DADT at Church

[keltic63]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....b6ab2a39.html

Deacons of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth are recommending that an anniversary pictorial directory have no family photos, an effort to defuse a controversy over whether gay couples should be included.
But troubles for the moderate Baptist congregation are mounting, with some members calling for the firing of Senior Minister Brett Younger, saying he has mishandled the directory issue and led the church in too liberal a direction on homosexuality and theology.
A group called Friends for the Future of Broadway

so the church wants gay people to attend, they just don't want anyone to know about it?

[pnggrad79]

Wow, maybe this Baptist church needs to consider their attitude. If they want gay people's tithes and offerings, they need to fully include them in EVERYthing. I applaud their inclusiveness, but not this.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I'm not reacting so negatively to this congregation. It sounds like they are very divided. Rather than go along with folks that want to exclude LGBT people, they have decided that there will be no family photos in the directory either heterosexual or LGBT. That, at least, doesn't treat LGBT families as less than heterosexual families.

Sounds like the pastor might get ousted by the "conservative" faction if they have their way--he doesn't deserve it. I hope the moderates and progressives in that church keep tying to hold it all together.

Seems also like there is more that the "gay issue" involved here---notice the controversy over Marcus Borg having preached there. Borg is a wonderful biblical scholar and I am impressed that this congregation is open enough to have him speak there at all, much less in the pulpit. But the controversy over Borg indicates there is a conservative-liberal split in the works here---too bad!

I'm a liberal/progressive and proud of it, but I also hope that the church can get beyond divisions and make a place for all to worship without demeaning anyone.

Steven Webster

[pnggrad79]

I wrote an email to the pastor and told him I admired his taking a stand for glbt people at his church, A Baptist church in TEXAS, of all homophobic things. I tried to encourage him to stand strong and not bow to the pressure of some of his congregation who likes the tithes and offerings of gay people but that is as far as equality goes. Kinda like, its ok for African Americans to clean our homes (in the 60's) but don't give them the right to vote, that's just taking equality too far. I digress...

Anyway, this pastor is trying to make a safe and welcoming place for gay and lesbian people and we should encourage him and pray for him. Not very many pastors and leaders in the church are willing to do this.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Friends,

I'm not reacting so negatively to this congregation. It sounds like they are very divided. Rather than go along with folks that want to exclude LGBT people, they have decided that there will be no family photos in the directory either heterosexual or LGBT. That, at least, doesn't treat LGBT families as less than heterosexual families.

Sounds like the pastor might get ousted by the "conservative" faction if they have their way--he doesn't deserve it. I hope the moderates and progressives in that church keep tying to hold it all together.

Seems also like there is more that the "gay issue" involved here---notice the controversy over Marcus Borg having preached there. Borg is a wonderful biblical scholar and I am impressed that this congregation is open enough to have him speak there at all, much less in the pulpit. But the controversy over Borg indicates there is a conservative-liberal split in the works here---too bad!

I'm a liberal/progressive and proud of it, but I also hope that the church can get beyond divisions and make a place for all to worship without demeaning anyone.

Steven Webster

I guess that my negative reaction is not to the entire church, but that conservative faction that is "ok" with gay couples worshipping with them, but not truly embracing them. Thus my reference to DADT. The gay couples in this congregation are being loved conditionally. As long as they "keep their place" and keep quiet about who they really are, then it seems ok to "allow" them to attend church, and allow them to support the church financially. It seems that the conservative faction is embarassed that a church pictorial would include gay couples. It seems like they are saying that they don't want anyone to know their church includes gay and lesbian families.

I commend the pastor. I agree that this is an imperfect resolution of the problem though. I also agree that there is much more going on here than just a question of whether lgbt people should be welcome in this church.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by keltic63

I guess that my negative reaction is not to the entire church, but that conservative faction that is "ok" with gay couples worshipping with them, but not truly embracing them. Thus my reference to DADT. The gay couples in this congregation are being loved conditionally. As long as they "keep their place" and keep quiet about who they really are, then it seems ok to "allow" them to attend church, and allow them to support the church financially. It seems that the conservative faction is embarassed that a church pictorial would include gay couples. It seems like they are saying that they don't want anyone to know their church includes gay and lesbian families.

I commend the pastor. I agree that this is an imperfect resolution of the problem though. I also agree that there is much more going on here than just a question of whether lgbt people should be welcome in this church.

Please forgive the personal story, but when Jonathan and I were first together and my Grandmother was still alive, and had just been relocated closer to my parents, a 'family' photo was arranged during the Holiday's. Both of us were invited to the 'shoot'. However, when we got there, it became apparent that Jonathan was not going to stand beside me and was not going to be 'in the picture'. I was in shock. He was in shock. And rather than create a scene, we looked at each other in a daze, and I stood there and let the photo be taken- and then couldn't get out of there fast enough.

I was so angry afterwards, with myself, for not standing up for my man right then and there and the situation that arose.

To this day, I do not know who decided that Jonathan would not be part of the picture, though I do suspect that my older brother and his wife may have had something to do with it.

That picture hangs on my parent's wall- I just saw it a few days ago when I went to my nieces wedding. Jonathan is treated like family now- but it's been a decade since that picture incident.

And what did I learn? To deal with things in the moment. It's still hard for me, but that's what this old dog is learning to do.

Let's not forget: A picture is worth a thousand words.

And like the rukus that was made when the NYTimes started included same-sex couples in the Weddings/Celebrations section of the paper, I have no doubt that, with time, the shutter will click with everyone included in this matter concerning Broadway B.

It's not a matter of if, but when.