figmentPez
Staff member
Only if the judges aren't in on it. If the judges are on their side, the the law means whatever they want it to mean, and they don't have to come right out and say it.
A generic religion thread.
- Thread starter DarkAudit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Sounds like a "You can't fire me, I quit!" situation
Many people are describing it exactly as that.
One of the (many) reddit threads on the subject had a link to (the public record copy of) the filing, but I can't find it now because threads on this subject have multiplied like loaves and fishes.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
I don't care about the filing. I want to see proof that he's actually paid taxes, and that the people who give money to him have stopped claiming those "donations" as exempt on their taxes.
I will also accept Mr. Locke stroking out on stage during a sermon in return for taking the name of the LORD in vain as an acceptable substitute.
--Patrick
The Evangelical Church Is Breaking Apart
Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church.
www.theatlantic.com
A long read, but I would be interested in @Dirona 's experience.
This technically remains true if you swap in any other capitalized adjective, too.
--Patrick
Thank you.
We can, it's just a reminder. When things are worst, maybe let's not shit on our allies.
We're a brutal kind.
I will take a look and give this some thought. I've only skimmed the article so far.The Evangelical Church Is Breaking Apart
Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church.
A long read, but I would be interested in @Dirona 's experience.
From the Summary of General Convention Resolutions on Abortion and Women's Reproductive Health:
At the General Convention in 2018, The Episcopal Church called for “women’s reproductive health and reproductive health procedures to be treated as all other medical procedures.” The Convention declared “that equitable access to women’s health care, including women’s reproductive health care, is an integral part of a woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.”
We continue to advocate that “legislating abortions will not address the root of the problem. We therefore express our deep conviction that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding abortions must take special care to see that the individual conscience is respected, and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is acknowledged and honored as the position of this Church.”
The Church also sees education as an essential component of engaging with issues relating to family planning, child spacing, adoption, infertility and abortion. The global Anglican Communion, of which The Episcopal Church is a member, first supported the use of contraceptives in 1930, and as Christians we affirm responsible family planning. General Convention policy states “it is the responsibility of our congregations to assist their members in becoming informed concerning the spiritual, physiological and psychological aspects of sex and sexuality.” The Book of Common Prayer affirms that “the birth of a child is a joyous and solemn occasion in the life of a family. It is also an occasion for rejoicing in the Christian community” (p 440).
2 NC workers fired for not joining company's daily Christian devotionals, EEOC says
The plaintiffs, one an atheist and the other an agnostic, say the daily prayer meetings went against their respective religious beliefs.
abc11.com
--Patrick
So that took a bit to get around to.
tl;dr - Basically, buddy makes some solid points that folks within the industry (can I call religion/church an industry? that's a whole other can of something, but I'm going to stick with it) have been saying and seeing for years.
Some short notes:
The conservative (Christian nationalists in the US) side of evangelical Christianity is getting more reactionary and arguably more vicious as time passes. This has been a trend for probably at least a decade at this point.
The brief point about clergy being on the receiving end of atrocious behaviour by church members is very very fucking accurate, and not limited to evangelical churches. In my circles (the far left end of Christian churches and clergy) it's generally chalked up to shrinking budgets and financial stresses, but this does cause me to wonder what proportion of this bullying (at best) is also ideologically based.
Some 15 years ago when I was doing Religious Studies (not insider church work, but more sociology of religion stuff), there were theories going around that the evangelical church as we saw it at the time in Canada and the US would probably not survive another generation. It's had 1-2 generations go through, but the grand-kids aren't going, and the 2nd generation - the kids who are now adults aren't going as much as their parents. The theory was that as a group the evangelical church would have to change. And, well, I guess it has. In the States at least. Canada hasn't gotten as bad. I think. Yet. I do suspect it is only a matter of time though.
The points around Covid just decimating religious communities is absolutely correct. In my circles, we've been saying that the pandemic simply sped up the trends we were already seeing. Diminishing numbers and tighter budgets and different ministry needs being the big areas.
Where I think the author looses their footing is the claim that (evangelical) Christianity has become a political religion. Christianity has always been political. Turn the other cheek, give them your coat also, who is my neighbour, this is your mother, the last shall be first, etc etc etc.
But the sort of politics that the evangelical church tends to lean towards - prosperity gospel, purity culture, cult of charismatic leaders - is not (IMO) reflected in scripture, and certainly not in the Gospels.
All that aside, the US and Canada are not theocracies. Nor should they become such.
The argument that "evangelicals simply refuse to let their church form them or their beliefs" could be levelled at many many churches.
[Aside: "many churches aren't focused on [teaching] at all. They focus instead on entertainment..." Before I was ordained, I worked as a student minister for 2 years under the supervision of a fully ordained minister. In one of our required conversations, he asked me "what is the purpose/focus of worship/Sunday morning?" His response was 'entertainment' mine was 'education.']
"The churches have barely better than a snowball's chance in hell of shaping most people's lives." - Yup. And that's even among those people who are interested in what faith has to say in the first place. If in the marketplace of ideas you get 1 hour of 'love your neighbour and don't be a dick' per week, coupled with 20 hours of 'grad her by the pussy,' one of those is going to get drowned out real quick.
"For many Christians, their politics has become more of an identity marker than their faith." This makes me sad. But I do know that political tribalism is massive in the US, so I can't say I'm surprised. What worries me is the intertwining of these two areas though, because with them woven together they will become even more unassailable, unquestionable, and probably unreasonable.
"How many people look at churches in America these days and see the face of Jesus?" Even within my own denomination, it's a scant few.
The discussion of rejecting cultural influences, and the belief that that's even possible was vastly entertaining. (the points from Du Mez.)
Though it also was a good reminder that leading from (and to) a place of fear is a unhealthy at best.
The conversations with the 15 clergy is exactly what I would expect to find. Up to the pandemic, clergy were (on the whole) underpaid and overworked and stressed out. Now? All of that, plus the political bullshit, plus tighter budgets? It's worse. So so so much worse.
There is a twenty year old rift in my own denomination between left-leaning clergy and their congregations. It has been growing consistently for 20 years. That some evangelical clergy are starting to notice similar dynamics surprises me only in the amount of time it took to become apparent.
The Barna group study cited in the later sections is one that I've cited in my own research and lectures. Because of those 29% of clergy that have given 'real, serious consideration to quitting in the last year' the percentage goes up if you are young, or female, or mainline Protestant (as opposed to evangelical).
I would also echo the pain that I head in this article near the end. - "For those of us who have made Christianity central to our lives, the pain of this moment is watching those who claim to follow Jesus do so much to distort who he really was." [I am fully aware that this brings up claims of 'what is truth,' but it doesn't make the pain of watching something near and dear to my heart and soul get ripped apart for the sake of a few folks' wallets.]
I wanted to react with several reacts here but you get a hug and a reply. Thanks for giving your thoughts on this.
^This.
I remember thinking something similar when attending my grandfather's funeral mass. When communion time came around, the priest announced, "Only those in a state of Grace may take communion." This struck me as...exclusionary.
--Patrick
This reminds me of something I might have mentioned before. My wife and I got married in a Presbyterian church near my grandparents' house. However, neither of us was Presbyterian. When we went down to talk to the minister about whether we could use the church for our wedding, he said sure. He also mentioned that his predecessor, an elderly minister who'd served at the church for decades, forbade anyone who hadn't been baptized in that church to use it for weddings. But when the new minister came along, he changed this policy to be more welcoming. His reasoning was that being exclusionary only causes barriers instead of inclusiveness, and doesn't attract new members to the church.
Given that my wife still attends that church weekly, I'd say his philosophy was correct.
figmentPez
Staff member
1 Corinthians 11:29 "For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body."
This verse is taken by many Christians to mean that taking communion is harmful to anyone who does it when not in a proper state to do so. (I'm sure there are a wide range of beliefs as to what the exact requirements are.) Some denominations/congregations guard communion more closely than others, but there are a lot who think there is good reason that communion should only be taken by believers.
In at least some cases this is exclusionary in the same way that keeping someone who has a peanut allergy from eating peanut butter cookies is exclusionary. Granted the "cookies" in question may or may not have completely imaginary "peanuts" in them, depending on whose beliefs are correct, but the motivation can be protection, not elitism.
Even if this is true this is still a problem for the church. Worst case scenario they're being elitist & exclusionary. Best case they think communion is potentially harmful to some people so don't offer it to them, except because they're not explaining why they're not letting them take it people - like @PatrThom above - think they're being exclusionary. This is not conducive to getting those people to come back to church.
Only God can judge people. God, or people who believe they know how God would judge someone and act on that as if it were true, and see no irony in this stance.
figmentPez
Staff member
You have part of a point, but I think you're still being unfair. Religious leaders should do their best to make their practices informative, especially at events that will attract those outside their faith. However, the purpose of communion is for believers to gather together and remember the sacrifice Christ made. It's never been a tradition that's supposed to include non-believers. If people want to partake, they can join the group.
"Wah! The marching band wouldn't me join them on the field, that's exclusionary! They didn't explain to me that they were performing a choreographed routine, they just expected me to know. I think anyone who wants should be able to march onto the field at half-time and take part if they want to. They must be part of some cult that thinks they're better than everyone else. It's not very conductive to getting people to come back if they don't let everyone on the field."
My grandparents, when they were still living, were members Church of Christ. I used to attend in the summers when I visited them. The rule there is you did not partake in communion unless you'd been baptized, and you did not get baptized until you were old enough to be able to understand and state why you wanted it. So, as a child, I never got baptized and I never partook.
When my grandfather passed away, I came for the funeral, and there was communion. I partook--my first and only time. Afterwards, my mother was giving me grief about it, because she knew I wasn't a believer and not baptized. I told her "Look, I don't want to get into a big discussion with my grandmother, especially at this time, why I'm not baptized at 40-something years old. She's got enough on her plate to deal with, and if it makes her happy thinking I'm Right with Jesus, let her enjoy the little time she has left. To me, it's just grape juice and crackers anyway, and if nobody knows, no harm, no foul."
When my grandfather passed away, I came for the funeral, and there was communion. I partook--my first and only time. Afterwards, my mother was giving me grief about it, because she knew I wasn't a believer and not baptized. I told her "Look, I don't want to get into a big discussion with my grandmother, especially at this time, why I'm not baptized at 40-something years old. She's got enough on her plate to deal with, and if it makes her happy thinking I'm Right with Jesus, let her enjoy the little time she has left. To me, it's just grape juice and crackers anyway, and if nobody knows, no harm, no foul."
The main reason I found it exclusionary was because I was a follower pretty much right up until (but not including) my confirmation. I found it odd because I figured this was going to be the ideal time to be all, "Welcome back! We've missed you. Come share in our celebration of your grandfather's life," and not, "Sorry, True Catholics only."
If anything, it felt more like the Church had developed an allergy to me.
--Patrick
Yeah, this is basically correct for Catholics, and that's the verse most cited for it.
To be clear, it's not like "true Catholics" are in a state of grace all the time - a Catholic can be in a state of sin and not grace. If I commit a mortal sin and haven't gone to confession, then I shouldn't receive communion. It is supposed to be a self-governing thing: you know whether or not you are in a state of grace at the time, and approach for only a blessing if not, or to receive if you are. So possibly the message was to Catholics generally as a reminder. And the priest doesn't know - unless you've been publicly caught doing it, and even then he wouldn't know if you'd gone to confession to another priest, so he isn't supposed to deny you the Eucharist if you present yourself.
figmentPez
Staff member
Texas church illegally performs 'Hamilton' with anti-LGBTQ message
"The Door Christian Fellowship Ministries of McAllen changed Lin-Manuel Miranda's rendition of the musical to incorporate a sermon that compared being gay with having an addiction."
"In a statement to the Dallas Morning News, Pastor Roman Gutierrez said he acquired legal permission from the team behind Hamilton to produce the church's show."
"Miranda's Hamilton team denied giving the pastor permission to perform the show,"
"The Door Christian Fellowship Ministries of McAllen changed Lin-Manuel Miranda's rendition of the musical to incorporate a sermon that compared being gay with having an addiction."
"In a statement to the Dallas Morning News, Pastor Roman Gutierrez said he acquired legal permission from the team behind Hamilton to produce the church's show."
"Miranda's Hamilton team denied giving the pastor permission to perform the show,"