My personal frustration......

[keltic63]

Yesterday. at church. during the children's moment.

our pastor talked about the sunday school lesson for the kids. It was "David and Jonathan were best friends." I kept thinking she might out them, but she didn't, and of course, the children's moment isn't the time to do that. However, the more she talked about how Jonathan disobeyed his father to protect his "friend" the more upset I became, inside, and I had to fight back the tears. I don't know if she noticed, but the Pastor made it a point to talk to me about it after the service. We laughed about how "best friends" strip down to almost no clothing and give each other their most valued possessions the first time they meet!

She (my pastor) is a great supporter of lgbt individuals, and has been wonderful to me. I just wish she could make that more clear from the pulpit.

[andrewlittle]

Yesterday. at church. during the children's moment.

our pastor talked about the sunday school lesson for the kids. It was "David and Jonathan were best friends." I kept thinking she might out them, but she didn't, and of course, the children's moment isn't the time to do that. However, the more she talked about how Jonathan disobeyed his father to protect his "friend" the more upset I became, inside, and I had to fight back the tears. I don't know if she noticed, but the Pastor made it a point to talk to me about it after the service. We laughed about how "best friends" strip down to almost no clothing and give each other their most valued possessions the first time they meet!

She (my pastor) is a great supporter of lgbt individuals, and has been wonderful to me. I just wish she could make that more clear from the pulpit.

You're right - the children's sermon isn't probably the best place for that discussion, although it could have been done more affirmingly by accentuating how much they cared for each other, etc.

It would make a great sermon, however, or even an adult Bible study topic. Perhaps you could do the latter - expecially since you are so passionate about it. maybe you can help her find the courage to be more open from the pulpit.

[Alecto]

Ok, so, I'm not familiar with which church you belong to, but...
WHY isn't the children's moment appropriate for that discussion? Is it the uncertainty involved?

[antonyh]

If a person's sexual orientation is innocent, then saying that David and Jonathan had the same kind of relationship as your mom and dad to children should not be a problem. Implicit in the idea that this is not a topic for children is the idea that there is a lack of innocence involved in a gay relationship.

Now the reaction to a children's sermon like this is guaranteed to be anything but innocent.

[keltic63]

If a person's sexual orientation is innocent, then saying that David and Jonathan had the same kind of relationship as your mom and dad to children should not be a problem. Implicit in the idea that this is not a topic for children is the idea that there is a lack of innocence involved in a gay relationship.

Now the reaction to a children's sermon like this is guaranteed to be anything but innocent.


I think this may be more like the "crumbs or whole cake" discussion that was happening in the Dumbledore is Gay thread.
I don't know that I'd be in favor of talking about polygamy in the children's moment, so in some way I can understand that the children's moment isn't the time to "out" David and Jonathan. However, the sermon is a perfect time to talk about both of those issues.

[antonyh]

I think this may be more like the "crumbs or whole cake" discussion that was happening in the Dumbledore is Gay thread.
I don't know that I'd be in favor of talking about polygamy in the children's moment, so in some way I can understand that the children's moment isn't the time to "out" David and Jonathan. However, the sermon is a perfect time to talk about both of those issues.

You're still walking on egg shells around the kiddies. You're innocent. David and Jonathan's love is innocent. Kids are innocent. We need to be able to talk about same-sex love in Children's sermons so that they grow up knowing that same-sex love is innocent.

[antonyh]

I agree. The danger in children's sermons in general is that you end up using the children to preach to the adults. If the Children's time is to be a good thing it needs to address the scripture to the needs and concerns of the children themselves. The nature of David and Jonathon's relationship isn't something that impacts their lives and isn't appropriate to the time with them.

The Sermon on the other hand... fair game.

I'm not advocating that you use the Children's sermon to preach to adults. Children need to know the nature of love from the youngest age and so Johnathan and David's love for each other DOES impact them.

If I were a kid with two gay parents and my preacher told me that same-sex love was innocent and even in the Bible...well it would affirm my place in the world and help insulate me from the unkind things other girls and boys said about me and my family.

There is something to think about :)

[Zerbie]

I'm not advocating that you use the Children's sermon to preach to adults. Children need to know the nature of love from the youngest age and so Johnathan and David's love for each other DOES impact them.

If I were a kid with two gay parents and my preacher told me that same-sex love was innocent and even in the Bible...well it would affirm my place in the world and help insulate me from the unkind things other girls and boys said about me and my family.

There is something to think about :)

Yes. Not to mention the gay kids who know in kindergarten that they find others of their own sex more cute, attractive, and interesting then those of the opposite.

I remember being 6 years old and scared to death - terrified!! - because I never heard any adult say anything but horrifying things about same sex relationships - by 6, I was looking for a positive portrayal - anywhere. And found none.

[sailaway58]

The point of the children's sermon is to interest the kids in a 10 minute prelude to sending them on to children's church and most the time it goes along with the topic of the day.
I don't think the children's time is the best place to open discussion about any sexual issues. I've never heard this theory about David and Jonathan until today and I'm not sure it is even a valid example. Either way I say keep the kids time lite and fun. What is the point of the passage anyway?
Kids understand by how their parents respond to others.
That aside I understand the desire to have relationships affirmed and I feel for keltic63.
I don't believe the nature of love has much to do with sexual orientation.

[antonyh]

The point of the children's sermon is to interest the kids in a 10 minute prelude to sending them on to children's church and most the time it goes along with the topic of the day.
I don't think the children's time is the best place to open discussion about any sexual issues. I've never heard this theory about David and Jonathan until today and I'm not sure it is even a valid example. Either way I say keep the kids time lite and fun. What is the point of the passage anyway?
Kids understand by how their parents respond to others.
That aside I understand the desire to have relationships affirmed and I feel for keltic63.
I don't believe the nature of love has much to do with sexual orientation.

Calling same sex love a "sexual issue" is reductionism. The Religious Right want to reduce all gay relationships to sex. I am talking about love and the commitment that goes with love. Sex does not need enter into it in a discussion with children. Again, we're exposing how even we, the radical soulforce crowd, don't embrace our innocence.

Sexual orientation is the engine that leads us to someone to love. You have to be comfortable with the gender you want to pursue before you can every find love. I know that I can't separate my sexual orientation from the love I have for my partner. It is an important part of the nature of the love we share (certainly not all of it).

Did David and Jonathan have a romantic relationship? Who knows, but there is strong circumstantial evidence.

[Alecto]

Yes. Not to mention the gay kids who know in kindergarten that they find others of their own sex more cute, attractive, and interesting then those of the opposite.

I remember being 6 years old and scared to death - terrified!! - because I never heard any adult say anything but horrifying things about same sex relationships - by 6, I was looking for a positive portrayal - anywhere. And found none.

It IS important for children: specifically those children who either have feelings now, or will in the future towards their own sex, but who at best have never heard ANYTHING about "gay", and at worst...well, we all here know the worst things kids hear.

It IS relevant to some kids, so if "it's not relevant" is really the only reason not to bring it up, then....not good enough. As I said, if it's the ambiguous nature of whether or not that relationship actually existed...the evidence for and against are probably all going to go over kids' heads. And that might be a good reason not to bring it up. But "inappropriate"? I find that offensive.