![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I go to a Methodist church that's part of something called the Reconciling Ministries Network. That's modern Methodese for "being gay-positive and also interested in fostering diversity within the church and social justice everywhere." It's a big mandate, but my little church makes a strong effort, no thanks (so far) to me on the second half. (I do my merry lesbian best on the first part.) This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the congregation formally identifying itself as "Reconciling," and to that end there've been some special services, and a one-man show about one man's journey through ex-gay-dom to ex-ex-gay-dom. (I really wanted to see that, but I was out of town - no, not in Russia, in Albany. It was for work. There... well, maybe I'll write a post about that later. Anyway.) This past Sunday was the Official Twentieth Anniversary Service, with a guest pastor giving the sermon and a potluck lunch afterwards.
The sermon made me more uncomfortable than any sermon I have witnessed live since I went to church with Denise sometime in 2002 and heard a lot of gratuitous and ignorant statements about the Koh-Ran and the Tally-Ban. It was a combination of the I'm-So-Good/Poor-Me!Sermon, the This-Is-The-Way(but-I-have-no-reason-why)!Sermon, and the Get-A-Load-Of-The-Sinners-Over-Yonder!Sermon (which I'd been fortunate enough to never encounter, in the wild, in such a pure form.) Not at all what I expected in a service about reconciliation, from a speaker the regular pastor (a less neurotic but still sympathetic version of Anne Lamott) introduced as a great friend and like-minded person.
The sermon boiled down to "I'm Soooo Good because I don't even think of myself as a liberal for believing that gay people can and should participate fully in the life of the church! You and I see the beauty of a kiss, because we're not like the fundamentalists, who are evil evil evil and wrong wrong wrong! I'm not going to offer any elaboration on or explanation of that, but just assert it! Because GOD IS ON OUR SIDE!"
God is on our side.
That's a direct quotation.
God. Is. On. Our. Side.
No matter who says that, or in what context, it's going to make me want to head for the hills. Even if it's said with irony, or prefixed with "I believe," it's not a concept that, historically speaking, usually leads to anything good. And it chilled me to the very marrow that this leading light of a movement that professes reconciliation and inclusion was using the very same arrogant, emphatic language that I associate with Jerry Falwell. And I do not trust people who seem to think that God has them on speed dial. (Having God on speed dial is not in itself creepy, to me. It's a not-unusual product of certain kinds of early religious training, first off, and second, God never picks up when you expect it, and has a voicemail box of infinite capacity. I worry a lot more about people who have a reality show voting line on speeddial.)
Where was I? Oh, yeah. "God is on our side."
How is that a theologically defensible statement? "We are on God's side!" while equally arrogant, at least would have a better sense of perspective, right? Rather than telling The Almighty Creator, "hey! we pick you for our team!" It's like saying "we're right! and you know what, God's right too, so you better be right with us!" Say it with me, now... FIRST horse, THEN cart.
There's so much that could be said on an anniversary like this - about interpretations of scripture, about the history of the Christian church and social change in the United States, about Stonewall and Brown vs. Board, about the Metropolitan Community Church and the ex-gay movement, about how much queer people have been hurt in the name of Christianity. But all this specially-brought-in guy could say was, "We say there's room for everyone at the table, unlike those bad Christians, and GOD IS ON OUR SIDE! Go us, neener neener!"
I tend to think that God's side, in any conflict, is the not having conflict side. (Note that "think" in there, it's important.) On the particular issue of church membership, access to the rite of marriage, and eligibility for ordination for queer folks, my personal opinion is that God would not be displeased were people of different view to strive towards working together and loving one another while frankly discussing their different views and why they hold them. Because I don't think reconciliation means just "making those fundamentalist bastards back down." That would be something else. Reconciliation implies mutual effort, and seeking understanding, and common ground, and recognizing differences, including differences of opinion, and seeking to be in community while discussing (and, y'know, reconciling) those differences. Because otherwise, it wouldn't be reconciling, it would be forcibly enlisting, or drafting, or hostilely taking over. (Like the fundamentalists and the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s, but I digress.)
Well. My goodness, I do waffle on.
The sermon made me more uncomfortable than any sermon I have witnessed live since I went to church with Denise sometime in 2002 and heard a lot of gratuitous and ignorant statements about the Koh-Ran and the Tally-Ban. It was a combination of the I'm-So-Good/Poor-Me!Sermon, the This-Is-The-Way(but-I-have-no-reason-why)!Sermon, and the Get-A-Load-Of-The-Sinners-Over-Yonder!Sermon (which I'd been fortunate enough to never encounter, in the wild, in such a pure form.) Not at all what I expected in a service about reconciliation, from a speaker the regular pastor (a less neurotic but still sympathetic version of Anne Lamott) introduced as a great friend and like-minded person.
The sermon boiled down to "I'm Soooo Good because I don't even think of myself as a liberal for believing that gay people can and should participate fully in the life of the church! You and I see the beauty of a kiss, because we're not like the fundamentalists, who are evil evil evil and wrong wrong wrong! I'm not going to offer any elaboration on or explanation of that, but just assert it! Because GOD IS ON OUR SIDE!"
God is on our side.
That's a direct quotation.
God. Is. On. Our. Side.
No matter who says that, or in what context, it's going to make me want to head for the hills. Even if it's said with irony, or prefixed with "I believe," it's not a concept that, historically speaking, usually leads to anything good. And it chilled me to the very marrow that this leading light of a movement that professes reconciliation and inclusion was using the very same arrogant, emphatic language that I associate with Jerry Falwell. And I do not trust people who seem to think that God has them on speed dial. (Having God on speed dial is not in itself creepy, to me. It's a not-unusual product of certain kinds of early religious training, first off, and second, God never picks up when you expect it, and has a voicemail box of infinite capacity. I worry a lot more about people who have a reality show voting line on speeddial.)
Where was I? Oh, yeah. "God is on our side."
How is that a theologically defensible statement? "We are on God's side!" while equally arrogant, at least would have a better sense of perspective, right? Rather than telling The Almighty Creator, "hey! we pick you for our team!" It's like saying "we're right! and you know what, God's right too, so you better be right with us!" Say it with me, now... FIRST horse, THEN cart.
There's so much that could be said on an anniversary like this - about interpretations of scripture, about the history of the Christian church and social change in the United States, about Stonewall and Brown vs. Board, about the Metropolitan Community Church and the ex-gay movement, about how much queer people have been hurt in the name of Christianity. But all this specially-brought-in guy could say was, "We say there's room for everyone at the table, unlike those bad Christians, and GOD IS ON OUR SIDE! Go us, neener neener!"
I tend to think that God's side, in any conflict, is the not having conflict side. (Note that "think" in there, it's important.) On the particular issue of church membership, access to the rite of marriage, and eligibility for ordination for queer folks, my personal opinion is that God would not be displeased were people of different view to strive towards working together and loving one another while frankly discussing their different views and why they hold them. Because I don't think reconciliation means just "making those fundamentalist bastards back down." That would be something else. Reconciliation implies mutual effort, and seeking understanding, and common ground, and recognizing differences, including differences of opinion, and seeking to be in community while discussing (and, y'know, reconciling) those differences. Because otherwise, it wouldn't be reconciling, it would be forcibly enlisting, or drafting, or hostilely taking over. (Like the fundamentalists and the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s, but I digress.)
Well. My goodness, I do waffle on.
Tags: