LGBT inclusion can tear congregations apart

[Marcus]

I don't consider it non-toxic for a Christian organization to exclude other groups of people based on the attributes under discussion in this thread. That is a toxic policy and it's nothing more than bigotry.

[Jersey Girl]

I had the pleasure of visiting a United Methodist church service this morning. All I knew about Methodism was that Joseph and his family had been nominal members before he created his own religion.

I was surprised to discover what seemed to be a small struggling congregation, and this was not in a very small town. The average age was probably 65, and people did not fill the pews of the large church like they would in a local Catholic Church.

The message of the pastor and his assistants was overwhelming: “everyone is loved and included period.” It was clear there was an overt undertone of LGBT acceptance. There was a planned lecture discussed about Jesus and Feminism. I really resonated with this progressive inclusive message, but I felt like this was out of place amongst the congregation of boomers.

So I decided to look up what the deal was. The United Methodist church leadership decided to fully embrace LGBT marriage and pastors. And it’s cost them over 25% of their members over the last 5 years.

This is very similar to the story of the Community of Christ. “Going woke” as conservatives critics call it, has profoundly negative consequences. It’s an unfortunate irony that following Christ like this ends up destroying Christian communities.

All of this to say, this is the kind of thing that reinforces the Mormon church’s hardline stance on LGBT issues. They feel like, and with good reason, that if they make major inclusive changes then they will endanger their religion. I think they may very well be correct about that, unfortunately.

Just saw this. Okay let me make this quick and dirty.

There is no possible reason that any church should exclude LGBTQ folks in their congregation. If they want to rule out clergy positions, okay fine I guess. I get it but I wouldn't accept it forever. It's de-humanizing.

Why.

Let's say that Christian folks think LGBTQ sexual orientations include sinful behavior. Most do. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on that issue myself. I guess I should be but I flip around in my thoughts on this. I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it any more because I know how I'm going to treat people anyway.

That said, on what planet do Christian churches not accept sinners into their places of worship? Their congregations? Welcome anyone and everyone with open arms and hospitality?

That's got to be the most inappropriate concept I can think of and totally against what Christ taught. You might as well call it "The Church of the Pharisees". And we all know what Christ Jesus thought about those folks.

kthnx I'm done.

[Bond]

I had the pleasure of visiting a United Methodist church service this morning. All I knew about Methodism was that Joseph and his family had been nominal members before he created his own religion.

I was surprised to discover what seemed to be a small struggling congregation, and this was not in a very small town. The average age was probably 65, and people did not fill the pews of the large church like they would in a local Catholic Church.

The message of the pastor and his assistants was overwhelming: “everyone is loved and included period.” It was clear there was an overt undertone of LGBT acceptance. There was a planned lecture discussed about Jesus and Feminism. I really resonated with this progressive inclusive message, but I felt like this was out of place amongst the congregation of boomers.

So I decided to look up what the deal was. The United Methodist church leadership decided to fully embrace LGBT marriage and pastors. And it’s cost them over 25% of their members over the last 5 years.

This is very similar to the story of the Community of Christ. “Going woke” as conservatives critics call it, has profoundly negative consequences. It’s an unfortunate irony that following Christ like this ends up destroying Christian communities.

All of this to say, this is the kind of thing that reinforces the Mormon church’s hardline stance on LGBT issues. They feel like, and with good reason, that if they make major inclusive changes then they will endanger their religion. I think they may very well be correct about that, unfortunately.

Mainline churches were already shrinking the LGBT decisions have just super charged it. Pro LGBT people under ~40 still saw other problems with religion (science claims, inequality of women, etc) and left while hardliners who were against Pro-LGBT decisions left for more conservative denominations. The mainline churches have also been splitting based on the decisions further weakening the denominations.

[drumdude]

There is no possible reason that any church should exclude LGBTQ folks in their congregation. If they want to rule out clergy positions, okay fine I guess. I get it but I wouldn't accept it forever. It's de-humanizing.

The Catholic Church and Mormon church, and this more liberal Methodist church all allow LGBT folks in their congregation. I don’t think that’s what caused the split.

What seems to have caused all this drama in the religions is if the religion should perform same sex marriages and allow LGBT clergy.

Is it bigoted for a church to decline to perform same sex marriages and not allow them into the clergy? It’s a bridge to far for many Christians, who are otherwise very tolerant of LGBT people in their day to day lives.

[Moksha]

About thirty years ago, I remember this as a heated debate at the South Valley Unitarian Church. It seemed like it was going to lead to families with children leaving. Many people felt it was more about upholding liberal values than the long-term survival of the congregation.

They still have children, but they let them sit in an unorthodox cattywampus manner that would not be tolerated in the LDS Church. Further, the young folk are dismissed early to classes where they cannot listen to the Dry Council members deliver their talks!!!

Havok reins when so-called "LGBTQ" are allowed to be included.

[Marcus]

...What seems to have caused all this drama in the religions is if the religion should perform same sex marriages and allow LGBT clergy.

Is it bigoted for a church to decline to perform same sex marriages and not allow them into the clergy? It’s a bridge to far for many Christians, who are otherwise very tolerant of LGBT people in their day to day lives.

"if religion should" makes it sound like this is a factual thing. It's not, it's a belief. If your beliefs are that all should be allowed to marry and serve as clergy, then find a church that has that.

Personally I don't find being tolerant of LGBT includes thinking they shouldn't be allowed to marry, but that's my belief.

Also, your title is misleading. "LGBT inclusion" means to include LGBT, but you apparently intended it to mean just as it relates to marriage and clergy, not inclusion in general, right?

[Moksha]

Havok reins when so-called "LGBTQ" are allowed to be included.

See! It tears into the Holy MAGA.

[Marcus]

Havok reins when so-called "LGBTQ" are allowed to be included.

See! It tears into the Holy MAGA.

I'm never sure if you are making a point or just being randomly 'funny.' Do you have a point? And if so, could you state what it is?

[Moksha]

I'm never sure if you are making a point or just being randomly 'funny.' Do you have a point? And if so, could you state what it is?

Making a point with humor seems possible. The point is congregations can exist and continue even with LQBTQ inclusion. Theoretically, the love of God can bind the congregation together.

[MG 2.0]

They still are. I can’t speak for other churches, but the LDS Church seems to be doing very well with young families that are attending church regularly. That bodes well.

Regards,
MG

I don’t know how these churches with the average age of 70 are going to survive. There’s literally no one left to replace them in 20 years.

I think that’s bad for Mormons too, by the way. They can’t exist in a vacuum, they’re a very tiny piece of Christianity after all. And I don’t think the evangelical churches that are still popular are very kind to Mormonism.

My point was that the LDS Church is vibrant because of a preponderance of families with children that attend church together. That promotes growth, not stagnation, as you’ve described for other churches.

Regards,
MG