guess is the reason for my hesitation.

Until recently, I was a member of a local liberal UMC congregation in Atlanta. Great church, great people, but for a variety of reasons, I became disillusioned and left (partly because of the larger UMC's policies on homosexuality). Occasionally, I would read the message boards on www.umc.org. They would often infuriate me with people posting things that were anti-homosexual -- they were often extremely offensive. I only recently posted a few things, trying to remain positive and upbeat. (My posts are posted under the name Zoe, if you want to see what I wrote -- there was a whole argument about cross-dressing that annoyed me to no end with the closed mindedness of some individuals)

There is a gentleman that has recently come on those boards who is purposefully trying to enflame passions with his anti-homosexual rhetoric. I reported him once, so now he tries to still post anti-homosexual stuff under the guise of being "legitimate" articles against homosexuality. Trouble is, it is clear that these articles are biased, full of misleading misinformation, and are based on slanted, bogus research. It is very frustrating that the UMC is letting this guy post at all, but I also understand free speech concerns.

I'm not very good at dealing with folks like this, and my tendency is to just stop reading the boards, which I probably will. On the other hand, why should this guy be able to get away with this, and possibly encourage the gullible to believe this misinformation? Should I respond to him? Should I ignore his tripe? I feel if I don't speak out, I'm doing a disservice to my fellow GLBT citizens.

It makes me so angry that this guy is allowed to get away with presenting anti-gay material in the guise of a scientific article. After all, the UMC (despite it's anti-gay policies) still affirms homosexuals as being of "sacred worth." Maybe I should just accept the fact that half of the people posting on those boards are right wing fanatics and they are never going to be open to rational conversation. It just makes me mad (and sad), that's all.

Finally, I've never been able to fully and completely embrace Soulforce's non-violent teachings, which is also why I've avoided posting. I have a really hard time removing anger from my heart -- these people do make me very angry with their words of hate and use of religion to justify their prejudices. I don't know if I can approach someone like this guy in a peaceful and loving way. The "love your enemy" stuff is very hard for me. Unless I can cleanse my heart of anger and hatred toward the folks who would oppress me, I cannot follow Soulforce's methods. I wish I could. Maybe, over time, I'll be able to be more at peace with that.

Thanks for reading....

Susan

[NathanATX]

off to umc.org I go... :)

[NathanATX]

ok...

That was pretty disturbing.

I would REALLY appreciate some help from you guys in responding to some of these posts. Even if you're not really strong in the biblical details, simply expressing your opinion could make a difference.

www.umc.org and click on "online discussion" and register for the forums.

blessings,
Nate

[suzer1013]

Nate -- thanks for checking it out! I find the inflammatory anti-gay rhetoric on those boards is equivalent to (if not outright) hate speech, and I wonder who in the heck is monitoring the boards. Respectful discussion is one thing, hate speech is another.

I'll probably post some kind of response to the "Dangers of Homosexuality" thread, but I need to calm down a bit before I do. Another part of me just wants to wash my hands of the whole thing, and let the UMC do whatever it is going to do. But I guess I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to take some kind of action, right? :)

Thx.

Susan

[NathanATX]

Yes... the intensity and vulgarity from some of those posts is very disheartening. Keep in mind, most of them are coming from 2 or 3 bigots and everyone else is kinda-sorta not sure and are just going along with them because they don't have clear alternative of a truly Christ-like belief.

So, don't take it personally. Don't "attack" them."

But absolutely don't let them get away with what they're saying.

[keltic63]

Registered! ;)

[keltic63]

WOW :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

where is Jesus in that community forum? I don't think I'll be visiting any UMC any time real soon if that is representative of their membership and Pastors! I was really surprised at the statements by some of the pastors there.

[NathanATX]

Thanks for registering!

Great post!

[suzer1013]

How does this sound as a reply to the "Dangers" post? Does it seem attacking at all? I certainly don't want it to come across that way. Just thought I'd get y'alls 2 cents before I post my reply. And thanks for your posts (here and there). A couple more tolerant and loving voices are needed on those message boards!

Many blessings,

Susan


I have seen articles like this before. They attempt to appear scientific and legitimate by offering a lengthy bibliography of studies at the end of the article, from which the information in the article was supposedly taken. What these type of anti-gay rhetoric articles attempt to do is gather what was otherwise legitimate snippets of information from various studies and lump it all into one slanted article to support prejudice against homosexuals. The attempt to appear scientific and unbiased fails miserably when read with a critical eye.

I note that there is no author's name listed on the article, nor does it appear to have been published in any reputable, scholarly, legitimate journal. If I am incorrect, please feel free to give me the name of the original medical or other scholarly journal where this article was published, the name of the publisher and author.

While the studies cited may be legitimate, the information in them is used to mischaracterize the sexual behavior and sexual health of homosexuals. I cannot note too strongly that STDs and immoral sexual behavior are rampant in the community at large (both heterosexual and homosexual), and the vast majority of the studies cited were not intended to be misused as a diatribe against homosexuality.

My understanding is that the UMC states that homosexuals are of "sacred worth" and that the church urges friends and family of homosexuals not to discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation.

In my opinion, this disingenuous article amounts to hate speech against homosexuals. Respectful discussion is welcomed on these boards, but this is false and misleading information. I hope the readers of these boards will not be misled by such anti-gay rhetoric.

Zoe

[NathanATX]

Zoe... I had to google and google to find out where that "article" came from. But I succeded.

The author is Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr, copyrighted in 2002 I believe. On the concerned women for america website, they had "1997" by the article title. So I'm not sure exactly... but I think it was Diggs.

Here was my response:

************************************************

Whether the intent of the poster was malicious or not, the effect was.

Here is some background from the author of that "research."

*************
http://www.counterbias.com/559.html

I recently read “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr. I found the article on the Catholic Educator’s Research Center’s website in late January 2006. The article’s 2002 copyright is held by the Corporate Resource Council whose goal, according to their website, is to provide analyses “of the value to corporations of family- and faith-friendly employee policies. The goal of all CRC resources and programs is to equip corporate executives to establish family- and faith-friendly employee policies based on sound legal, financial and other business principles.”

Dr. Diggs has been a member of the National Advisory Council of the Family Research Council, the anti-gay political lobbying group that organized and sponsored the three “Justice Sunday” events (JS, JS II, JS III). Some of his beliefs have been posted on the FRC website. He has testified against Massachusetts’ H. 1643 and S. 1319, “An Act to Provide Timely Access to Emergency Contraception,” and has argued against “tolerance” education. He is a member of the Physician Resource Council of Massachusetts, “the medical advisory arm” of the Massachusetts Family Institute that is “dedicated to strengthening the family and affirming the Judeo-Christian values upon which it is based.” Dr. Diggs is also listed with the Ambassador Speakers Bureau and Literacy Agency whose “about us” begins with “Ambassador is the oldest and most established Christian-based talent agency in the United States.”

Dr. Diggs’ basic argument in “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” was that “sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose” participants “to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.” [italics added].

“STDs” were the first risk in the list. Yes, homosexuals do suffer from STDs, just as do heterosexuals. Unprotected sex can be dangerous for everyone. No doubt about it. However, in the “Health Care” section of the article, several diseases “frequent among male homosexual practitioners” were listed: “anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.” [italics and links added]

There is no doubt these can be found in the gay community, but what bothered me was the statement “sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.” I am not a medical doctor, but after a few days researching on-line medical sources (hence the added links), speaking with health care providers (general practitioners and specialists) as well as “sex therapists,” it seems these diseases are not that “rare” or “virtually unknown” in “the exclusively heterosexual population.” Heterosexuals also practice oral and anal sex, as well as other more, shall we say “kinky” varieties that could also result in transmission of these diseases or precipitate the conditions that lead to them.

That Dr. Diggs chose to begin his non-alphabetical list not with the most common diseases but with rare “anal cancer” – strictly speaking not an “STD” – seemed suspicious, so I consulted medical, scientific and “general info” authorities: the National Cancer Institute, Cancer Information and Support International and Mamashealth, a nonpartisan, unaffiliated website “aimed at providing clear, simple, easy to understand information about health” which had this to say:

Anal cancer is more common in American women than men. It is often seen above age 60. In younger adults, it is more common in single homosexual men than in heterosexual men. … Anal cancer is very uncommon. [italics added]

The other two sources agreed. “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” was copyrighted in 2002, but according to the National Cancer Institute’s 2003 estimates, new cases of anal, anal canal and anorectum cancers nationwide were reported as “Both sexes: 4,000; Male: 1,700; Female: 2,300.” Estimated deaths nationwide were reported as “Both sexes: 500; Male: 200; Female: 300.”

[NathanATX]

More than that though.

The intent of such hate-filled bigotry is to cause fear and disgust... in order to consolidate power and mobilize "the troops."

If your mission was to convince good Christian people to oppose homosexuals with everything in their power... how would you go about doing it?

- Convince them God has hate & disgust for gay people. Twist the scripture to back it up. If God hates them, it's ok for us to hate them.

- Highlight everything negative about gay people while preventing people from realizing that the same things happen--and worse-- with heterosexuals. Stds, bizzarre/kinky sex, promiscuity, drug use.

- Repress the knowledge of gay & lesbian people who have contributed positively to the world.

- Repress the knowledge of gay & lesbian couples who have been faithful to each other in committed, monogamous relationships for 10, 20, 30, 40 & 50 years or more. (I personally know many couples who have been together for 30 & 40 years.)

- Create gay & lesbian people as posing a threat to the good christian's individual family.

- Demonize gay people as anti-God & anti-Christian.

I could go on and on.

If you think the extremist right doesn't have an agenda against gay & lesbian people, you are seriously mistaken. And if you think they are not using good, loving, Christian people to accomplish it, you are deluded.

[Zerbie]

Hi Susan, welcome, glad you decided to post after all!

I am like you - finding it WAAY too difficult to respond to certain "arguments" and statements. My anger level goes off the charts sometimes (I have a really crappy past, too, so things easily trigger me.) The only thing to do is cope - do what you're doing. When you're too angry to address something objectively, just don't respond. Since these are online conversations, we can just walk away from the computer, punch a pillow, then go about our day and forget about it. If after that we find we have something to say that might actually be helpful, well then! We go back and post something when we're not in the throes of some hot emotion.

So I think what you're doing is terrific! I didn't find your post to be "attacking" in its tone. I'm sure those message boards need a reasoned voice. Glad that Nathan and Keltic are checking it out too - I won't be joining, as a non-christian, I don't see what I would have to bring to the discussion except an "outsiders" argument. And I'm very opinionated, so it wouldn't help, methinks.

[suzer1013]

Thanks for the welcome, Zerbie! And thanks also to Nate and Keltic for their support. I've just found it really disturbing that the UMC would continue to allow such stuff on their website. I think some of the more liberal voices there have just given up responding. :( But I think it's important that folks don't stray across those message boards and think that all UMC churches are going to be unwelcoming. Those boards certainly haven't always felt like a "safe" place for GLBT folks. Still, I'm drawn to reading them occasionally - - perhaps against my better judgment!

I struggle to remain loving in my message, even with those who are not loving with me. It is difficult, and sometimes it is easy to lose hope. Coming to Soulforce helps strengthen me, and I am so grateful that there are folks out there who are trying to make a positive difference.

Susan :)

[NathanATX]

----------------
On 3/21/2006 4:39:54 PM bill_chatfield@yahoo.com wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conrad,

Repeating the words of God is not bigotry. The words of the Bible come from God. You should be careful because if you call Leviticus 20:13 bigotry, you are effectively calling God a bigot, because those are his words.

I think that most normal people would agree that people who are homosexual are people of 'sacred worth.' They are no less valuable and no less deserving of love, respect, and dignity than any other person. God loves homosexual people just as he loves heterosexual people. These things are true and I will argue with anyone who disagress.

But, we should not call the words of the Bible bigotry, because those are God's words. We need to try to understand why God said what he did, and understand that Jesus' command to love others is higher than the various legal restrictions of the Old Testament.----------------



I disagree.

Bigotry comes in to play when you pick and choose what to believe and apply to your life and promote as your beliefs.

You believe in applying Leviticus 20:13, but you choose to overlook promoting Leviticus 20:18 "If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."

Leviticus 20:13 most likely doesn't affect you.
Leviticus 20:18 potentially affects many heterosexual people in "good Christian marriages."

And what about divorce?

In Matthew 5:23, Jesus himself said, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Leviticus declares the death penalty for adultery.

Leviticus 20:10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Choosing one and not the other is clear bigotry.

[NathanATX]

I will concur that if you read the Bible literally, without any attempt at understanding the historical, cultural & language contexts, you can justify a condemnation of homosexual behavior.

I suggest to you that Christians simply don't do that. Even the most primitive, fundamentalist Christians don't take all of the Bible literally.

I firmly believe that if you apply the same methods to understanding the texts against homosexuality that you apply towards the the texts that advocate the misuse & abuse of women, slavery, racism, religious intolerance, etc., you will be left with a clear and powerful sense that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

I believe the Bible is more a message of God's love to the world, especially as displayed through the life & sacrifice of Christ, than a message about sexuality.

[dewdrop_world]

Is anyone reporting gad113's posts on there? Seems to me they're in pretty blatant violation of the code of conduct.

I'll probably join in the fray... looking for a good fight :p

hjh

[dewdrop_world]

Followup to my previous -- here's my first post at umc.org:

http://archives.umc.org/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=539&sessionID=8D412D909CD64AA8AB578A8AF37A785C

hjh

[Joe Brummer]

I tried to log in after registering to the site, but was never given a user name, and my email didn't work....

anyway,
Nate......

You need this.....The medical dangers of homosexuality, by Dr. John Diggs... refuted...

http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?page_id=62

[suzer1013]

Thanks y'all for adding your voices and support on the UMC boards. As you probably know, the UMC is divided on many issues, and there are extreme right wing fanatics who are trying to take over the church. I have a book called "United Methodism at Risk" which details these groups and their efforts.

I am no longer a member of the United Methodist Church. I moved my membership back to the Episcopal Church, but I'm not attending anywhere at the moment. Still, I have an interest in the UMC as it struggles with the homosexuality issue (and others). I know the Episcopal Church struggles also, but it seems like they are about 20 years ahead of the UMC. What is scary is that there is a concerted effort by these groups to "take over" liberal mainstream churches and mold them to their fundamentalist theology. I find fundamentalism in most forms very frightening, and not, to my understanding, what Jesus would have wanted his teachings to be about.

As for this "gad" guy, I did report him once, and he was warned by the moderators to stop the extreme anti-gay rhetoric (he was supporting execution of homosexuals). I may wait a while to see if he continues his hate speech (which he probably will). If he does, I'll report him again.

What bothers me, is anyone coming across these boards trying to find out more about the UMC is not going to get an accurate depiction of the church. There's alot of good things about the UMC that is not represented by these folks. It's unfortunate that a few people are using the boards as a soapbox for their right wing rhetoric.

Susan

[suzer1013]

Oh my gosh! Those boards are livelier than I've seen them in ages! How refreshing. I am not well versed enough in scripture to make some of the arguments that some of you have made, so I'm really thankful that you have added to the discussions there. Maybe some hearts will be changed. If not, at least we are presenting an alternative viewpoint to what often appears there. Thanks, y'all.

Susan

[NathanATX]

I am exhausted.

I'm going to turn over the reigns for a few days. So if you feel led & able, please participate.

www.umc.org and click on "Online Discussion"

[NathanATX]

----------------
On 3/22/2006 4:30:36 PM bill_chatfield@yahoo.com wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warning someone of the danger of their sin is not hate. There is no hate in it. I believe homosexuality is sinful, but I do not hate you. You're labeling it as hate so that those who would tell you things you don't like will look hateful and hopefully they will be compelled to stop.

Of course there is the type of person who believes that it is right to hate homosexuals because they believe that God hates them. I've read their rhetoric. It is the work of Satan. Our church ought to speak against these groups. They misrepresent Christ.

Please don't mistake me for someone who advocates hate or oppression of any kind. On the contrary I am very concerned about you. I wish I could believe that homosexuality is acceptable to God, because my heart is broken by your situation, but the Bible and my conscience tells me that homosexuality is sin. My experience tells me that it is sin. My reason tells me that it is sin. God created a man and a woman with the correct parts to join them together as one. People of the same sex are not designed by God to have parts that join together.

Out of my love and concern for you, I am compelled by God, who holds us accountable to warn others, to tell you that I believe that homosexuals are putting themselves in great danger by justifying their sin instead of repenting from it.

If you choose not to listen to my warning, then that is up to you. The issue is between you and God. I have done what God requires me to do by warning you.

Even though I don't agree with you, I would welcome you into my church because I would not want you to ever be shut out from a Christian environment. I would accept you with love as my brother. Every person needs to experience the love of Christ and find a place to grow in their faith.

I know it is often hard to tell the difference between those who hate and those speak warnings out of love and concern for your well being. Unfortunately it often feels like the same thing on the receiving end. And in this world I'm sure you have experienced a lot of hate so as to be, rightly, sensitive to it. But, I'm telling you, sincerely, that I disagree with you, but I don't hate you and I don't speak words of hate. They are words of concern and warning.

My heart is truly broken by this conflict. I agonize over it, about how to bring it to some conclusion that everyone can be happy with. I feel the pain if inflicts on both sides and it feels like a knife in my heart. I want us all to exchange words of love instead of words of conflict. But, God will not have us compromise on his word. I have to stand firm on what God said. I can't deny God to agree with what you want me to agree with. The best I can do is offer you my love, compassion, and my hand as your brother, in spite of the fact that we disagree. I am able to do that because I realize that my understanding is not as complete and perfect as God's is. I am just a humble child of God and my judgment doesn't count for anything. I hope that when we all get to heaven that we will find out that you were right because I don't want anyone to be condemned. My hope is that God will pardon all those who love his Son even if they behaved according to what they falsely believed was true, whether that be you or me. Until then I'm happy to agree to live together as brothers in Christ.

I would stand with you, against any group that truly advocates hate, violence or oppression of any kind. Hate, violence, and oppression are evil and I stand with God, against any evil.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my feeling is that most people here that disagree with you do so out of love, concern, and fear for your soul, not out of hate. I imagine some people are also a little agitated that you are trying to convince other people that what is labeled as sin in the Bible is not sin. You are therefore trying to lead people into the sin of homosexuality by making into something that is acceptable.

What do you think would happen if someone came to us and tried to convince us that adultery was not really sin, that God gave the law against it only because of the cultural context the Israelites lived in? How do you think Christians would react to someone actively trying to convince other people that adultery is an activity that God loves? Of course they're going to react with agitation and frustration because that basically amounts to teaching heresy, which God commands us to fight against, which is what we’re doing, but you call it hate.

I'm going to remove myself from this discussion and any like it that may start. I need to recover from the agony I feel when I simply repeat what God said in the Bible because I know I'm offending people by standing with God and reiterating what he said. I feel like simply repeating what God said in the Bible is seen as hate. If I were simply to post Romans 1:27 in a message by itself, simply the words that God inspired Paul to write and that are in all of our Bibles, that it would be seen as hate. If the word of God is seen as hate here then it is time to close this church because it no long serves Christ. It serves its own desires of the flesh.

I also fear that people such as myself, may be removed from this board for repeating God’s words and his warnings, because God’s word is seen as hate. Isn't that a situation of true irony, where the word of God is suppressed in favor of idolatrous human “wisdom” and the desires of the flesh, even in Christ’s own church.

I pray that God's love will remain with all of you.


----------------



Bill, Again this is a very loving response. I appreciate that.

When I first came out I had intense anger towards the church. My own mother disowned me because of what she was taught... exactly the same stuff you are bringing up, Bill.

I am not foreign to the church or to Christianity. I grew up attending church & church functions probably at least three times a week. As I got older and became more committed & involved, I was at church all the time.

I've been on worship teams, I've led bible studies, I've been on missions trips, I've led & been a part of numerous church ministries.

I went to Bible school and then to Oral Roberts University.

I know the Bible inside and out. I love God with all that I have. I absolutely love praise and worship. I feel an intense & compelling call to the ministry... to bring God's love to people.

And I am gay.

I have always been gay. When I was a toddler, my mom's sisters would tease her because I was acting like such a cute little "princess." I would be caught often walking around church or a restaurant with some random woman's purse. (I've since given up that habit.)

I knew I was gay from as young as I can remember. And I knew the church's teaching. I knew what would happen to me if they found out. I sometimes wonder if I was subconsciously being super-involved in order to prove myself to them... to be accepted in the church and in my family, even if I was gay. My fears were very well founded.

After coming out, I no longer existed to people at my church. There wasn't any outright condemnation... just a stark and cold difference in the way I was treated. I wasn't welcome in ministry roles. People would hold their children a little closer as I walked by.

My own mother said she didn't want to talk to me again. She didn't want me talking to my family, especially my younger brothers. She said she wouldn't help me financially through college. She said I was no longer welcome at home.

And you wonder why I have a problem with the condemnation of homosexuality? It destroys people. It destroys families. It is absolutely, without any doubt, NOT from God.

I used to be so angry with my mother and my church. I could rip her to shreds with my words and feel no guilt.

Then, one of my brothers died. He was also gay, about a year and a half younger than me. The only person I felt connected to in the world at that time.

I can't begin to describe the trauma, the sense of aloneness I felt. I had begun to believe the message of my mother and my church... that God didn't love me. And now I was left in the world with nothing and no one.

My life was pretty bad for a few years. I had little integrity. I was partying & drinking too much. I was being promiscuous.

Let me be clear. I was then and am now entirely responsible for my own actions. The problem is that I was a kid when I was going through all this. I can't imagine enduring it as an adult with the self-development and training I've had now... but to endure the abuse as a child. I am so thankful I wasn't more out of control.

What changed for me... about 3 years ago I was driving to Dallas and I heard the song "I can only imagine" on the radio. I instantly got this image of my brother in the loving presence of Jesus. I was bawling and had to pull over.

At that point, I knew I had to start forgiving people in my church & family. I knew that I was blaming all of them for my life and my actions. I knew that I had let myself start to believe their ideas about God. I decided to get my spiritual life back on track.

It took baby steps. I was desparate for a place to worship God the way I used to... and to be safe. I finally found MCC Austin.

I already knew God did not condemn me for being gay. I resolved those questions around 13 years of age. But I wasn't strong enough to be around people who would condemn me.

Since that time, my life has transformed. I absolutely love my life. Even my mother and I get along... most of the time. I'm successful. I'm currently preparing to go to seminary to answer the call of full time ministry.

I have become more and more compassionate as time goes by. And Bill, I do have compassion for you. I think you're still attached to incorrect ideas about God, but I don't blame you for it. I hear you wrestling with what you know in your heart and what the church has told you.

My prayer is that you will be led by peace and by love.

The peace of God that passes understanding. And the love of God that is without condition.

Blessings,
Nate

[keltic63]

----------------
On 3/22/2006 6:34:32 PM Asburyguy wrote:
Zoe,


To answer your question, YES I do believe that a sexual act between two people of the same gender is a sin. Yes I do believe and know several people that have been brought out this lifestyle by the Love of Christ. They will all tell you the same thing, that it is not God's intended plan for humanity.


It really saddens me to hear people say that they can read scripture and discern that God is OK with homosexuality. God's plan was never for two people of the same gender to be together in a sexual way. If that was the case wouldn't they be able to reproduce? It would not be the cause of serious medical issues and that have nothing to do with HIV/AIDS.


For centuries the Church has spoken out against homosexuality, and it has been until recently when society has pushed the issue on the church that various groups have 'folded'. But those who stand up against society and refuse to live as they do will not fold. This is an issue that has destroyed church after church, and family after family and I don't think in either of our lifetimes will we see an end to this debate. The only day we will truly know the answer to this issue is a day when we are no longer here, in this life.



----------------


So you take the word of these who tell you that they are now straight, yet once were gay, and you give great creedance to their testimony. I do not know them, so I will not make a judgment about their sincerity. However, what about the testimony of those who say "I am christian and I am gay." ? Why do you wish to discount the experience of these children of God?

As far as the church having spoken out against homosexuality for centuries: what about St. Serge and St. Bacchus? Early icons show the 2 men as participating in a marriage rite in which Christ himself is the pronobus, or "best man' overseeing their marriage. The "church" also performed marriage rites for same-sex couples in the 8th through the 18th centuries.

Biblical marriage= one man+ one woman? Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines; Jacob had Rachel and Leah; David had 8 wives, and possibly children to women who were not his wife. Paul says that it is best not to marry; are we all bound by that piece of scripture?

Churches and families, AND God's Gay and Lesbian children have been destroyed because of the narrow interpretation of a few, and I mean a few, select verses that some have chosen to apply literally, while disregarding other verses. The Bible has a lot more to say about divorce, and yet, not one of you "true followers of Christ" would dare bring it up in your church because the offerings would dry up immediately! Many of Your pastors, your parishioners are divorced and remarried, totally disregarding the clear teaching of scriptures. None of you even think of talking about it because it is financial suicide. It remains clear that spiritual violence against gay and lesbian Children of God is acceptible because they are a minority, a scapegoat, and as such not valuable to the church. If you truly wanted to protect the family, and keep the faith pure, you would lobby the legislatures to pass laws banning divorce, and instituting stiff penalties for adultery. You take the coward's way out and blame the ills of society on a small group of people who are now claiming their rightful place at the table. God help those who deny them.

[NathanATX]

I'm drawing a blank with how to respond to this one...
__________________________________________________ ________

Nate, Show me a scipture, just one, that says that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle for believers. I have been inb these dialogues and conversations on many occasions and never never never has any one from the homosexual community been able to show me a passage that indicates that sexual sin by either heterosexuals or homosexuals is alright with God. If there were such a verse that showed no judgment consequences to sexual sin then the homosexual community sould have brought that up time and time again. No such verse exists. While countless verses can be applied to sinful lifestyles for all human beings (including heterosexual and homosexuals) as needing God's grace, reconciliation, redemption and change to transform our actions and our mind to do the will of God. Paul did need to single out gays as being the only ones not inheriting the kingdom of God. Paul was equally against incest, temple prostitution by males and females and a variety of other sinful practices covered by porneia.

Orthodox Christianity as a whole has preached against homosexuality for 2000 years. The last few years people have done some creative eisogesis to suggest that what God really meant was people should be in committed relationships whether heterosexual or homosexual. I will not be one who says that the church's understanding of scripture for 2000 years was wrong on this issue.

Bring me such a scripture and I will discuss it with you.

[suzer1013]

My knowledge of scripture, its context and exigesis is limited, but I've always sort of read the Ruth and Naomi story to be supportive of a same sex relationship (whether it was sexual or not, it was a commitment between to people of the same sex to each other). Isn't there also a story about a Roman centurion and his slave/lover that is also believed to be homosexual in nature -- Jesus heals his slave/lover or something like that?

Nate -- I've just gotta say "thanks" and you are really awesome! I think you've really gotten some people to THINK on those boards. I think even Pastor Steve has been forced to deal with his thinking process. I thank God for your education, your background, your wisdom, and your desire for change and willingness to speak out.

Susan
("Zoe" over on the UMC boards -- I've wanted to keep some degree of anonymity over there)

[NathanATX]

thanks Susan... :) Your posts ARE brilliant and compassionate! You should post more!

Here's what I came up with...

So instead of agreeing to look at the texts you use to condemn me, you suggest I find some to defend myself with.

Weren't we just talking about your integrity?

From www.truthsetsfree.net/study.pdf

"...The Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27 we find it mentioned within the context of idolatry (Baal worship) involving lust and dishonorable passions. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 talk about homosexual activity in the context of prostitution and possibly pederasty.

Nowhere does the Bible condemn a loving and committed homosexual relationship. To use the Bible to condemn such a relationship, as we see, involves a projection of ones own bias and a stretching of the Biblical text beyond that of which the scriptures speak. Historically, however, the Bible has been taken out of context and twisted to oppress almost every minority one could imagine including women, African Americans, children, slaves, Jews, and the list goes on. Do we truly understand the greatest commandments? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (RSV Mat. 22:36-40)"


"The bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals, it's just that they need more supervision." - Lynn Lavner

[Vanessa White]

I am a member of a UMC church in small town PA, and have not yet checked out these forums that you are speaking about, but of course, am very concerned about this going on on the website for UMC. I have not yet had a chance to check it out, and I am disheartened by what you are saying here because we searched for a local church for years before we found our welcoming UMC. I felt kind of insulated all this time, but my mistake I guess was generalizing the warm feeling we get as a gay family as the church at large. BIG mistake I guess!! Anyway, I am not yet very literate in the stories and verses of the Bible, that support/not support us as a gay community. Am I going to be getting in way over my head if I decide to participate in these forums? I mean, I sometimes feel out of my league here among friends, because I am in the baby stages of getting familiar with Bibleteachings and interpretations. ANy thoughts or advice out there? PS I may not respond for a day or two because I have some busy days ahead, but any thoughts are surely welcome. THanks all for everything, Vanessa:love: :pray: :love: :pray:

[suzer1013]

Nate -- I like your answer. Of course, what Pastor Steve is trying to do is, instead of listening with an open heart, change the subject and force everyone to play the game by his rules. There's a part of me that really likes Pastor Steve -- I think he is actually a good hearted person, who is terribly misguided in some ways. It frightens me that he is a pastor. I am not necessarily wanting to change his mind -- God will do that. What I hope for him is that he will be able to listen to and understand the "other side" so to speak, and perhaps stop actively discriminating against GLBT folks. It might be more than I could hope for. Of course, nothing happens overnight, either. Perhaps God will touch his heart and he will, someday, be changed in a positive way.

I lifted the following from the Whosoever.org website. You may have already checked out their information, but they've got a listing of scriptural references, etc. that are helpful.

Blessings,

Susan

There are two Biblical same-sex relationships (one between two women, the other two men) reported in the Bible in a positive light. They appear to have progressed well beyond friendship. They were likely homosexual affairs, although not necessarily sexually active relationships:
+ Ruth 1:16, 2:10-11 between Ruth and Naomi
+ 1 Samuel 18:1-4, 1 Samuel 20:41-42 and 2 Samuel 1:25-26 between David and Jonathan. (Some translations of the Bible distort the original Hebrew text, particularly of 1 Samuel 20)

[Zerbie]

Vanessa,

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't join those forums if they interest you, and lend your personal insights to the conversations. It's up to you - I don't think it's necessary to be a Biblical expert, if you have something to say, then it's probably of some value as your personal insight. I am one who hasn't even got the inclination to pore over and agonize over the Bible when having discussions here on this forum - I will share when it seems relevent, that which I have to say. So it's really up to you if you decide you feel comfortable posting there or not.

PS: Look forward to having you come back and post some more after your busy days settle down.

[suzer1013]

OK, "Pastor Steve" will probably completely tear me apart when he reads my response, but here it is.

Susan

Pastor Steve -- I would suggest that there are two places that I know of in scripture where same sex relationships appear without condemnation. First is the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. While not clearly sexual in nature, their relationship is clearly blessed and, in fact, one passage in Ruth is popularly used in marriage ceremonies to this day. It is one example of a blessed same sex relationship that may or may not have been similar to committed homosexual relationships today.

Another relationship that appears is the one between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel. David expresses his love for Jonathan, and this relationship does appear to be a sexual one.

You are, of course, free to (and probably will ) disagree with my interpretation of these passages, but the way I see it, there are two clear same sex relationships that are not condemned.

I agree with you that what is important is that God loves us all, and I appreciate your sincerity and honesty about what you believe. I appreciate that even if you don't agree with my viewpoint, you have "listened" to what I've written. I do not seek to change your mind, or anyone else's. I seek to share what I know of the love of Christ. I think it's up to God to change our minds and our hearts, and I believe He will do that at the right time.

Like James (Dewdrop), I see much value in mutual understanding, in addition to challenging and thought provoking conversation. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

Peace,

[suzer1013]

Ugh. Sometimes it feels so toxic over there, it's hard to remember these folks are also children of God and are not hateful themselves, but are misled by hateful teaching. The UMC boards, in my opinion, are not a "safe" place for most gays and lesbians. Or, perhaps, it's just because I'm feeling extra sensitive today. For some there, it doesn't matter with what loving message you approach them, they still come back angry and hateful. <sigh>

I'm spiritually and emotionally exhausted.

Susan

[Zerbie]

Maybe it's time for a break Suze. If it consistently drains you to read that forum, stay away for a while. Voices of kindness and strength come and go on public fora, and everything moves in cycles. Even the sap in trees. Maybe this is your down time.

[keltic63]

Ugh. Sometimes it feels so toxic over there, it's hard to remember these folks are also children of God and are not hateful themselves, but are misled by hateful teaching. The UMC boards, in my opinion, are not a "safe" place for most gays and lesbians. Or, perhaps, it's just because I'm feeling extra sensitive today. For some there, it doesn't matter with what loving message you approach them, they still come back angry and hateful. <sigh>

I'm spiritually and emotionally exhausted.

Susan

and they turn it around on the other person, projecting their anger and hatespeech onto others who are trying to show them that what they've said isn't exactly loving. I'm sensing that it's time for a break as well.

[NathanATX]

Exekiel 33:6 wrote:
----------------
On 3/24/2006 3:34:07 PM nate@nateblack.us wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree... safe, legal & rare.

My mother almost aborted me.----------------



nate...there you go, giving me cause to rethink my opposition to all abortions! Yuk yuk yuk!

[keltic63]

Exekiel 33:6 wrote:
----------------
On 3/24/2006 3:34:07 PM nate@nateblack.us wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree... safe, legal & rare.

My mother almost aborted me.----------------



nate...there you go, giving me cause to rethink my opposition to all abortions! Yuk yuk yuk!

yeah, that was the Christlike thing to say.

[Daniel]

Susan,

You mentioned in your first post about dealing with anger. I can identify with this very much.

It tool me 4 years to get health benefits for my partner at my place of work. What I learned in the process was that I had to have the courage to stand up for myself and be insistent about the matter at hand without letting the siutation get control of my life overall. I often found myself spending days and days being angry. It was painful and I worked at keeping it in check (The 'don't let them see you sweat' thought echoed in my mind). But it did get me motivated. A good thing.

In brief: I don't think anger is necessarily (Jesus routing the money changers form the temple comes to mind). Its what we do with it that's the issue perhaps.

[Daniel]

What changed for me... about 3 years ago I was driving to Dallas and I heard the song "I can only imagine" on the radio. I instantly got this image of my brother in the loving presence of Jesus. I was bawling and had to pull over.

Nate,

Reading your story made me cry...

Thank you for sharing it with this person and he forum. It's very powerful.

Music has been my salvation- and profession- for many years. I count myself blessed in that. Your words above remind me of the many times when I've listened to a beautiful piece of music and felt connected to all those that I love who have gone on before me- and to the All that is.

Daniel

[Emproph]

If I write any more than a few lines here I’m going to end up writing an essay. I have a thread in the works (hopefully to finish), but specifically in regard to this thread and in relation to your efforts in the UMC bulletin boards.

This caught my eye the other day, Nate’s post #22. This guy is a perfect example of my point here, and Nate your response was as perfect as could be....My heart is truly broken by this conflict. I agonize over it, about how to bring it to some conclusion that everyone can be happy with. I feel the pain if inflicts on both sides and it feels like a knife in my heart. I want us all to exchange words of love instead of words of conflict. But, God will not have us compromise on his word. I have to stand firm on what God said. I can't deny God to agree with what you want me to agree with. The best I can do is offer you my love, compassion, and my hand as your brother, in spite of the fact that we disagree. I am able to do that because I realize that my understanding is not as complete and perfect as God's is. I am just a humble child of God and my judgment doesn't count for anything. I hope that when we all get to heaven that we will find out that you were right because I don't want anyone to be condemned. My hope is that God will pardon all those who love his Son even if they behaved according to what they falsely believed was true, whether that be you or me. Until then I'm happy to agree to live together as brothers in Christ...
That whole letter was is heartbreaking. If anyone is reachable it is people like him, as opposed to those who worship pride, need someone to feel better than, fear death and/or eternal hell, or worse, no life after death. They're much more likely to believe in the Bible no matter what.

(in the first person) The issue is why do you feel the need to believe in Biblical inerrancy? The answer is, Because I can’t see the truth of God and until I do, the Bible is all I have.

Homosexuality is understood by heterosexuals as inherently unnatural because they look at same sex attraction the way we look at opposite sex attraction. When we claim that it is fundamentally the same, the idea is that whatever caused him to “think” he was attracted to men in the first place must be the same thing that deludes him into thinking it's fundamental. To them, delusion is both the cause and effect of homosexuality. Somehow, someway, you are so deluded, you think you are not deluded, and since the only safety/certainty of truth that I have confirms this (the Bible), you must be wrong.

Couple that with a God (the Bible), who thinks so too, and we're in a dilly of a pickle when it comes to convincing someone else to understand otherwise.

I heard this the other day and I thought of this thread. Jesus said: "Meet them at their point of need," I believe in relation to the disciples, anybody?

Even those who believe in Biblical inerrancy for the sake of supremacy are afraid.

Their point of need is where their fear lies. The purpose of the belief of Biblical inerrancy is solely to avoid fear, whether it be the fear of avoiding hell or no life after death, or not being special, as long as the Bible cannot be wrong, they don’t have to fear uncertainty.

The question is, why must their faith in the infinite Love of God be contingent upon the Bible? A book orated, written and interpreted by thousands of humans at every step of the process, all of whom were under the influence of original sin.

As long as salvation is understood as the avoidance of hell, the “safety” of salvation will be equated with the “fear” of hell. Safety = fear is a state of confusion, the basis of all fear.

The challenge is, how do we present such a notion without appearing to devalue the meaning of the truth of God. If their definition of God is less than only Love, they have no need to look outside the Bible, illogic itself makes sense.
...I wish I could believe that homosexuality is acceptable to God, because my heart is broken by your situation...
Bigotry is not believing homosexuality is wrong, it’s wanting to believe it. This guy is not a bigot, he’s a victim too. Like family members of gay people forced to choose between their love for their child and their love for God. People like him are reachable, but again, it comes down to the belief in Biblical inerrancy.

Asking them to accept us is asking them to relinquish the certitude of salvation. If the Bible’s wrong about us, it might be wrong about everything else. Thus, their point of need. Get it? :rainbow:

I so want to jump in and help you guys out, but I’ll slice ‘em six ways from Sunday if they pull that Bible out on me. I’ll cause more fear and confusion vs the certitude of Love and understanding you guys are so adept at expressing and demonstrating. So I’ve got my own work to do on that front.

Again, I’m proud of you guys. :good:

P.S. -So much for avoiding an essay, eh? :)

[Emproph]

There's some excellent resources and information here on biblical interpretation especially in regard to homosexuality, avoiding the whole potentially inflamatory questioning of Biblical authority/inerrancy issue that I'm famous for. :)

http://www.ecwr.org/resources/homosexuality.html

[dewdrop_world]

I've been pretty busy at umc.org myself. Here's my latest.

----------------
On 4/3/2006 3:30:52 PM True to Him wrote: Is it your position that God only works through those who are without sin and therefore if God works through someone they are sinless? Does this work for all sins or just the sin of homosexual conduct?----------------

Ah, a substantial question--very much appreciated!

I think grace doesn't depend on a sinless quality (if it did, we would all be in trouble!). I think there are lots of other things it doesn't depend on: church rules and regulations; people's opinions about Scripture*; human conceptions of what is sin; obedience to this or that authority--I could probably think of some more if it weren't so late.

* This is kind of a big point, and I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge its contentiousness. After something of a crisis of faith in my early 20s, I arrived at the position that human language is not capable of expressing the full mystery of God, which put Scripture in what is for me a more viable perspective: a source of wisdom, but one that requires careful study and whose meaning depends in large measure on the spiritual background one brings to it. I'm aware that many people here disagree very strongly. Some disagree so strongly that they seem unable to respond rationally (though I don't get that impression from you).

I also believe that spirituality is highly personal, and that no matter what your spiritual practice is, somebody somewhere is going to think you're doing the wrong thing. But none of that has any bearing on grace! The most important and hardest won lesson in my life is that God does not need anyone's approval to help me as I work to grow in love within and through my sexual orientation; nor do I need approval to cultivate my spirituality in a way that works for me. God is simply there for me.

I suppose I could sum it up (though any summation is an approximation!) as a view of grace beyond sin, or at least beyond the notion of sin as defined in terms of fixed rules. If I had to pin down what I consider sin, it would be failing to live up to my fullest potential to love. To take this seriously requires deep reflection and an ever-expanding vision of what love means, continual self-interrogation and raising the standard.

My capacity to love was tightly constrained when I was younger and felt I was unlovable--"something was wrong with me." Then I came out and (slowly) learned to stop fearing the unworthiness I felt, and through that process my capacity to love began to bloom. In my case, and in the case of millions of others, staying in the closet or staying celibate to appease a religious authority would be like cutting off the nose to spite the face--winning approval as a "good Christian" but failing to discover the best God has for us. To me, it's obvious which would be the worst sin :)

That got longer than I expected... good night!

hjh

[NathanATX]

amazing post!:D

[suzer1013]

I agree, that was an amazing post! :)

I can't express how grateful I am that y'all have added your voices over on the UMC boards. For so long, every time I read those boards, I was dismayed by so many of the posts. I knew that those few posters who seemed to dominate with their fundamentalist theology was not really what the UMC is about. Certainly, they are part of the voice of the UMC, but they are not the whole voice.

I have now left the UMC, but still visit the boards out of curiosity mostly. What a breath of fresh air it is to see your posts over there! I know I've said it before, but thank you again for your passionate and knowledgeable contributions. :D

Susan

[Jamie McDaniel]

I haven't spent time on the UMC boards, but I just read your post here, dewdrop_world. I agree, that was excellent writing. I especially liked these two sentences:

...I arrived at the position that human language is not capable of expressing the full mystery of God, which put Scripture in what is for me a more viable perspective: a source of wisdom, but one that requires careful study and whose meaning depends in large measure on the spiritual background one brings to it.

In my case, and in the case of millions of others, staying in the closet or staying celibate to appease a religious authority would be like cutting off the nose to spite the face--winning approval as a "good Christian" but failing to discover the best God has for us. To me, it's obvious which would be the worst sin.

[Emproph]

That got longer than I expected...
Now there's an understatement, and the story of my blogging life.

That was an excellent post. Kudos! :rainbow:

[dewdrop_world]

Further update :)

The thread I posted from earlier seems to have come to a dead stop. The response to my post was:

James,

I appreciate your thoughts and insights. I can tell that your comments are heartfelt and sincere.

To further clarify, may I ask would it not take a great love to be willing to change for someone, to be willing to sacrifice to make him or her happy? Would not conforming to God's will, as much as we are able, indeed be a big step towards discovering the best He has for us?

And the conversation killer, from me...

Of course, that's unassailable logic, but the big question is, what is God's will? I believe that God's will for me (not speaking for anyone else) is to continue in the direction I'm going, to get more and more deeply in touch with my light and to take my light out into the world.

That's a similar response to what I would offer to Vernon. God did transform my life, by freeing me from the burdens of unworthiness, and of seeking self-esteem through pleasing people (molding myself into what I thought they wanted me to be). Freeing me from fear! No strings were attached, just clarity and honesty with myself. And, like all genuine spiritual transformations, the work is ongoing.

Then things got much more interesting on another thread. I posted some humorous remarks on why conservative churches might be growing so fast, and the same guy said it was offensive, and obviously "The simple truth is that when liberals ignore the truth and look for 'deeper questions' it simply means that they can't handle the truth and therefore look to twist and distort it to satisfy their own worldly outlook." Youch.

That prompted what turned into basically a statement of faith from me. I wanted to post here in case it's inspiring.

To respond adequately, I think I need to go back and explain more about the crisis of faith I mentioned earlier. This will be a bit long :)

I grappled for many years with a question that seems simple on its face, but in fact was deeply unsettling for me. "How is it possible to pray while holding full respect for God's divine nature?" The question begins with a proposition I held as axiomatic: that it is beyond human capacity to understand God fully. I didn't try to "prove" it philosophically, as it seemed intuitively true; besides which, I was concerned about the consequences of the opposite statement. If we believe that we can have a perfect and correct vision of God, would we not be making ourselves into gods? If it follows then that our vision is imperfect, isn't it then dangerous to put too much stock in what people say about God? As I turned this question over and over, I came to feel I couldn't follow a faith that too casually accepted received images of God. At some point, the inherent limitations of any belief about God would be exposed, and the belief would have to be revised.

Some of this came from some time I spent in an Assembly of God youth group as a teenager. They made a lot of claims about what God is or is not like, and eventually I had to conclude that they were making assertions about things that no human being could possibly know for certain. That's probably the biggest source of my antipathy to the idea that God is what we think God is, and that what we think about God is right. My native Catholic faith didn't readily offer substantial advice, either.

At 25, I began reading about contemplative prayer and meditation. The orientation in meditation is to stop, slow down and see clearly. By looking carefully at what is going on right now, and observing the mind's tendency to interpret everything in one way or another, we learn that these interpretations actually cause us to suffer--from wanting things we don't have or clinging to things we do have (or the converse, fearing things that might come into our life or that are already there).

And then things started to click. What if I could live in the middle of God's creation and see things as they are, instead of on my terms? In answer to the question of how to pray without imposing human visions on God, the answer came through with blazing clarity: JUST BE. After nearly 11 years, while I know I have a long way yet to go, I also feel more deeply connected with God than any other time in my life.

It's worth noting that spiritual traditions the world over (including Christian contemplatives like St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila) speak of a common trajectory of descent into the core of suffering (the "Dark night of the soul"), followed by emergence, renewal, rebirth, a transcendent awareness that can both embrace the nature of suffering and touch on the nature of God. I don't recall which contemporary writer it was who wrote of older African-American women who had this overwhelming presence of grace about them, and eyes that could look right into your soul... that's the kind of presence that comes from being through hell and coming back transformed and reborn.

So when you say, "Ignoring the obvious to make things way more complicated and wrong is nothing short of foolish," I would say that the obvious--that none of us was never really separated from Creation in the first place, and in fact there is nothing to fear--seems foolish at the start of the spiritual journey. People are stubborn and the ego does not give up control easily. For most people, it's necessary to crash, repeatedly and painfully, into the limits of what the ego allows until it becomes clear that what the ego is holding onto simply doesn't work. At that point, the obvious truth becomes real and personal in a way pious imitation can mimic but not really obtain.

Let me conclude by saying that submission to a divine law is also a valid spiritual path, because the ego will crash into its limitations through that practice also (if it's done well). But it is certainly not the only path, and it's a path that simply doesn't work for me (it didn't bring me to greater communion with God).

What I really think is that we're taking different paths to the same goal. I hope it can be a mutually supportive journey.

That is why I jumped all over that forum... not just to make a point, but to test and refine my own understanding. A very good experience.

Next stop, catholic.org ;)

hjh

[suzer1013]

I've been lurking on and off over at the UMC boards. It is very disheartening, to say the least. I wonder why the UMC has these boards to begin with, as it doesn't seem much meaningful conversation goes on there. Even when the homosexuality issue is finally dropped for a while, some anti-gay bigots return and stir up the pot again -- trying to have the last word, I guess.

I want to give up. James has had some wonderful posts over there, and I think has given a couple of folks there something to think about. But there are some who will never, never listen to reason or love -- and I suppose those are the folks you eventually just have to walk away from, saying "go in peace," but realizing they have been so brainwashed by religious intolerance that nothing we do or say will open their minds.

And, I guess, my goal should not really be to change anyone's mind, because only God can do that. But most of the time on the UMC boards, I am simply at a loss for words. How do I share God's love in the face of such intolerance?

Susan

[Zerbie]

Hey Suze.

I think you're right, a break is needed. It is too disheartening to wind up in verbal battles over and over with those who won't listen, with those whose minds are closed. Find something more worthy of your energy that won't sap it away from you so much.

Do you think spending time over on those boards could have anything to do with those insecure and doubtful feelings you were having a month or two ago? Worth thinking about - whether you are taking something inside you from those boards that is hurting you.

Anyway, what if you walked away from these arguments for a good long time. I dunno, say like, a year or two. The someday when you get into similar discussion again (and someday you will) it will be from a new, refreshed, and stronger perspective. I say fill your thoughts with something completely different for a while.

[Emproph]

I've been lurking on and off over at the UMC boards. It is very disheartening, to say the least. -- trying to have the last word, I guess.

I want to give up. James has had some wonderful posts over there, and I think has given a couple of folks there something to think about. But there are some who will never, never listen to reason or love -- and I suppose those are the folks you eventually just have to walk away from, saying "go in peace," but realizing they have been so brainwashed by religious intolerance that nothing we do or say will open their minds.

And, I guess, my goal should not really be to change anyone's mind, because only God can do that. But most of the time on the UMC boards, I am simply at a loss for words. How do I share God's love in the face of such intolerance?

SusanJames has a way with words. Always loving, kind, patient and tolerant of dissenters.

There's a few in particular over there that frustrate me to no end though. I've been staying away so I can put together a new strategy, to hopefully reframe the debate even more pointedly. That was the entire purpose of James' thread and they usurped that!

Obviously the die hards won't listen to reason but it might help shed some light on them for the others.

So I haven't given up yet, I'll be back. :cool:

-Just wanted to let you know I feel for you Susan. :tup:

[dewdrop_world]

I'm still active over there... I had to cut back a bit on my involvement because it was taking too much time away from my music. That has a good side effect, though, because I'm not so caught up in the drama and I have more time to listen and reflect.

But it is hard. What I've been trying to do lately is tease out the humanity of those whom we're calling "die hards" here. For them it seems that faith is a matter of believing in the right ideas. I've got a really good conversation going with someone who goes by the name of sboston6 -- not coincidentally, he's the only person who took the time to explain anything about his faith journey and what his faith in the Bible means to his spiritual journey. Now, Ezekiel... I have no idea what's up with him. So far I haven't seen him say much beyond, "Bible good, liberal bad," usually in an unnecessarily snarky way that makes me doubt the depth of his Christian transformation.

But I'm an incurable optimist, so onward I press...

The other interesting thing I learned over there is that I'm really not a Protestant. Somehow, the language and mindset feel fundamentally foreign to me as a cradle Catholic. Eventually I want to quit the UMC forum and take up residence on the catholic.org boards, which on a few quick visits appear to have no smaller share of vituperative, emotionally stingy conservatives.

James

[Liberal Crozier]

We have often spoken of the political divisions and often theological divides among those faith communities who share a singular definition, such as, Methodist, or Anglican or Presbyterian or Lutheran. This is especially true in the USA.

As I see it, only the Roman Catholics hold administrative, political and theological hegemony over their provincial churches. The Anglicans and the Orthodox have an honourary association - where both often "bleed" into the illusion of monarchical control...such as Canterbury's attempts today in the autocephalous and autonomous national provincial churches in Canada or the USA - by deciding which groups hold their honourific associative rights and privileges.

The Methodist Church (US) Book of Discipline in 1968 spoke to a merger - with the Methodist Episcopal Church and the United Evangelical Brethren - to form the United Methodist Church. Born of Anglican theology and churchmanship - American Methodism was prior to merger, a group of men and women who wore or whom did not wear liturgical or clerical attire or more, differentiate themselves from the inerrant anabaptist competitors for flock in their communities. Are you SBC or UMC were often the two choices - along with AOG for the vestige - in southern and southern midwest US homes.

The ALC/LCA merger for Lutherans into the ELCA, and now an undefined unity with ECUSA, had similar ultraconservative " out of merger" synodal choices with the LCMS or WELS - where the theology among they and the SBC/UMC reality on the ground in northern midwest states was difficult to define.

[dewdrop_world]

Let me cry a little bit. Here are a few snippets from the UMC board lately.

Perhapas it is because biblical truth and its interpretation is the "property" neither of conservatives or liberals but of God who promises to give us the mind of Christ. Perhaps the rub lies in the confidence from scripture that conservatives feel that God has indeed given them the mind of Christ on scriptural matters. Whereas the liberals have no idea what God might do and have little clarity on spiritual matters because they are so busy being toleranat, inclusive and pluralistic that they have lost most meaning of the II Timothy 3:16 and other related scriptures. For the conservative there is not arrogance but confidence...

Such a rich irony here -- whenever I say there are ways in which conservatives are not living up to the spirit of Jesus's example, I'm accused of hostility.

But when a conservative says that liberal Christians are not capable of anything other than spiritual fraud, this is considered reasonable?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unless we take the time to share how we pray and practice, then we will just be arguing about ideas. We will imagine that our "opponents" are their ideas and we will fail to see common ground. Then the discussion is not respectful. People on both sides make ridiculous assumptions about the other side, without ever really knowing what is being brought to the table. It becomes a turf battle of exactly the sort dash_cramer described (and you, Steve, are proving his point).

"But when a conservative says that liberal Christians are not capable of anything other than spiritual fraud, this is considered reasonable?"


Actually I like that, I think that is an accurate definition of the the Liberal pseudo christians. As far as conservatives taking over the "property rights" of Scripture, it is only because liberals have forfeited the land in exchange for humanistic views.

Observe how neatly he ignores what I propose as a way out of the deadlock. Heaven forbid one show a shred of vulnerability.

It is killing me to watch them destroy Christianity. They talk the Bible talk but when it comes to the fundamentals -- love one another as you love Me -- the foundations of spiritual life, of decency, are expendable in the name of defending conservatism. One's beliefs are so important that it's worth selling your soul to defend them.

In response, I wished to live Christ's example. It's one of the hardest messages I've written over there, because I'm burning with anger. How do you show love when you're angry?

For the sake of argument, let's assume that liberal Christians are your enemy. I can't say for sure whether you really believe that or not, but your writings on this board give the impression that this is what you believe.

Let's make it more personal. Let's suppose -- again, for the sake of argument -- that you see me as an enemy.

What does it mean when Jesus says to love your enemy?

It is hard for me not to see you as an enemy right now. And in that condition, what it means for me, in this moment, to love my enemy is to ask what is in your heart (where I could assume that I know what is there and denounce you based on who I imagine you to be -- I am sorely tempted to do exactly that, but I will not, because that would be wrong).

What is in your heart toward me?

This is a very hard message to write. Righteous anger is boiling in my chest. It actually makes me almost physically ill to watch what is happening to the Christ I love. Dash said it better than I could at the moment. But I fear his words are wasted, because conservatives do not appear to be given to self reflection (which I would call a necessary part of any spiritual journey). I could be wrong in this assessment, but it is at least how conservatives present themselves here.

Perhaps it's that conservatives are uneasy around human weakness, so they refuse to admit it in themselves and attack it in everyone else. That is a natural -- human -- reaction, but it is not Jesus' way.

In the end, I'm not interested in who is right or wrong. I'm interested in whether we can treat each other well as Jesus commanded. I fail at this quite often, but I'm trying my best in this note.

If we grow through spiritual challenges.... I am really growing a lot. Any supportive words would be helpful. I just feel a bit devastated. It seems over there like good is evil and evil is good, love is condescending and cruel instead of patient and kind. I've had it up to here with these jerks for Jesus.

Take your claws off of my Savior! (It's interesting that I can say "my Savior" now. I am seeing more clearly than ever how Buddhist meditation is strengthening my Catholic roots. This is a great blessing I didn't expect from coming here, or going there.)

James

[Dash]

You are totally my hero over there James!:love: I still feel like I'm just circling these guys...trying to figure out how they think...watching how they respond...learning their "tells." But you've been involved for so long, and your posts are so patient and gentle. Your responses are full of everything admirable. Every once in awhile there are hints that others are watching the exchanges silently, and I think you will have a strong, clarifying and positive influence on many observers.

Have to admit, at this point, I'm not really touched by their "claws." I'm more amused than anything else right now. Course, I'm not sure I'm even being taken seriously. Haha! They've been fencing for some time with our most formidable debaters, and I'd imagine that my input must seem rather lightweight by comparison.:o

[Zerbie]

Let me cry a little bit.




It is killing me to watch them destroy Christianity.
How do you show love when you're angry?



If we grow through spiritual challenges.... I am really growing a lot. Any supportive words would be helpful. I just feel a bit devastated. It seems over there like good is evil and evil is good, love is condescending and cruel instead of patient and kind.

James


:love: :love: :love: :love: :love:
(((((James)))))

No feedback or help for you. . .:'(

Reading your quotes above, odd, I think you're me at the moment you wrote them. I have been thinking, asking, crying the same things lately.
Especially the part about good being evil and evil good, love cruel, etc. I registered over at those CARM boards recently and after reading them for a while I was spinning in the same backwardness. Actually thought, "If this is love, I hate love." If love tears people's hearts to ribbons, or shuts their hearts down, or inspires folks to suicide, self-loathing, and a refusal of all that is kind or forgiving - if love does all that, then I hate love.

I am certain you nailed it when you say that some people elevate the correctness of their own adopted belief system over love itself. Yes they do. And that is a kind of ironic perversity that is anti-spiritual to it's core. A form of spiritual projection and egotism. I think that is it, anyway.

How do you show love when you're angry? Wonderful question! It should be its own thread - I don't know and I need to learn. It is why I will not post on boards like those.

James/Dewdrop, you write some of the kindest, truest, strongest messages imaginable. Such strength and authenticity. You make me cry sometimes with your gentle eloquence.

Thank you. :love: :love: :love:

[Emproph]

(This is just a set up for what I have to say next on the matter. It's toxic so you may want to avoid it or avoid most of it until I get the next post up.)

Jerks for Jesus, I love it!

James, we've been dealing with this all day over at CARM. It was like the fourth of July.

I pulled up and posted on a thread a couple of days ago called "Double Standard." I've listed some highlights here. The quotes are in order but for any direct exchanges I've listed the names in the quotes so you know who said what, otherwise the other quotes are just examples. Jist of original post:The point of my thread was to demonstrate the double standard of Christians when discussing sin. On many threads, Christians will often state that Homosexuals cannot be Christians as long as they continue to engage in homosexual activity. They either have to stop engaging in homosexual activity or they have not truly repented of their sin and cannot consider themselves saved Christians.

Now, if 90% of Christians admit to lying at least once a week and/or lying on a regular basis, they are doing exactly what they accuse homosexuals of doing. They continue to engage in a sinful act and must not truly have repented their sins. If a Christian tells a lie, they are no less accountable than a homosexual engaging in a homosexual act. Homosexuals being singled out for "continuing" to engage in sinful behavior is a double standard. Unless Christians can stop lying, they are no less accountable for their sins.Responses:
(Remember, this is a thread on the double standards of some Christians when condemning gays) - most of the underlining is mine.So your approach is moral relativism. If Christians have sinned, the homosexuals get a free pass to sin?I think the key, is admiting that what you are doing is sin.Christians can slip up and lie, but they admit that it is a sin and pray and ask forgiveness and strength to not do it again.

Homosexuals will not do that. They want to try to twist Scripture to where they say that God "made them that way" or to say we have misunderstood those passages.Is a homosexual going to justify his behaviour when confronted by his conscience?There is no double standard that Christianity presents to the world. Just as important, there isn't a single sound and reasonable Christian who claims any kind of perfection with regard to this walk we engage in as aliens in a familiar world.... what we do recognize when it rears it's head is the devil who claims Christ while living in opposition to Christ and proclaiming what is evil to be good and what is good is declared evil. ...
The difference being that when we lie, we repent and try harder. The homosexual does not repent, is not remorseful and continues on his/her sinful path.
As several of us have said already...the component that's missing with homosexuals is the remorse. How can you repent if you feel no remorse for wrong doing?Is a homosexual going to justify his behaviour when confronted by his conscience?

...what we do recognize when it rears it's head is the devil who claims Christ while living in opposition to Christ and proclaiming what is evil to be good and what is good is declared evil...I consider my same sex attraction to be as innate and fixed as any heterosexual would consider their opposite sex attraction to be.

So IF I could get married to a man I loved and we had sex within the confines of our marriage, are you suggesting my conscience should still confront me outside of the arbitrary admonition in the Bible?

I say ‘arbitrary’ because making love to my husband would not be harming myself or anyone else, as murder, stealing, slander etc., would. All things that break the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.

So if my sin is based on my physical expression of my love for my husband, literally based on love itself, then how can that be evil?

And if it’s evil “just because the Bible says so,” then sin is arbitrary and does not require evil, harm, or a victim to be a sin.

And if that’s the case, then why is remarriage not condemned in proper proportion to homosexual “behavior” by those who use 1Corinthians 6:9-11.

Luke 16:18: "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery."

That’s directly from God as Jesus, and is also listed as one of the sins that bars one from “inheriting the kingdom” in 1Corinthians 6:9-11.

So why is the lesser of the two admonitions condemned disproportionately more? (The following is as close to an admission of a double standard as has occured on that thread) Reply to my post:So if my sin is based on my physical expression of my love for my husband, literally based on love itself, then how can that be evil?God said it was. Period.Luke 16:18: "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." Homosexuality has become the whipping boy and those who fool themselves that it's somehow worse than their own adulterous behavior will be in for a shock on judgment day.....how many rationalizations and justifications you come up with for this sin. God has spoken on the matter, and that's the way it is. He has never conditioned the definition of sin as being that which harms others....that's the wiccan viewpoint, not the Biblical one. (Also, regardless how many objections to the contrary, homosexuality does hurt those who practice it, as well as others.)

Sin is what God says it is....and it ALWAYS boils down to rebellion against God.Wrong! There is a big problem with your statement. You better take another survey. That one is erroneous and isn't giving the correct variables. Next time ask if we think we are sinners first.:rolleyes: We as Christians admit that we are filthy sinners and are only saved by the Grace of God. Homosexuals will not admit it's a sin. They are MARCHING IN PARADES saying they are PROUD of their sin. That is the difference. So if you are going to judge pay attention to details. Yes, I sin every single day and I try every day not to but it never works because I'm human but I TRY not to sin and ask for forgiveness that is the difference.

We do not PROMOTE OUR SIN AND ASK FOR CLASSES TO TEACH HOW TO DO IT AND ACCEPT IT. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

However, somehow I knew this thread was coming. I love to be right.:D[The Constitution] entitles people to practice homosexuality? I'm sorry, but it most certainly does not. It DOES entitle the people to freely express objection thereto, however.
And if it’s evil “just because the Bible says so,” then sin is arbitrary and does not require evil, harm, or a victim to be a sin.Where were those things when Adam and Eve sinned?
And if that’s the case, then why is remarriage not condemned in proper proportion to homosexual “behavior” by those who use 1Corinthians 6:9-11.

So why is the lesser of the two admonitions condemned disproportionately more?Probably because there aren't any militant divorced people trying shove their views down out throats, getting their views taught to children and so forth.Oh Please. Nobody's singled them out. This post is attacking Christians because they admitted they sin in some bogus survey the poster set up. Then it became all about homosexuals like everything does on this board.:rolleyes:I'm sorry I missed this three weeks ago, but you present a rather interesting justification. You're admitting that homosexuality is most certainly a sin, but since every man is a liar; you feel justified that one should be entitled to continue within the sin of which their own conscience understands they are guilty of? Don't waste your time, the devil's already been there. Probably because there aren't any militant divorced people trying shove their views down out throats, getting their views taught to children and so forth.Now those are some sweet little gems. And to think, these are attempts to refute the notion that some ‘Christians’ have a double standard when it comes to condemning homosexuals.

First take people who CAN get married and divorced and then sinfully and adulterously remarry anytime and as often as they like. Then take the people who CAN’T even get married, and-equate-the-two. Now those with rights are equal to those without rights.

Now, those without rights are “trying shove their views down out throats,” as opposed to those who already have rights and are not “trying shove their views down our throats.” That’s a quintessential strawman if I’ve EVER seen one.

But wait, it get’s better..We’re not even talking about rights, we’re talking about SIN worthy of eternal damnation!

So sin was put in the context of rights in order to avoid the entire merit of the observation of a double standard. A red herring was used to mask a strawman.

Two double standards were used in order to dishonestly appear to be acknowledging the original double standard. Do you think three wrongs make a right Bill?

Anyone who is divorced and remarried and those who have married them are openly and actively living an unrepentant adulterous lifestyle. They don’t need to shove it down your throat because you’ve already swallowed it.

Unrepentant adulterous lifestyle: Acceptable
Convinced that I was born a Homosexual: Unacceptable

A sin worthy of eternal damnation is legal, and instead of just acknowledging that you took the time to attack me and my desire for equal rights as an attack on you. Double Standard, and furthermore, shame on you.In all of this; however, you're still forgetting one thing...in order to get saved the first step is repentence. A turning from the sin and a change of the lifestyle. The desire must come from within you to do so. You're more than welcome to blame the Christian for hypocrisy if you so choose; but in the end you're still responsible for your non repentence. In the end, your anger to blame the Christian for hypocrisy is not going to matter at all; because you're still going to be held accountable for justifiying your own sin.

God will give you every available chance to turn yourself around, but if you choose not to do so; only you are going to be held accountable for it. Nobody else.(to Dan)Furthermore in my "lower than" status... for even asking or observing or noticing any wrongdoing, THE, NUMBER ONE 'CHRISTIAN' CONCERN is to BLAME me for BLAMING ALL CHRISTIANS.

Fortunately for my sanity this thread is about double standards.

We’re not talking about me Dan, we’re talking about you. But what you’ve made clear, is that I’m SO beneath you, that we’re not even allowed to talk about you.
You dismiss my relationship with Christ Jesus as being beneath that of a maggot in the name of all that is holy and Good and true and expect me to respect you as knowing better than me about that relationship? How dare you! Who are you to dismiss me as a Christian? Who gave you that right?

Nope, no double standard there at all there.Nothing in my post was passing judgment down on you. But I see that you've taken it that way. Perhaps you're not ready yet. Nate to the rescue!!!
(To Dan)YOU are judging his salvation.

How does pointing out your ludicrous hypocrisy have anything to do with his personal responsibility?These are the standards of the Word of God. If he chooses to not repent its still on his own shoulders. You're pointing out my hypocrisy? Interesting assessment, the Word of God already states man to be born to original sin, so asking whether a Christian is a liar or not is fruitless, because the Word of God already states all men to be liars.

There is one difference, however. The reflection of God's character. One who accepts Christ is going to repent of their sin and change; to know they are sinning against God and desire to continue sinning; somewhere along the lines it doesn't add up that this person has made that personal acceptance of Christ into their lives, otherwise they would have.
And this was just a snipet. Much was clarified and confronted and subsequently ignored, in between and after what I've put here. It pretty much just continues to devolve though. Again This is just a set up for what I've got to say on it next.

[Emproph]

A pattern has been clearly established.

A formula even for determining who is wrong. And more specifically because it determines HOW they are wrong.

The Name and subject matter of that thread itself was Double Standard. Or in rawer terms Hypocrisy.

Those who have been confronted with the notion of a double standard are the very ones who have not only dismissed the validity of the notion, but have also taken it as an attack on Christianity as opposed to one's character. Which is consistent with "To question me is to imply the possibility that I could be wrong." And of course, the possiblity of being wrong IS to be wrong.

The very people who are intent upon judging the sins of others are the exact people who are literally incapable of EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING any aspect of sin withing themselves in doing so.

Accuracy of judgement is not only not a priority held by those who are determined to judge, but the suggestion of inaccuracy itself is construed to be an attack.

There seems to be a direct correlation between those Christians who are intent on judging the sins of others and their own inability to judge their own sins. They seem to be absolutely incapable of self reflection or introspection, and all challenges are met with accusations of attack and expressed through the defense mechanism of projection.

Napoleon complex comes to mind, as in inferiority complex, and it seems to fit. It reminds me of my mother’s rantings during the ‘04 election, (Back when I ‘invented the wheel’). The more they can convince others that they are wrong, the more they can convince themselves that they are right. For them, “Being right” is contingent upon others being wrong.

On some level they are aware that they don’t truly know the Bible is inerrant, and being so blinded by pride, it’s losing their supremacist status that terrifies them. That’s why coadie and Dan (CARM) felt the need to start up so many new threads today, because they were aggressively challenged.

They’re trying to convince themselves that they are right, that’s how tenuous their belief in inerrancy is, and rightly so. But like I’ve said before, to acknowledge to possibility of being wrong is to fully acknowledge being COMPLETELY wrong. The subject cannot be discussed because it cannot even be acknowledged. These are truly psychologically sick people.

They will either ignore the question, accuse of attack, etc., you name the defense mechanism or logical fallacy and they will employ it in order to avoid looking within themselves. The mere act of looking within would be an admission of guilt.
__________________________

We need to start posting threads like this one that speak of them in the third person. When we engage them we are automatically dismissed, and thus our words and wisdom are never considered long enough to have any impact.

I’m thinking that if the dialogue was to revolve around them and they were not responded to, yet were being spoken about, THEN our words might actually roll around in their heads for a time.

I’ve never used the ignore feature on a forum, but what if we had a plan. Say, take this post for example. Post something like this as a thread starter and then discuss it with only those who are sympathetic and/or who really want to dialogue.

Or how about if we had a plan to only respond to each other in the post? Everyone else goes on ignore if necessary. We’d HAVE to COMMIT to doing so in order to maintain the INTEGRITY of the conversation. God that would drive them NUTS!

That would only require two people, but ignoring everyone would probably be inconvenient, not to mention the curiosity factor, so if we really wanted to get fancy about it maybe we could have a third or fourth person to respond to the others in the thread who ignore legitimate questions, or only attack etc., and do so possibly even through private messaging.

Or a third option, actually this one could work but again, it would take a STRONG STRONG COMMITMENT on our part to ONLY speak with each other in the thread. We would just respond to each other about the other comments in the thread, always with the clarifications (to each other) that we know they never respond to us and that’s why we speak of them in the third person. We could try that as an experiment here even. Something could work. :tup:
_________________________________

Those “Christians” who judge others are incapable of judging themselves. That’s a double standard on top of a double standard.

Double Double Standard
Quadruple Standard
Double Standard Squared
Hypocrisy Squared
Hypocrisy Cubed
Cubical Hypocrite

Yes that’s the one. He’s a cubical hypocrite. Not to be confused with the cubicle hypocrite who works at the office.. :D (Two different spellings)

That reminds me of the phrase “spherical ass.” As in no matter what angle you look at them from, they're still a complete ass.
__________________________

Just to be clear:
-The first double standard, for example, is railing against the ‘Biblical’ sin of homosexuality and ignoring the ‘Biblical’ sin of adultery as the result of divorce and remarriage.
-The second double standard is not acknowledging the first double standard when confronted with it.

Ergo hypocrisy squared / cubical hypocrite.

[Liberal Crozier]

Emproph,

Melvin White said it correctly. Billy Graham never spoke about homosexuality when speaking about Sodom and Gommorrah. In 1959, the Protestant Curran, an Evangelical theologian discussed the need to examine the language of original scripture and to understand the Sodom story in the light of inhospitality in the cultural sense of the time and place.

Years later, at Catholic University of America, the Catholic Jesuit Curran, a peritus, clearly agreed with his namesake's thesis published a decade or two previously.

But ironically for Papa Ratzi, his predecessor Pius XII issued the encyclical "DE AFFLUENTE SPIRITU" which clarified the contextuality of Scripture in the light of new knowledge that further reveals as opposed to an outright denial of scriptural understanding. It clearly condemns thoughtless inerrancy and sola scriptura as understood by the fundamentalists. Pius XII wrote this encyclical in 1944, shortly after the liberation of Rome from the Nazis.

Pius XII, as Archbishop Pacelli, Nuncio to Weimar Germany in the 20s was enamoured of the fascists in Italy, and he nonetheless developed into quite a Germanophile. In 1929, then Cardinal Pacelli, Secretary of State to Pius XI, ratified the treaty creating the postage stamp nation of the Vatican City State with fascist dictator Mussolini. In 1936, Cardinal Pacelli was instrumental in the Austrian Anschluss and the accomodation with the Nazis a few years later. Elected in 1939, he served until his death in 1958. His reliance upon Natural Law, Scholasticism and Tomism - that cosmological belief system initiated by the Greek pagan philosophers - has served to institutionalise the sexual theology of the Roman Catholic Church despite evidence of their errors. There have been countless victims before and after Galileo and Copernicus- many nameless individuals who suffered under theocracy of the then Papal States, most of the Italian boot under Papal control until 1870.

His successor, John Paul II (1978-2006) has been successful in silencing and castrating every liberal Catholic theologican extanct in the world today. Many choose to remain in the Roman Church despite their total rejection of the Ultrajectine and Ultramontane church he developed. Papa Ratzi's election was foretold when he removed every cardinal over the age of 70 with the right to papal election, despite the fact that he had been elected with the votes of many 80 year olds. He also retired or removed or caused the resignation of archbishops and bishops worldwide who espoused a liberal and liberating theology, and replaced and reshaped his Church into the uberconservative bastion not known since the days of Pius IX, Leo XIII and (St.) Pius X.

These theocon dominionist right wing zealots on the web are, for the most part, individuals who enjoy the Pharisitical belief that they are wholly righteous, and that like Christ, we do not obey the law, and therefore are sinful and outside the purview of a loving God. Their leaders are cynical, pragmatic, calculating and have a theocratic agenda and alliance with the unbridled capitalistic fascist.

These leaders have provided their sheeple with moral approbation to dehumanize and villify a tenth of the human race....many who believe that their faith belief system, when correctly lived in love, compassion, and with a trust that man's pilgrimage to both knowledge and change occurs when doubt and not "blessed assurance" defines their faith.

What is the purpose of gay-affirming Christian apologetics? Regardless of the faith community within it, we must speak to those antagonistic zealots with knowledge given by the Holy Spirit - hopeful replacing their absolute assurance that they possess the only truth to the faith - with sure doubt that troubles them because they know it is from the Holy Spirit.

Isn't that how every major convert to Christianity has begun his pilgrimage- from Saint Paul of Tarsus to every person who has hated and loathed themselves as well as others like him because they absolute believe the fact that all truth has been revealed, all language is immutable, and that their leaders can describe which "abominations" remain and others are forever forgotten......or that every gay or lesbian is merely a pagan temple prostitute who come out on Pride Parade days to display their wares and behaviours on a float.....and that choice implies that the natural condition of heterosexuality is universal without exception, and that God created only heterosexuals....with those who are straight because God told them too and we are gay because we choose to disobey God for carnal fleeting lust.

And all this time, I bought into scientific pyschosexuality that informs me clearly that it is libidinal attraction, and normal as Blondel says, because it is my condition and not an activity beyond it.

The worldwide web is wonderful and so is Google and so are you:love: :love: :love: . I am sure that you told them where you "live" on the web and they can come here and lurk to their heart's content.

Remember the one sheep as important as the ninety-nine others.....ministry - for Crozier over thirty-four years of service to the Lord since priestly ordination - is all about the one- to- one and the one.

[keltic63]

It is killing me to watch them destroy Christianity. They talk the Bible talk but when it comes to the fundamentals -- love one another as you love Me -- the foundations of spiritual life, of decency, are expendable in the name of defending conservatism. One's beliefs are so important that it's worth selling your soul to defend them.

Bruce Bawer Stealing Jesus If you haven't read this book, you should do it soon. It's an amazingly accurate account of what fundamentalists have done to christianity. Your point about defending conservatism and the superiority of one's beliefs over the spiritual reminded me of the things Mr. Bawer talks about in this book. This is an amazing thread. Emproph, you are one incredible thinker! James, you've made the very points they need to hear (but won't.)

Interestingly enough, the internet is where I hear these arguments. I never hear them in person, face-to-face. I am living as an out gay man in a very small conservative town. I can't think of anyone who does not know me as a gay man. Yet, I've never been confronted with any of these arguments. I teach in an elementary school in a neighboring city. I was "outted" in that community and there are some parents who know me outside of the school setting who also know that I'm gay; again, there's been no religious right protest at my classroom door. Are any of you getting this in real time? or are we dealing with a bunch of closet fundies?

[Emproph]

{Thanks Liberal's spouse, If our messages were instruments, what would they sound like? Internet Carol of the bells, how 'bout prayer of the 'bells'? :D}

Hey Dash, thanks for the compliment on UMC. I saw that the other night and it really made me feel good, but I wasn’t sure if it was you or not.

I know that you and James have read this before, but this is really what it comes down to. I’m going to generalize a bit to try and make this simplistic, and then I’m going to ramble a bit.

We all fall into 3 categories (Christian/religious or otherwise). Right, Wrong, and in-between.

For the sake of what we’re experiencing, this is what it really comes down to. (James and Dash you can skip this part)

James had four simple questions in a short but profound opening post. I think this one encapsulates the spirit of what the discourse was MEANT to be:

Why do you, personally, feel that your way of reading Scripture matches God's intent?

My response originally posted on UMC:
It depends on what our definition of God is: All Love All Powerful, All Powerful not All Love, or All Love not All Powerful. I choose the first definition.

Love is the only energy that could possibly be all powerful. It has infinite motivation -perpetually increasing heaven. It’s the only energy that can not only sustain itself but can also generate itself. It does so by sharing, the more it gives, the more it gets back, this is what we're here to learn.

(The Earth isn't just a 'school of learning', it's a 'school builders' school.)

Evil, is based on only taking, if it were a force of itself, it would be doomed to be extinquished. Love continues to share with it that it may be filled and transformed.

If God is All Powerful, why would He allow the possibility of even one doubt about His word?

With all of our different beliefs about the Bible, God obviously knew back when it was being written of all the raging controversies that surround the Bible today yet chose not to ensure that everyone who was exposed to it would come to the exact same conclusions. Certainly an easy feat for an All Powerful God, and considering that our eternal souls are at stake, certainly a motive of a God of Love.

Our idea of WHO God is determines WHY that choice was/is made.

The idea and understanding of love is universal. We all need love, to that extent it’s the one Biblical definition of God that’s not subject to interpretation.

It’s the message of Only Love Always that’s Biblically inerrant and infallible.

To the extent that scripture is viewed through this lens, so is the accuracy of its interpretation.

In regard to sin, it’s about understanding sin itself as being whatever takes away from the understanding of Only Love Always.I’ll spare you the details of the actual discourse, if you’ve gotten this far reading through all three of my in-a-row posts, then you deserve a golden keyboard.
_____________________________

The “schism” of the UMC and like kind are complete. It’s only a matter of time before they recognize that it’s already the case.

As someone whose decided that they are certain that they are right, whether they are a Christian, or a believer, or just one of the other 6 billion shmoes walking the planet... Without the IDEAL of unconditional love FIRST, There is no improvement, not to mention guaranteed propensity for corruption of mind pride.

With the IDEAL of unconditional love FIRST, no harm is the ideal. No harm equals no sin. No sin because without harm no one has been “sinned against.”

I’ve written it so many times before, I think the simplest way to put it is that, they’re like that personality-wise first, before they are inerrantist Christians. They act like their bigotry is genetic, they act like they were "born that way." And they want the "special rights" to impune us based on their chosen lifestyle behavior (religion, and interpretation of it).

Basically they're equating (select parts of) 'God's word' with OUR-WORD OF-GOD

Follow the line of projection and we find stereo-specific insight that includes among other things (about "homosexuality"):
-possession of the mind
-a lying spirit that will justify that homosexuality is not only okay, but somehow approved of by God
-All had goten themselves into something that all have found terribly difficult to get out of
-few have had the desire to reach out for spiritual assistance
-and a few more have turned their lives around and followed Christianity.

All we have to do is substitute the word homosexuality with Biblical inerrancy (or something..like that). Everything they write about us is EVERYTHING that describes them to a tee. This is literally supernatural how utterly unaware they are of their own projection, and this is happening on a mass scale.
_______________________________

Anyway, here’s our two Christians, and thus our two God's and thus our two universes...
-One judges by the ideal of the love of certainty
-One judges by the ideal of the certainty of Love.

Or as I read it the other day; The Love of the law or the law of Love. (Everyone else is in between and has not "decided" yet.. lukewarm)

Do you love the “Holy Spirit” of Love, first and above all? 'God' to us because it is the most precious or “holy” feeling or “spirit” that exists.

It’s the same argument in all the chat rooms and in all the churches and there will be no compromise. This is what they must understand.
The entire issue of schism is the quintessential Christian purpose. Especially with that woman pastor/bishop who was just elected leader. She’s ever the uniter from what I read. She gets it, it has to be 'them' who decide to leave. It has to be their decision.

No matter what, we can never give up on them. But I don’t think either side fully comprehends this unique challenge, point blank, as of yet.

The real challenge is to get the other side to realize that we’re not budging, and more importantly to get them to realize its because we’re more certain than they are.

They’re all screwed up in exactly the same way, and the church schisms are just reflective of what’s going on on the ground. (ground-level believer).

Without love FIRST there is corruption. Their “world view” is based on the idea of the ideal, not the ideal itself. The frame, not the picture. But oh what a lovely frame it is. *

Never being wrong IS perfection, ideally...

*ACIM

[keltic63]

Emproph,

here is an excellent op-ed piece describing the kind of duality of which you speak. In this article, the divide falls among those who feel compelled to follow the Great Command (love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and others as yourself) and those who believe the Great Commission takes top priority (Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.) Is there a way to bring the 2 sides together?

Read the entire piece HERE (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04039/270205.stm)

[Liberal Crozier]

Isn't it typical and predictable theocon apologetics to have one to suggest that the Great Decalogue and the Great Commission are contradictory or the latter has precedence, and to conclude syllogistically that ergo, their institutionalised and "theologically supported" homophobia is part of the Great Commissionary activity of their sects.

I have never used the terms "cult and sect" arbitrarily or often when speaking about Christian groups. However, these Dominionists fit the description accurately. In any theological discipline, they stretch the envelope, and in areas of moral theology and escatological theology, their views are, to be charitable, unique in description.

My answer is that both the GD and the GC are consistent with our belief system as LGBT Christians. Our problem is not with either Divine pronouncement, but with the interpretation that these Dominionists provide in terms of the OT and NT proscriptions about the definition of the Christian LGBT person and his monogamous marriage and raising of children in the Christian faith in a gay-affirming faith community. The same rings true today with the toxic papacy of Papa Ratzi in the Roman Catholic Church trying to spin away from the paedophile scandals that both impoverished them in terms of their theological wars with the Dominionists who are making inroads everywhere with cultural and nominal Catholics, to say nothing of the land and money lost in paying legal judgements worldwide.

We Soulforce and other LGBT Christians know the reply to Dominionists about the OT proscriptions in the Holiness Code. The mission is to repeat it, and repeat it, and repeat it often.....do not assume that everyone knows our side. Talk about the Pauline Proscriptions.....talk about them.....talk about how words change meaning throughout the centuries. Heck, my 92-year old mother was a "HOT TOMATO" - my late father's favourite expression of endearment. Pagan temple prostitute is not an accurate description of myself or of you.

Please understand that the resonance to the Dominionists about homosexuality and choice and behaviour definitions is that their leaders were once American racists and bigots who used Scripture to justify their ban on interracial marriage and racial hatred and bigotry. They denied earlier the existence of souls in the Negro race. That was their initial premise in order to deny them human rights.

With Communism and Racism gone, we were the only oppressed minority around which to marshall the sheeple and gain political and economic resources in the bargain. Their leaders know the truth, it is just that the truth has no economic, political or religious payback.

So, keep on telling your spiritual story, and keep on keeping it simply about the truths enunciated in all the good stories told by our leader, Dr. Melvin White.

This is Liberal Crozier, and it is time for me to go to the Oncology Centre for a WBC booster and some IV fluids. Will be back later, My Apostolic blesssing and may the Holy Spirit enlighten you when you communicate with these misguided sheeple.

[Emproph]

Just one more to cinch it off for the evening, and I still have to go back up and read some. ;)

As soon as I read James' post, within two minutes or so, I knew I had to act, three very long times (plus this one :D).

If you like this next one though you might want to give this little site a poke around.

A couple paragraphs from his article:

The Epistle of Thomas to the Creationists (http://www.incentre.net/tcantine/epistle.html)

I need not elaborate on these and other moral dangers of atheism, except to say that while they are real they are in no way inevitable. In any case, my intention here is to point out the somewhat more subtle dangers of pride and idolatry to which theists, and creationists in particular, are especially vulnerable. This is not, of course, to say that persons of such faith are any more inevitably guilty of these sins than anyone else, but rather that there are unique moral hazards against which they are peculiarly obliged to guard. Christianity is, after all, no more a shelter from moral responsibility than is atheism; indeed, Christians must take it upon themselves to be doubly vigilant to avoid doing evil.

Herein lies the most obvious moral danger of religious faith. In taking themselves to be guided by divinely ordained commandments, theists may be tempted to relax the rigor with which they scrutinize their actions, and are thus capable of the most unspeakable atrocities. That is, secure in the faith that God wills a certain course of action, they may be prepared to disregard any suggestion (even from their own consciences) that this may not in fact be the morally correct thing to do. This is not to say that God may on occasion will us to do immoral things, but rather that we may, as fallible humans, sometimes be misled about exactly what it is that God expects of us. Unfortunately, it is also often a tenet of faith that to question God is itself an immoral act, and so it can become especially difficult to correct a moral error once it has been made on these grounds. This is because the difference between questioning a command of God and questioning one's own understanding of that command is a subtle one, not at all easily recognized, and harder yet when any doubt is seen as weakness of faith and therefore sinful in itself.

[dewdrop_world]

Thanks to everyone for posting. I do feel calmer now.

I'm at work now so I can't write much, but I did want to give a special shout out to Liberal Crozier. I'm lacking in my knowledge of church history, and your perspective on recent developments in my native faith is wonderful, clear and conscientious.

I haven't offered my support yet on your medical treatments, but I'm with you in spirit. God speed.
James

[Liberal Crozier]

Dear James,

If you feel calmer after reading these threads from your brothers and sisters, please add me to the list. You are truly a gifted person, Dr. James.

Your combination of ancient and modern tools to create calming music was one of the best "treatments" that I received today. A huge thank you for being an integral part of my recovery regimen.

I played your music during prayer and meditation period this afternoon after your posting.

I wish you both Love and Peace.........+LC

[Emproph]

That says it all keltic, that article was perfect. Did you just have that lying around?

Plus it wasn't said by me, a 'lowly depraved homo' whose word should be automatically dismissed out of hand...

[Daniel]

At 25, I began reading about contemplative prayer and meditation. The orientation in meditation is to stop, slow down and see clearly. By looking carefully at what is going on right now, and observing the mind's tendency to interpret everything in one way or another, we learn that these interpretations actually cause us to suffer--from wanting things we don't have or clinging to things we do have (or the converse, fearing things that might come into our life or that are already there).

And then things started to click. What if I could live in the middle of God's creation and see things as they are, instead of on my terms? In answer to the question of how to pray without imposing human visions on God, the answer came through with blazing clarity: JUST BE. After nearly 11 years, while I know I have a long way yet to go, I also feel more deeply connected with God than any other time in my life.

James- the nuance and content of your statement resonate strongly with me. And I admire your ability- and patience- to go where angels fear to tread and see great wisdom in, as you put it, "teasing out humanity." It is this approach, and level of engagement, that is so sorely needed now.

[suzer1013]

James --

I, for one, am so glad of your presence (and others here -- Emproph, Dash, Keltic, Nate, and anyone else I've missed) on the UMC boards. Your posts are consistently loving, kind, respectful, thought-provoking and challenging. I am definitely learning some lessons from you on how to engage people in a loving way, rather than a divisive one.

I haven't had much time to post on these boards or the UMC ones lately -- life has just been too busy. But I read what I can when I can, and I am always moved by your offerings, and want to thank you for your wisdom and kindness.

Susan

[dewdrop_world]

You know, something interesting happened over there. After I took a chap who goes by the handle of "true to him" to task for completely distorting the meaning of the Methodist social principles, and then posting the message I quoted earlier in response to a different fellow...

Neither one of them replied.

This makes really clear an aspect of the social dynamic I hadn't seen before -- basically, this is bullying behavior. Because when bullies are challenged, their wings clipped a bit -- rather like the dog whisperer on TV (isn't he cute, by the way) -- they slink away. And, if you read the last few posts on the "use of scripture" thread, it's obvious that when the bullies are not dominating the discussion, it's actually starting to be productive.

So in the end, all this is empowering. !!

Thanks again for the support --
James

[keltic63]

James --

I, for one, am so glad of your presence (and others here -- Emproph, Dash, Keltic, Nate, and anyone else I've missed) on the UMC boards. Your posts are consistently loving, kind, respectful, thought-provoking and challenging. I am definitely learning some lessons from you on how to engage people in a loving way, rather than a divisive one.

I haven't had much time to post on these boards or the UMC ones lately -- life has just been too busy. But I read what I can when I can, and I am always moved by your offerings, and want to thank you for your wisdom and kindness.

Susan

I haven't been there for a while, but thanks for mentioning me. It seems like my summer is jam-packed with fun as well as somber things to do. I feel like I haven't had much time to post well-thought responses in any of the forums I visit.

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

Guys,

It seems that the theme of this thread was very important. It speaks to an essential strategy that the LGBT faith community must contribute to the commonweal and our struggle for human and civil rights.

I guess for a guy like me, more a victim of religion than someone who runs to church on rotations anywhere on earth I happen to be, the spiritual thing is important because I don't buy those who use the Bible as a weapon with which to browbeat me into sub-human status.

I just read pages upon pages of great stuff....and then some fluff, and even some thank yous and love-ins, great....but the main stuff should be bumped back up. IMHO:love:

[Emproph]

I just read pages upon pages of great stuff....and then some fluff, and even some thank yous and love-ins, great....but the main stuff should be bumped back up. IMHO:love: I’m not sure what you mean by the main stuff, but after blogging there (UMC) and on other boards, I think that the article keltic provided encapsulates the situation.

But I think that it’s the lack of awareness of the distinctions that are made in this article that are causing so much confusion within the debates, be they on the church hierarchal level or just we “wee” bloggers talking.

Did you read it? I’d be interested to know what specifically you think should be “bumped back up” outside of it or in relation to it. :)

I guess what I think is, that if both sides truly understood that neither side was going to budge and more importantly why, that it would eliminate a lot of confusion and speed things up a bit. Not in the faster sense necessarily but more in the efficient sense. Even if the splits occur, knowing of their inevitability I think would make the process much more acceptable, and to that extent, easier. And vice versa, if they don’t split and struggle to stay unified, at least they would have a better understanding of the difficulty in doing so. The difficulties themselves would be made easier just by understanding the nature of the difficulty.

Anyway, in case you missed it, here’s the piece again.Emproph,

here is an excellent op-ed piece describing the kind of duality of which you speak. In this article, the divide falls among those who feel compelled to follow the Great Command (love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and others as yourself) and those who believe the Great Commission takes top priority (Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.) Is there a way to bring the 2 sides together?

Read the entire piece HERE (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04039/270205.stm)

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

Let us agree to disagree:cool: Not about Keltic's posting of an op-ed, but my original thought on this thread. It sounded a bit abraisive, but I know that you are a fine Christian guy :pray: :love:

[Emproph]

Let us agree to disagree:cool: Not about Keltic's posting of an op-ed, but my original thought on this thread. It sounded a bit abraisive, but I know that you are a fine Christian guy :pray: :love:It did sound a bit abrasive and I apologize for that. I actually got in on this conversation a bit late but I went back and re-read the beginning of the thread.

It seems to me the theme revolved around how to communicate with those who are, for lack of a better term, ‘die hard Bible bigots,’ which is obviously a necessary thing to know how to address effectively. Is that what you were referring to as far as ‘bumped back up?’

I’m all for agreeing to disagree, but I have to know what we’re disagreeing on first. I genuinely do want to know more specifically what struck you as being of value here. You’re post left me kind of hanging in that sense, maybe that’s why I came across as abrasive, my mind was racing and this subject cuts to the heart of what is most important to me.

I’m always trying to see the overview of things, so that’s my forte,’ but that’s not to say that confronting people on a simple one to one rational basis should be abandoned, I think my goal is trying to integrate the two perspectives in as practical way as possible that can be communicated. :)

[Emproph]

(Here's how the thought process went)
if you truely feel the bible is so corrupt and unreliable, why then do you read it, or maybe you dont. either would explain how you come to the conclusions you do.
-Correct, but there is a difference.
-Why would I choose one over the other?
-Because only one can include the other.
-That’s what makes it superior.

In a raw sense, appeal to their selfish interest.

Witness to the point of making admitting you were wrong, all along, infinitely more glamourous than “being right.”

We have to glamourize the idea if "being WRONG."

C'mon people, If anybody can do thiss....

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Seems we got some folks upset that some of us Soulforcer's have "invaded" the UMC boards. There was even a threat to send Exodus our way to gang up on us!

I just want to point out that this thread began out of one person's genuine concern and love for the United Methodist Church and her pain at the anti-gay rhetoric coming from part of it--especially on the UMC boards.

I love the UMC, too, and I am tenacious in maintaining my membership despite the hostility from many United Methodists. I just hope that we can all remain as calm and centered as we face the hostility over there, and by "we," I mean especially me!

Let's help each other out by reminding one another to avoid sarcasm or any form of violence of "heart, tongue or fist." I believe we can appeal to people's better natures, even if sometimes they react angrily.

Dash, you are doing a great job! I think you are on the right track arguing that a consistent Christian feminism must embrace equality for LGBT persons.

Steven Webster

[suzer1013]

I haven't been able to bring myself to the UMC boards in a while. Steven, you are correct that this was spurred from my genuine love and concern for the UMC -- and I really don't know why I care so much. I guess I just can't believe the UMC still hosts those boards when there is so much going on there that is toxic. Which is the reason I haven't been there lately. I find my heart is heavy and laden with sadness when I read over there, and I find an anger in my heart that I can't shake off for hours after being there. It's too bad, because that site could really be something to feed the soul, if it were not abused so by the few that spew anti-gay rhetoric.

From what I've seen there in the past, though, our Soulforcers have done a wonderful job trying to keep the conversation civil. I may get the strength to mosey on over there soon and see what's been going on.

Blessings....

Susan

[suzer1013]

OK, I gathered my courage and went over there. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I'm still glad, though, that I left the UMC. I loved my little church, but after three years there, and hearing the larger UMC's anti-gay rhetoric ad nauseum, I just couldn't stay. It saddens me, because I really thought the UMC was different and a refreshing change when I first joined.

Of course, out of the frying pan and into the fire, I moved my membership back to the Episcopal church.

Susan

[BruceChris]

I like it.

Now, as for "our illustrious, warmongering, gay-hating, chimp-smirking, war-profiteering, lying, slack-jawed, Manchurian candidate failure of a President", why don't you let loose and tell us how you really feel?

Yeah, Suzer, tell us how you really feel!

Hey, Suzer, I hear that there are some REALLY interesting things going on in the Episcopalian church. Never a dull moment. Still, I hear that you are in GOOD hands. Check it out.

http://www.episcopal-life.org/26769_73917_ENG_HTM.htm

Peace and Love, well, Most of the time, Chris

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,
Below is my entry this evening on the UMC boards. I believe Soulforce folks there have been trying to do the right thing, but seem now to be driven away by someone who feels she has "exposed" the "soulforce crew" who she seems to feel have no business being on the UMC boards. I'm not saying she's a bad person, but she does play "hard ball." Anyway, I'm not willing to be driven away. Below is my first big entry on the UMC board. I appreciate your comments. And, by the way, our discussion here is now under observation by people from the United Methodist Board--let's be hospitable, honest and open, as always.
Steven Webster

-----------------
POSTED ON THE UMC BOARD at UMC.org IN THE THREAD TITLED "GAY MARRIAGE" IN THE CATEGORY "THE CHURCH AND POLITICAL/SOCIAL ISSUES."
----------------
B.

I do not doubt your sincerity, nor do I believe you are unChristian.

I do believe that you have questioned the sincerity and motivations of those on this discussion board who have found a home in Soulforce that they have not been able to find in the United Methodist or other mainline (not to mention evangelical) churches. Some of the Soulforce members seem now to be withdrawing. I have no intention of withdrawing.

As I've said before, I am a United Methodist and a member of Soulforce. We believe that the United Methodist Church and others are committing the sin of spiritual violence against lesbians and gays. This is how Soulforce defines "spiritual violence."

What is Spiritual Violence?

Spiritual violence is the misuse of religion to sanction the condemnation and rejection of any of God's children. Misusing religion and/or God to support society's bias against sexual and gender minorities also inappropriately justifies psychological, legal and physical violence against them. Some zealots blatantly articulate spiritual violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people when they scream "God Hates Fags."

Mainline churches may be less blatant and more sophisticated, but they are no less guilty of spiritual violence. It is just as violent spiritually when pastors and parents--quoting scripture--condemn and reject members of their congregation and their family. When this happens, God's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender children also feel condemned and rejected by their Creator as well.

On September 1st I will be legally married in the Province of Ontario to my same-gender partner of over 25 years. Together we raised two young daughters to successful adulthood, and we are proud grandparents of a beautiful little girl. Yet, in the name of Christ, Christians campaign to deny our legal right to marry. It appears now that a majority on the United Methodist Judicial Council would support my expulsion from membership in the United Methodist Church for the "immorality" of marrying my life-companion. This is spiritual violence.

I know right now that you, B., and I are adversaries when it comes to this issue. Hopefully, on other issues, we can be allies. I believe we are both seeking the truth, that neither of us knows the whole truth, and that together we stand a better chance of coming near the truth than we have apart from one another.

I am asking for nothing more than equality for lesbian and gay persons, and that our relationships be honored and respected legally and in the church on the same basis and terms as the marriages of heterosexual persons. If married heterosexuals can be ordained, than married homosexuals should be ordained. I'm not asking for "special privileges" only equality. To deny us equality is to deny we are humans in the "image of God."

Scripture for it? Galatians 3:28

Steven E. Webster

[Daniel]

As I've said before, I am a United Methodist and a member of Soulforce. We believe that the United Methodist Church and others are committing the sin of spiritual violence against lesbians and gays.

Steven, I went 'over there' yesterday and read the gay marriage thread much talked about here. Strong stuff. Kudos to you all.

What stands out to me is the word sin above. And this may be my own concern as regards the word, but the accusation (is that too strong a word here?) characterizes the discussion in such a way as to make it very hard to deal with. Of course, the other side could be said to have this point of view as well: gay people are sinning by being sexually active (though I am not 'up' on what the UMC consider 'sin'.) If this is a matter of using UMC's own language and statements in response, well that says something in itself I suppose. But the word troubles me because it carries the onus of condemnation. A 'mistake' might be a better way to characterize matters.

Mistakes can be corrected. Sins? Well. They set up a whole other order of difficulty. Though, there is an irony here. From statements made 'over there', this view will undoubtedly be seen as being 'new agey". No room to wiggle in perhaps, not even for them. Gee. A black and white world is hard to live in. Give me colour. The whole rainbow.

[suzer1013]

Steven -- that is an excellent post, and I thank you for it.

As for Soulforce members posting on the UMC boards -- well, there are members of the UMC boards that are also professed members/contributors of the IRD and Good News movements. And I strongly suspect some of the most vehement anti-gay posters on the UMC boards are not United Methodists either. Quite a bit of the rhetoric that I've read over there is much more fundamentalist/Southern Baptist type speech than I've ever encountered within the UMC. And since their boards are open to everyone, even non-Christians, I don't see why it would be any problem that there are a handful of people who are also members of Soulforce who choose to post on the UMC boards. And, you are an example of a Soulforce member who is also United Methodist, and until recently, I was a United Methodist also.

So, I don't see what the problem would be, other than we are considered "homosexual activists", which is considered a derogatory slander to those who disagree with us.

I lurked on the UMC boards long before I ever found the Soulforce boards, and I was consistently dismayed by the posts that the UMC allows to remain on those boards -- some are so vile and hateful toward GLBT folks (not to mention the racist and anti-immigrant threads that have been allowed to remain), that I wonder who is actually moderating the boards, if anyone is at all. Reading some of the posts there has been so hurtful to me, so painful, that I will admit it is part (though only part) of what led me to leave the UMC. I kept thinking, if this is what the UMC allows on its public message boards, what will they allow in their churches?

Thank you, Steven, for your offerings here at Soulforce and over on the UMC boards.

And, I hope we get to see some pictures of the wedding! An early congratulations to you and your partner! :love:

Susan

[Dash]

Friends,
Below is my entry this evening on the UMC boards. I believe Soulforce folks there have been trying to do the right thing, but seem now to be driven away by someone who feels she has "exposed" the "soulforce crew" who she seems to feel have no business being on the UMC boards. I'm not saying she's a bad person, but she does play "hard ball." Anyway, I'm not willing to be driven away. Below is my first big entry on the UMC board. I appreciate your comments. And, by the way, our discussion here is now under observation by people from the United Methodist Board--let's be hospitable, honest and open, as always.
Steven Webster



Man, I am so "worky worky" this week that it is hard to keep up with the excitement of UMC Forumizing.

Steven, I think that any administrative moderation/observation that can be encouraged over there will only enhance the atmosphere. As far as leaving the discussion...I kept running scenarios in my mind, and I could only imagine that I would make B angrier and angrier and drive her away. B's double standard that is so obvious to me and others is so central to the issue that I feel it would have to be successfully addressed. To that end I would need to "bulldog" her into submission--or, to put it another way, treat her like a dog and rub her nose in her mess. I can't do that to her. She and I have had some wonderful discussions, and wherever I go, I tend to try to seed familial connections. At this point, I believe her to be genuinely unaware of the contradiction...otherwise it really would be a case of blatant insincerity on her part.

Saturday night I sat across the dinner table from a conservative friend that I have mentioned before (whether here or over at UMC I don't remember). I held my tongue as he proclaimed himself a moderate while using some of the most abusive and demeaning language toward gays--regarding his very own aunt and one of his cousins--that I have ever tolerated. Never mind that his (supposedly respected) gay friend was the recipient of his bloodcurdling affirmation of kindness toward them. He doesn't understand why almost all of his classmates avoid him. "You ever notice how that guy won't talk to me?" he says.

Yes, I have noticed.

It is because the reality of his behavior bears no resemblance to his self-concept. This does not mean he's not sincere. He genuinely seeks the welfare of his gay family members and his gay friend...and he uses such words that I can barely look at him. As if a spray of feces was coming out of his mouth.

In the context of the restaurant, I could not respond. He's extremely loud, and an emotionally tempestuous man...in some cases it has been emotionally violent, though never to me. His "love" was born of a drunk abusive father who left his mom and him to fend for themselves. I hang around, because I feel someone's gotta try to love him.

In the same way, conservative Christian "love" is very often abusive to its recipient. Just like get_unlost, they don't see what they are doing. They are blind to it, because they've never been any other way.

As I was leaving the UMC Forums last night I saw that there were a couple brand new vicious voices showing up. I'm content to leave that rout of wolves to its own company. Eventually, I think B will realize the cruelty of her companions there. She does not behave like them, but she cannot repudiate their unchristian behavior because they would turn on her. Frankly, I think they will eventually turn on her anyway. She has too many liberal tendencies. And, yes, I think we should withdraw our kind, patient, and thoughtful presence. All that will be left will be the barking and gnawing of the pack, but let us not be gnawed upon, nor feed their rage.

Just my thoughts now...

[Zerbie]

Wow. Dash. Wow.

with regard to your "friend. . ." er. . .please tell me there is something positive that you get out of hanging around this person? It sounds like the only reason you even talk to him is b/c "someone" should try to love him. ? Are you getting nothing back from this friendship but the metaphorical "feces" spraying out his mouth? You deserve far more caring friends than that Dash. you deserve 3-D friends who completely respect all aspects of who you are and who love YOU back. Who you feel happy around, and not this "have to bite my tongue" stuff.

[Blossom]

Hi, guys (term meant inclusively!),

I am "B." from the UMC boards. I thought it would be good to actually introduce myself to you and maybe get past the obvious aspect that we don't agree on some important issues. So, maybe let's just start off as human beings rather than jumping into our more specific identities (liberal, conservative, heterosexual, homosexual).

I am the mom of 2 beautiful children. My daughter is 3 1/2 and my son is 1 1/2. I am an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, although I grew up in non-denominational churches and attended a Southern Baptist University (an interesting--but good--experience for a woman going into ministry!). My husband is also ordained in the UMC. We spent three years after seminary pastoring at two different churches in TX. We made a big move last year, however, to allow my husband to pursue a Ph.D. in Old Testament.

I couldn't help but notice all the music folk here. I majored in Church Music in college, but came up one credit short of the degree (Senior Recital--a pretty major credit!). I just had a difficult time making the shift from singing the Southern Gospel alto that I grew up with to singing classical soprano (oh, how I wished I could sing with operatic vibrato like the other sopranos!). Thankfully, I had (re)found my calling to ministry and finished with a degree in Religion. However, I do still wish that I could sing "O, Holy Night" as it ought to be sung. Oh, and I directed music for a year at a Disciples of Christ Church (I think I read that keltic serves a Disciples Church).

As those who have visited or taken part on the UMC board already know, I am a conservative Christian feminist (although I am slow to use the word feminist because of the confusion over the spectrum it can entail). I repeat here what I have said on the UMC board, a conservative Methodist is not the same thing as a conservative Baptist. A conservative Baptist is a fundamentalist. The view that I have concerning both the role of women and the issue of homosexuality is quite in line with the official stance of my denomination. All that makes me different from most of the Methodist pastors you meet (assuming they support our church's doctrines and principles) is that I am more outspoken concerning women's issues. And with that, I have only done so at the UMC board because no one else would!

I have pastored and preached regularly for 4 years now, and have never preached specifically on the right of women to enter ministry or on the issue of homosexuality. It has been a personal decision that has stemmed from my observation that much groundwork needs to be laid in how to interpret Scripture and how to love God and neighbor in order for these issues to be successfully addressed. Some would venture into these issues earlier, but I am just a little more cautious. Plus, concerning the issue women in ministry, I am sure that my very presence behind a pulpit is enough for some folks to handle!

I will try to address a few issues that have been brought up recently. I will do my best to express my thoughts in a way that you will be able to--and willing to--hear. I realize that our vocabularies and what we feel is acceptable and unacceptable sometimes differ. But I'm going to give it a shot. I officially express my thanks to dewdrop and dash for the kindness they have shown over at UMC and for their creativity, questioning, and intellect.

Sincerely,
Blossom

[suzer1013]

Welcome, Blossom! It is nice to see you here, and I've enjoyed reading your conversations with Dash and James on the UMC boards. I hope you will enjoy it here on the Soulforce boards as much as I have. This has been a place of worship (of a kind) for me, a place of togetherness and comraderie, and also of spirited conversation.

Another musician!?!? I think we can start our own choir pretty soon! :sing: We might have to haggle over the hymns, though -- Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, etc. -- perhaps we could do one of each. :)

Blessings...

Susan

[Daniel]

Saturday night I sat across the dinner table from a conservative friend that I have mentioned before (whether here or over at UMC I don't remember). I held my tongue as he proclaimed himself a moderate while using some of the most abusive and demeaning language toward gays--regarding his very own aunt and one of his cousins--that I have ever tolerated. Never mind that his (supposedly respected) gay friend was the recipient of his bloodcurdling affirmation of kindness toward them. He doesn't understand why almost all of his classmates avoid him. "You ever notice how that guy won't talk to me?" he says.

Yes, I have noticed.

It is because the reality of his behavior bears no resemblance to his self-concept. This does not mean he's not sincere. He genuinely seeks the welfare of his gay family members and his gay friend...and he uses such words that I can barely look at him. As if a spray of feces was coming out of his mouth.

In the context of the restaurant, I could not respond. He's extremely loud, and an emotionally tempestuous man...in some cases it has been emotionally violent, though never to me. His "love" was born of a drunk abusive father who left his mom and him to fend for themselves. I hang around, because I feel someone's gotta try to love him.

In the same way, conservative Christian "love" is very often abusive to its recipient. Just like get_unlost, they don't see what they are doing. They are blind to it, because they've never been any other way.



Dash- sorry to have to endure this man's tirade! I think you touch on something elemental here: the degree to which our 'story line' drives each of us. I'm just concerned that the guy gets to 'feed off' your love. I agree with Zerbie- who's taking care of Dash?

An idea: how about write the guy a letter? You are eloquent my friend. Sometimes we have to tell each other when we're spewing pooh pooh. As someone wrote here (I wish I could remember who), compassion is not a feeling, but an action. Telling him (though frightening and perhaps odious) would be doing the guy a HUGE favor. He may not like it. And he doesn't have to. But hopfully, he will be able to hear the message (and not take his frustration out on the messenger!)

[Zerbie]

Well hello!! Welcome, Blossom. Thank you for your introduction. You seem like one who stands in the middle of several opposing viewpoints (forces?). I only visited the UMC boards once briefly, out of curiosity, and didn't encounter your posts, that I recall. It sounds like you have been having some serious talks with Dash and Dewdrop, and like there is a good degree of mutual respect there. That's good. I'm happy that you came over here to meet us, too. :)

Hmm, feminist? Wow. I stopped calling myself a feminist once I hit college since I found the campus feminists were wayyyyyy too far to the left for me. Wait til ya get to know me, Blossom, and you'll appreciate the frightening irony of that one!

I LOVE O Holy Night!!! Of the seasonal songs, that is my absolute ahnds-down all-time favorite!! It is so wonderful for a classical voice, luscious and gorgeous and - oh my!!! Just love it! Let me sing it in E flat, please.

Seriously, Blossom, I can't thank you enough for coming over here to say hello and meet us. I look forward to hearing of your views, and finding out what you and Dash and Dewdrop have been arguing about, and apparently in such a mature, caring, respectful way. Perhaps we might want a new thread, since this one is already such a monster?

Anyway, really. Thanks, B. I hope you'll feel welcome here.

[Dash]

Wow. Dash. Wow.

with regard to your "friend. . ." er. . .please tell me there is something positive that you get out of hanging around this person? It sounds like the only reason you even talk to him is b/c "someone" should try to love him. ? Are you getting nothing back from this friendship but the metaphorical "feces" spraying out his mouth? You deserve far more caring friends than that Dash. you deserve 3-D friends who completely respect all aspects of who you are and who love YOU back. Who you feel happy around, and not this "have to bite my tongue" stuff.

Well, Zerbie...I take as my guide in this instance the prayer of St. Francis: It is better "to love, than to be loved." I hope am improved by my attempts to love him and include him in my life. There is great benefit to me in that. Professionally, he and I are genuinely admiring of each other, and I enjoy talking shop with him. He's a young Wagnerian tenor, which accounts for his sizable speaking voice, and a laugh that can be heard four floors away. He is a good guy, there's no question. He just has some really rough edges. :cool:

Here, I shall tell you one of the worst sins of my life...

Once when I was at Astronomy Camp...

(no really...)

There were 7 or 10 of us in Lawerence, KS for a week looking at stars and becoming friends. U2's song "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" was on the charts, and I saw Val Kilmer for the first time in "Real Genius." Towards the end of the week, we hopped on a bus along with the Debate Campers, and Cheerleading Campers, and campers of other camps, and went to Kansas City for a day at Worlds of Fun.

We had just gotten into the park and the whisper came my way that we were going to start running and leave the fat kid behind, cause nobody wanted to spend the whole day with him dragging along. I knew the idea was awful, but I was so in love with my new friends. When they took off, I was torn in two--caught between spending the day alone with the fat kid or frolicking with my compadres. I am left with the vivid memory of standing on the street looking back at the fat kid...looking after my departing friends...and running.

I will never leave the fat kid behind again.

Ugh!!!:sick:

..........

Howdy Blossom! :love: What a pretty flower you got in your hair!!

[JAAAAMMMIEEEE!!!! I need some kind of flowry hippie-like smiley icon thingy!!!! I been wantin' one all week! Can we get one of those? Sometime? Pleeeeeeeaaseee? Pretty please with dark chocolate hershey's kisses on top? ]

Blossom, did you ever know Sheila Walsh (http://www.sheilawalsh.com/home/home.php)'s music? I used to watch her on the 700 Club every day.:eek: She is completely responsible for teaching me that God loved me. One of these days I need to personally thank her for that. She was operatically trained and then did contemporary Christian stuff. I have long since given away all my Christian music, but I still hear some of her songs in my head now and then.

[Dash]

Dash- sorry to have to endure this man's tirade! I think you touch on something elemental here: the degree to which our 'story line' drives each of us. I'm just concerned that the guy gets to 'feed off' your love. I agree with Zerbie- who's taking care of Dash?

An idea: how about write the guy a letter? You are eloquent my friend. Sometimes we have to tell each other when we're spewing pooh pooh. As someone wrote here (I wish I could remember who), compassion is not a feeling, but an action. Telling him (though frightening and perhaps odious) would be doing the guy a HUGE favor. He may not like it. And he doesn't have to. But hopfully, he will be able to hear the message (and not take his frustration out on the messenger!)

Fear not, Daniel...I have some wondermous people in my life. As far as telling him...well, trust me, there've been numerous conversations to that effect from many good people. He's heard it, but change is slow. He has made some progress since I first met him. Actually, he has read my much-languishing yahoo 360 blog, and made a point of telling me how much it touched him.

:love:

[Steven E. Webster]

Blossom,

Welcome to the Soulforce board! I wish you the best. I sense that you are used to stretching and growing experiences, and that you have fresh perspectives to share.

I won't claim to be anything such as a musician, but I read music and have enjoyed singing from time to time in church choir as a baritone. I love the old four-part hymns, and I'm dismayed, to some extent, when the pianist or organist chooses to improvise and rob us non-treble singers of the opportunity of reading the harmony parts.

Are you in a position to preach every Sunday? That's something I've longed for, but will likely never experience. Do you find it challenging? growing? constricting?

Well, anyway, welcome!

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Steven, I went 'over there' yesterday and read the gay marriage thread much talked about here. Strong stuff. Kudos to you all.

What stands out to me is the word sin above. And this may be my own concern as regards the word, but the accusation (is that too strong a word here?) characterizes the discussion in such a way as to make it very hard to deal with. Of course, the other side could be said to have this point of view as well: gay people are sinning by being sexually active (though I am not 'up' on what the UMC consider 'sin'.) If this is a matter of using UMC's own language and statements in response, well that says something in itself I suppose. But the word troubles me because it carries the onus of condemnation. A 'mistake' might be a better way to characterize matters.

Mistakes can be corrected. Sins? Well. They set up a whole other order of difficulty. Though, there is an irony here. From statements made 'over there', this view will undoubtedly be seen as being 'new agey". No room to wiggle in perhaps, not even for them. Gee. A black and white world is hard to live in. Give me colour. The whole rainbow.

Daniel, thank you for your observations. I did deliberately select the word "sin"--but I find your perspective worth considering. I certainly did not intend to make a big "theological" point with it. I meant "sin" with a small "s" and not a big "S." The words that come to my mind would be from the Presbyterian version of the Lord's Prayer: "forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us." In the United Methodist Church, I'm used to the old Book of Common Prayer language "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." (Maybe "trespass" is a little more like "mistake," but what Jesus says in this prayer applies to "sin" too.)

I suppose that many believe that "sin" is only an offense against God--or that it refers only to an awful theological state of horrible alienation from God. The Lord's prayer, it seems to me, cuts it down to size. "Sin" is what we do to our neighbor (or our "enemy") anytime we fail to do the loving thing. The Lord's prayer tells us not to get hung up on judgement, but teaches us to develop a forgiving attitude, because God's attitude is one of forgiveness. If anything is going to get us in trouble with God, Jesus seems to say, it's going to be our refusal to forgive.

My Greek teacher tells me the Greek word for "forgive" that Jesus uses has the sense of "to free," "to unbind," or "to let go."

Thanks for your feedback--I'll try to be more reflective and careful on how I use that word "sin." We (and that "we" includes "I" most of all) need to be careful not to get too "hooked" by our adversaries, 'cuz in the end, we got to forgive them, for our own sakes and Christ's sake. I believe that's the Soulforce way as well as the way of Jesus (and Buddha and Gandhi and King et. al). Some will say that's "New Agey," but maybe so was Jesus "New Agey."

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

I couldn't help but notice all the music folk here. I majored in Church Music in college, but came up one credit short of the degree (Senior Recital--a pretty major credit!). I just had a difficult time making the shift from singing the Southern Gospel alto that I grew up with to singing classical soprano (oh, how I wished I could sing with operatic vibrato like the other sopranos!). Thankfully, I had (re)found my calling to ministry and finished with a degree in Religion. However, I do still wish that I could sing "O, Holy Night" as it ought to be sung. Oh, and I directed music for a year at a Disciples of Christ Church (I think I read that keltic serves a Disciples Church).


Welcome Blossom.

Yes. There are quite a few of us singers hanging around this forum. I'm an opera singer and voice teacher. And of course, the latter occupation makes me want to encourage you to keep working for your goal of singing O, Holy Night". Working on your technique and finding the right 'key' is, or course, par for the course! I've known quite a few people with 'talent' who amounted to very little and others who worked like the tortise and got where they wanted to go: they just never gave up.

The old Italian voice teachers said that increasing the range (and the piece you are interested in singing is range-y isn't it?) of the voice is like trying to stretch leather: it has to be done slowly and with deliberate, steady action. I think this has much to say about matters of perception as well as faith.

No one sees across to the next ridge until they've climbed the mountain and gotten the full view.

(May I humbly offer a few pointers towards your goal? If not helpful, please ignore!

Operatic singing could be said to be 'refined yelling'. It helps to think about 'calling' on the Italian vowel 'Ah'- that is- speaking. And when I say 'call', I mean the kind of sound you make when trying to be heard across a busy street. A deep, resonant sound. it doesn't have to be loud, just big- at least- it will seem big to you when it's done well. You will find that the larynx descends a little bit and you'll have a sense of a 'dome' or 'arch' in the back of the mouth. Without this, you really will be yelling. The Italian 'ah' has a lot of 'face' in it, or as they say in old singing terms, is highly 'placed' In fact the whole head, throat and upper chest resounds with sound. Your 'vibrato' will come eventually if you commit to this kind of 'tonal placement' and let it fly. The 'ah' is at the bottom of the throat which feels 'wide'. They call this 'open throat'. One keeps to this orientation, or 'singing position', for all the other vowels.)

So- Are you really a soprano you think? Or a 'Mezzo'? There are many types you know. And not every speaks in the same 'register'.

[Daniel]

Fear not, Daniel...I have some wondermous people in my life. As far as telling him...well, trust me, there've been numerous conversations to that effect from many good people. He's heard it, but change is slow. He has made some progress since I first met him. Actually, he has read my much-languishing yahoo 360 blog, and made a point of telling me how much it touched him.

:love:

Dash- Sorry to suggest that you were without friends! I don't doubt that for a second- just felt awful imagining you sitting there having to deal with what you described. I am loath to be confrontational myself in such situations. And then I always imagine what I might have said or done. (There is a French word or phrase to this effect which I cannot recall unfortunately!)

Blessed are those who know what to do and how to do it and when to do it.

A great art I hope to learn more about before I pass from this earthy coil. Most of the time I feel like I'm winging it!

[Blossom]

Welcome Blossom.

Yes. There are quite a few of us singers hanging around this forum. I'm an opera singer and voice teacher. And of course, the latter occupation makes me want to encourage you to keep working for your goal of singing O, Holy Night". Working on your technique and finding the right 'key' is, or course, par for the course! I've known quite a few people with 'talent' who amounted to very little and others who worked like the tortise and got where they wanted to go: they just never gave up.



Thanks to everyone for your warm welcome!

:sing: Daniel, thanks for being a true vocal teacher (and for your advice). I find singing to be one of the strangest things in the world. It's one of those things in life that you (I) can't conquer just by trying harder! I wish I could say that I've seen the tortoises succeed!--but I'm still waiting on that one. I remember doing well in music theory and music history, but actually singing was a different story. I felt like I was at the bottom of the totem pole in our music department. And then others, who didn't work half as hard as I did sounded like they were ready to record an album! God-given talent...just can't top it. Truly gifted singers are like birds that don't know how not to fly.

One of my vocal "challenges" is that I have a major break in my voice between the upper and lower ranges. My vocal teachers were so patient and encouraging with me, but I had to wonder why. My lower range, which is quite low sounds very full (I love to sing low, and people respond well to that part of my voice). But singing as high as a "b" on the staff is a struggle for me. I have to switch over to a higher voice, and have a horrible time blending it. Rolling my tongue (as in the Spanish "r") up and down the scale was the only way I could ever blend it. When a fellow music major (who had heard me sing several times in our weekly recital hour) finally heard me sing a low gospel song (as opposed to singing soprano) she gave me the lovely complement, "I didn't know you could sing!". Oh well, I keep hoping that as I age my voice will become richer, although maybe that isn't what it is meant to be. I know that one can be a soprano with a pure sound rather than with rich fulness. But, aarg, if I didn't get it right after 4 or 5 years of lessons.... Anyway, I'll appreciate any suggestions you have to offer. For now, I sing soprano only when I lead music for our congregation (at my last church, we had a wonderful music minister to do this) . But more exciting, I'm turning my love of music away from what I can't do to what I can, and am working on new, somewhat contemporary worship music. But thinking back to my music major...why didn't I just make handbells my emphasis! That I could do!

Thanks for listening. I haven't talked with a real voice teacher in years. Your students are no doubt blessed to have you as their teacher. Oh, and I love your definition of operatic singing.

Blossom

[Blossom]

Hi Zerbie, thanks for the welcome from a fellow non-feminist-feminist. There's got to be a better way to say that! :p Keep singing "O Holy Night" for all those who can't!

Hi Susan, thanks for your welcome. You were right in one of your earlier posts that some of the folks posting at UMC seem to reflect more of a fundamentalist attitude. Not all, but some. But since I grew up with somewhat of this understanding, I have a big soft-spot in my heart for fundamentalists...and in an odd way I can even understand those who reject my call to ministry, just because I know where they are coming from. I would hope that all of us, no matter how different our beliefs, could interact with love and logic, which could help chip away at the differences that are only exaggerated by our different vocabularies and ways of interacting.

Hi Steven, the next time your pianist cuts out your ability to follow your part, you could just break out into a rap! Hey, that would be "seeker sensitive"! Yes, I preach every Sunday. I am now the sole pastor (although I would prefer to say "soul pastor"!) of a small congregation and preach every Sunday, except when I ask my husband to guest preach. I was very blessed, however, serving as an associate pastor. You likely know that associates don't necessarily get called upon to preach often. But within three years of serving as an associate, with two different senior pastors, I had the privilege of preaching quite often and sometimes weekly. And what a blessing! I can't think of anything more fun (or frustrating) than preaching. Did I read earlier that you are a lay speaker? Hopefully that serves as a blessing in some ways in that you have more time to prepare. But I know that if you feel a call to the ministry of preaching, nothing else will quite compare with it.

[Zerbie]

Howdy again Blossom, and okey-dokey, want some voice-teacher soup for lunch? Lol!

Truly, Blossom, your "problem" is not at all unusual. Common, actually. Without having heard you I can't say if you are a mezzo/alto with an undeveloped high register, or a soprano with good low notes who hasn't found her whole voice. But may I hazard a guess that you used to beat yourself up about it - about whether or not you were doing things "right" - and that this attempt to try harder and harder is part of what got in your way in finding the high voice? Singing is one of those things that once it gets easy, it gets easier and easier until the production feels effortless, but in "trying" to "get it there" we make all kinds of problems for ourselves. I wonder if you were judging every "high" tone you made before it was halfway out your mouth? When that happens, you aren't committing mentally or vocally (support lags) to the tone, so of course it doesn't come out sounding "full." Does that make sense? It's not about "doing it right." It's about allowing the tone, allowing your brain and body to let go enough to take over and reveal your voice to you. Take a look at "A Soprano on her Head" by Eloise Ristad.

I'm glad you have music-making opportunities and that you get to sing where you feel comfortable and accomplished. We all need that feeling. even so, I suspect that lessons with a really accomplished teacher would probably help you to fulfil that part of yourself that still wants to find the high voice and let that part of your inner musician, out.

Meanwhile keep trilling those Rs!!! :D

[Blossom]

But may I hazard a guess that you used to beat yourself up about it - about whether or not you were doing things "right" - and that this attempt to try harder and harder is part of what got in your way in finding the high voice? Singing is one of those things that once it gets easy, it gets easier and easier until the production feels effortless, but in "trying" to "get it there" we make all kinds of problems for ourselves. :D

Very good (accurate) observations. Thanks for the suggestions.

I've got to say, this board has way better smiley faces than the UMC board...and I sure don't think I would have received any vocal coaching, there either! Thanks! :sing: :dove: :flower2: :cowboy: :weee:

[BruceChris]

I have only been lurking, and very rarely posting over at the UMC. And no, I'm not a Methodist, I'm UCC, but then again I try not out beat up on anybody, on the UMC forums, anyway.

I sincerely hope that you will come back regularly, and post to us, and give us your point of view on things. There are certainly enough people here who support women in the church, as I certainly do. Also, we have been trying to reach out to moderates, and from what I can see, the opinion here seems to be unanimous, that there ARE no moderates. I hope that you can prove them wrong.

I'm sorry that I can't offer you any advice about your voice, I'm sure that the average bullfrog sings better that I do. For that, you've got Zerbie, Daniel, and Suzer.

An ancedote. I belong to an almost-all LGBT UCC church, in Minneapolis, called Spirit of the Lakes. We have a group of very active women in our church. About a year ago or so, I was sitting around with our men's group, Men of Spirit. The discussion came around to the press releases being made by the Southern Baptist convention, which was going on at the time. They were saying things like "women should not speak out in church", and that the "women should be submissive unto the men". There was dead silence, and then somebody said "In THIS Church?"

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Daniel]

I've got to say, this board has way better smiley faces than the UMC board...and I sure don't think I would have received any vocal coaching, there either! Thanks! :sing: :dove: :flower2: :cowboy: :weee:

What can I say other than we're givers, aim to please and full of surprises. ;) Which reminds me, I was the organist for a Methodist church in NJ for about 5 years. Good people.

[Blossom]

Hey James (dewdrop),
I tried to check out your music, but I haven't been successful in listening to music on my computer (it's a new computer, but I'm on dial-up...and I'm not what you would call a techie!). I could hear a few seconds of your music, and then my computer would have to buffer for a minute or so. Maybe I can figure out a way later to check out your stuff. But I did hear the dissonance!


Dash,
I didn't recognize Sheila Walsh's picture, but her name sounds familiar. I can't believe you were raised with the 700 Club! She obviously influenced your life in a big way. Was it her music or her words? If you are ever interested in listening to Christian music again, I've been enjoying Matt Redmon lately ("Blessed Be Your Name" CD). Contemporary Christian music is really changing. It's amazing how dated the older stuff sounds to me now. But I'm excited to see what new sounds will be heard in Christian music next. I would recommend Matt Redmon for any one with a Chrisitian background looking for some good music.

I can identify with looking back at past sins with regret. In the last year or so, I have thought numerous times about an incident where I said something that likely hurt a friend (I was about 12 or 13, he was a year younger). For years after the incident, I didn't feel the weight of that stupid remark, but now my sadness over that failure grows. I know I should take the advice I give others, and ask God's forgiveness and then accept that forgiveness myself. And like you, I think I live out my life more aware of the need to be compassionate and aware of the needs of others because of that incident.

Blossom

[Dash]

I didn't recognize Sheila Walsh's picture, but her name sounds familiar. I can't believe you were raised with the 700 Club! She obviously influenced your life in a big way. Was it her music or her words? If you are ever interested in listening to Christian music again, I've been enjoying Matt Redmon lately ("Blessed Be Your Name" CD).

Sheila was THE single reason I watched the 700 Club. She was so sweet and loving. She lost control of her life for awhile...disappeared from the show, spent some time in a mental hospital, divorced her husband, and after many hardships picked herself back up. She always talked about being good friends with Sandi Patti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandi_Patti) and Michael English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_English) both of whose careers have suffered for personal issues...cannibalized by the industry for their imperfections, as it were. Alas...I don't believe in contemporary Christian music anymore. I turned it off one day when the radio played a song called "Dancing with the dinosaurs" one too many times for me. That was it...I'd had enough. :rolleyes: I just couldn't see it as anything but vapid and completely unspiritual. (It's not necessarily always true, I know, but I was a burgeoning intellectual, and kinda snooty...probably still am some of the latter....hahaha!)

My favorites of that time (early 90's) were Walsh, English, Patti...Steve Green, Susan Ashton, and of course Michael W. Smith, who I thought was incredibly hot. Reaching back a couple decades further, I always liked Don Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Francisco_%28Christian_musician%29). I think I actually have his album "Forgiven" with the classic "He's Alive" on it. Last time I pulled it out to share a bit of my childhood with my friend, he laughed...I mean great guffaws of laughter from his belly...at the sound of Francisco's singing. Oh well...not for everyone.

:lol:

Nowadays, for Church, I enjoy singing songs by Ralph Vaughan Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Vaughan_Williams). I avoid contemporary music, simply because I can't do it. I have the opposite problem as you with singing. I completely embarrass myself when I try to do pop stylings, because my voice is all "operatic". I almost can't sing straight tone anymore.

Alas...one cannot take every path, and in choosing one over another, one must leave some happy lands to be traveled by others. My own path has nourished me though, and I bless it.

[keltic63]

Looks like I'm a little late for the lovefest!


Welcome Blossom! I'm glad you decided to join us here. Yes, I am a music director at a Disciples Church.

I haven't made it over to the UMC forums to look at the aftermath. It's been a full week since I've even been on a computer. I had to clear out a bunch of email messages this morning too.

OK, do i have to read all the posts, or can someone give me a Reader's Digest version? :lol:

[dewdrop_world]

Hey James (dewdrop),
I tried to check out your music, but I haven't been successful in listening to music on my computer (it's a new computer, but I'm on dial-up...and I'm not what you would call a techie!). I could hear a few seconds of your music, and then my computer would have to buffer for a minute or so. Maybe I can figure out a way later to check out your stuff. But I did hear the dissonance!

Glad to see you here!

About the audio... yeah, if you try to stream it over a dialup connection, it's not going to work. You can try to download the files onto your hard drive and listen to them locally -- right click on the link, and there should be an option to save the linked file to disk. But it will take some patience... assuming a transfer speed of 26kbps, a one megabyte file (about one minute) would take over 5 minutes. Transfer speeds are usually slower than the maximum so it will probably take longer... and multiply that by the file size.

Let me know if that doesn't help...
James