Dan Savage on queer-affirming Christian churches

He certainly has his moments.

 

The issue I have with this is that there shouldn't be such thing as "liberal Christians" and "conservative Christians" because there is no such thing as a "liberal Jesus" or a "conservative Jesus".

Jesus was just one and there should only be one Christianity, that who states that we're all equal and love is the highest law we should all practice. World, how hard is that? .__.

I still dislike Dan, a lot.

 

I totally agree, I was thrown out of my church for being bisexual, but Jesus would've never done that. Churches need to look back at the Bible and see that they are missing one of the largest parts of Christianity, acceptance. Jesus always helped those that society had picked on. So why can't some Churches do the same??

 

So you have an issue with the current state of the church then, not with Dan specifically (on this issue)? At least as far as I can see, Dan's just pointing out that the Christians who are affirming, loving, and accepting aren't getting on the case of the non-affirming, non-loving, non-accepting Christians nearly enough. I happen to think this point DEFINITELY needed to be made, since most Christians that I know are awesome, accepting people, and yet I have this loathing/hatred towards the Christian church in general for the policies they have against human beings who happen to have been born differently than they would like. Not all churches are like that, and not all Christians are like that, but the point remains that the perception of the Christian faith is one of bigotry, and it's up to the non-bigoted Christians to convert the ones causing this perception, and disown them if they don't change.

Disclaimer: If the above post offends you, I apologize. I don't intend to offend, merely to explain and to add my personal viewpoint which essentially reiterates Dan's point.

 

thecat06: You got it, buddy.

Raeil: (Disclaimer: I am not taking any offense and I hope you do the same, because I also mean none.) Oh no, I dislike Dan the way he is alright, and have plenty of issues with him without snooping his nose on where he shouldn't be snooping it in. By the way he speaks and behaves himself, he wouldn't even be accepted on any of these progressive Christian Churches.

Who I have issues with is not *just* the Christian Churches that seem to pop up everywhere and out of thin air: Oh I don't like his, his, his, his or his church so I'll start my own.

Dan's point here is that whoever is a "loving, accepting Christian" should be loud enough for "non-loving, non-accepting Christians" to understand that they're wrong. The end result of this is good, but the path that's taken is not. By doing this, he is further ensuring that Christianity takes yet one more hit and gets more divided. He makes sure that we change Christianity and make it a "good and evil twin" persona, uh huh.

Here, you're once again marking a line in the sand and saying "I like these Christians and I hate those Christians". Bottom line is that Christianity shouldn't have this differences, it shouldn't have this divisions. I am not saying I support one or the other because I don't. All I was saying in my previous post is that it sucks that we now have to specify what Christians are you talking about whenever you are addressing the LGBT issues.

Dan, well, I couldn't care less of what happens to him, but I really hope God will be able to fix him a little. He says he was raised Catholic and is to all purposes a cultural Catholic, but he's bottom line Atheist. Isn't he? No disrespect to the Atheists, but they are the last people who should tell us how we should live the religious aspect of our lives. Once again, hate the people, not the Church. Most of the times, the people are the ones who hate and discriminate, not the clergy.

Why am I a Catholic? Because I know that dropping out of the Church just because we have a disagreement on one topic while we agree on the rest won't aid my quest to change the way people live their Christianity. People are usually amazed to learn I'm gay--or Catholic--because they simply believe one can't get along with the other. Well, they do. And I've very well read what the Vatican has to say about me.

Pope Benedict XVI said last month, during the World Youth event held in Spain, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. This message was sent in a country where gay marriage is legal. By all means I disagree to what he said, but I disagree even more on how he said it. Now, by being a practicing Catholic, I think I've earned my right to actually tell Him to go back to his room and read the Bible once more. But if you're an Atheist, you can't tell him or any other Christian to "change" because you've ditched us already. Is like someone lecturing his ex about something, the ex will not give a shit.

Ok, this is long and I am rambling. Woke up to an strange sound and I couldn't go back to sleep. I'll just try to get some rest since it's 2:20 AM here. If all of this do not make sense, I am so sorry... What I wanted to say is that Christianity is not supposed to be this divided, and putting one against the other is not the right way to archive unity.

 

I think Christianity does this really easily without Dan Savage's help. Most people don't even know who Dan Savage is. I promise you if I walked into my kitchen right now and asked my family, "Do you know who Dan Savage is?" they would say no, but they WOULD be able to tell you that according to Christianity, homosexuality is wrong. They wouldn't be able to tell you the verse itself, because they don't read the Bible for themselves, but they are Christian and they get the gist.

The fellowship of Christianity is responsible for the division of the Christian church. Not non-Christians. And what is the heart of the division of the Christian church? Religious hypocrisy. You cannot tell someone "Thou shalt not lie" and then turn around and lie in the next breath. You can't reasonably expect people to put their faith in something human and fallible and fickle.

When you say, "Thou shalt not kill" but direct war against millions.
When you say, "Thou shalt not lie" but use your powers of persuasion to sway as many to evil as to good.

It isn't, but that's what happens when you have men running the churches who conform the church to their own will and inadertently shape it to their own fallible fears, hatreds, and insecurities, rather than the will of God.

Two weekends ago, I attended two separate churches - one was a nondenominational evangelical church (something I would come to find out is like a cult with a better house band) and the other was a Unitarian Universalist church, a self-described "liberal Christian congregation" where two-thirds of the pews were filled with people wearing rainbow pins.

NDE: Rock n' roll Jesus, big screen TVs, long drawn-out speeches on "Your tithe is going to build a church just like this one...IN AFRICA!", and a prayer where the minister literally blessed our stock options. The sermon portion was invested in things like, "The Enemy" and our "twisted corrupt young generation". You cannot make shit like this up.

UUC: Quaker atmosphere, no Jesus mention at all, lighting of candles, singing of songs, hand-holding kumbayah. With gender nonconforming children's stories and rainbows. Protest rallies for compassionate immigration reform. Gay marriage support programs. An entire sermon done by an actress portraying Emily Dickinson. You can't make this shit up, either.

My point being is that Christians, in their desire to bring people over to Christianity, have used denomination to breed the church like a fancy dog, until everybody can get an almost customized spiritual experience. You can't blame people for liking it. I'm sort of glad Church Kill THeh Enemy!!! isn't my only choice. And since the Catholic church's position is that homosexual behavior is sin, I'm glad they're not my only choice either.

This is what Universalists preach. As far as they're concerned though, everything else is up for grabs - take it or leave it.

I know most people would consider the Universalists fluffy Emerson humanist fence-sitters, but they're the most LGBT-affirming group I've ever seen in my life, so I'll continue to go there.

I like my little queer church, and I don't care how long it's been established - it's whether or not it's preaching the right message that matters. And as far as I'm concerned, those people really preach the word of God, and they manage to do it while barely even invoking His name.

 

I understand Savage's point... However, I cannot comprehend how an affirming church with a louder voice will quell those with completely opposing viewpoints. There are many groups, theologists included, who have failed (quite miserably, but not due to their own fault) to distinguish 'false' biblical views on homosexuality.

Some people, in fact a lot of people, will *never* change their minds about homosexuality -- you can educate them, argue with them, try to indoctrinate them... but they will never budge. It's more of a psychological issue than a religious one.

My point is, you really can't/shouldn't scold affirming churches for not doing more. For most churches, their focus isn't political activism or human rights. Their focus is on bringing the message of the Bible to their attendees, and others who are curious. If you shift that focus, it is no longer a church, but instead a political organization... and we see how well that is 'working' with regards to dispelling homosexual stereotypes and rights' abuses.