LGBT inclusion can tear congregations apart

[Res Ipsa]

I’m sure you’re aware that evidence is not confined to peer reviewed double blind studies. You saw a snapshot of a congregation on one visit. You have no idea whether the congregation before the decision back in May was any different than on the day you saw it. Yet you concluded that this congregation was torn apart by the announcement dropping prohibitions against gay clergy and marriage. What is the factual basis for your conclusion that there was a significant change in the membership of the congregation you visited in the last five months?

Let’s imagine we ran the clock back to 2019 and the United Methodist church made the decision to uphold the ban on LGBT marriages and clergy. And they announced that this was never going to change, and their congregants believed it.

Would I on my visit have experienced a different congregation than the one I saw? I think it’s reasonable to make an informed guess that yes, there would probably have been a stronger congregation during my visit.

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying I would likely have encountered the same sparse congregation because the religion was already in decline for other reasons unrelated to the LGBT issue.

You don’t understand me correctly. I’m saying that congregations have their own births, changes and deaths. You, in fact, have zero information about the history of the congregation you visited. The first article I cited talked about a trend of aging population and declining membership in the UMC that was occurring before 2019. But I’m not going to argue that that trend explains what you saw on your single visit because I know nothing about the history of that congregation. That’s my point. It could be one of a thousand different causes, or some combination of causes. Neither of us are “educated” enough about the facts to make an “educated guess.”

[drumdude]

Let’s imagine we ran the clock back to 2019 and the United Methodist church made the decision to uphold the ban on LGBT marriages and clergy. And they announced that this was never going to change, and their congregants believed it.

Would I on my visit have experienced a different congregation than the one I saw? I think it’s reasonable to make an informed guess that yes, there would probably have been a stronger congregation during my visit.

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying I would likely have encountered the same sparse congregation because the religion was already in decline for other reasons unrelated to the LGBT issue.

You don’t understand me correctly. I’m saying that congregations have their own births, changes and deaths. You, in fact, have zero information about the history of the congregation you visited. The first article I cited talked about a trend of aging population and declining membership in the UMC that was occurring before 2019. But I’m not going to argue that that trend explains what you saw on your single visit because I know nothing about the history of that congregation. That’s my point. It could be one of a thousand different causes, or some combination of causes. Neither of us are “educated” enough about the facts to make an “educated guess.”

To quote the article you cited:

But whatever the final tally may be, the analysis suggests the country’s second-largest Protestant denomination—numbering 6.4 million US members and 13 million worldwide—may weaken but is unlikely to break.

“You think of a schism as 50 percent or even 35 percent (split),” said Scott Thumma, director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research and a lead researcher for the 2020 US Religion Census. “This is not a real schism.”

10 percent shy of what this person says is a major schism. Perhaps this one particular congregation may have been unaffected by a major schism within its religion.

Its definitely irrational of me to have noticed the sparse congregation, wondered about its cause, noticed that 25 percent of the members across the US have left because of a specific policy change, and assumed that had anything to do with my visit.

It was quite the coincidence though.

A bit like someone walking into all the security at the airport in 2002. “I bet this is unrelated to the towers coming down, they probably always had a large security budget.”

[Res Ipsa]

One more time. The 25% loss wasn’t based on people leaving congregations: it was entire congregations leaving the umbrella organization.

It was entirely rational for you to notice the size and composition of the congregation and to be curious about how it got that way. It is not rational to attribute that condition to an event five months before that based solely on disaffiliation of entire congregations over prior years as opposed to changes within a congregation.

What was the town. Maybe we can find some facts.

[drumdude]

One more time. The 25% loss wasn’t based on people leaving congregations: it was entire congregations leaving the umbrella organization.

It was entirely rational for you to notice the size and composition of the congregation and to be curious about how it got that way. It is not rational to attribute that condition to an event five months before that based solely on disaffiliation of entire congregations over prior years as opposed to changes within a congregation.

What was the town. Maybe we can find some facts.

For each congregation that left the faith, they would contain a varying percentage of people who agreed or disagreed with the policy. It wouldn’t be a clean split. Not all the members would stay in that physical church, and not all the members would be able to easily find another United church.

Imagine the chaos if 25 percent of the Mormon church just split off essentially overnight. I’m kind of baffled that I hadn’t even heard about this before I went and looked it up.

That’s I think the more important idea I wanted to raise in the thread, rather than focus on a single congregation. Because as you say I have a super small sample size that may be an outlier.

[I Have Questions]

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by saying the Bible is the Word of God? For instance, does that mean everything in it is correct, and believers in it should be complying with all its messages?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to offer a few examples.

Is a Bible believe Christian required to believe that creation was made in 6 literal days? No, there are many in-house debates discussions around various aspects of this - ex: day in Hebrew can mean a 24-hour period or a very long time.

Does a Bible believing Christain get to pick and choose what Scripture teaches based on what they like/prefer and reject what they don't? No, this is a common problem in modern Christianity. Christians need to accept all of it or none of it, in my opinion. Some of it can be very uncomfortable and unpopular.

Does that help or no?

This maybe a conversation for a different thread but, I have a couple of challenges about that kind of position with the Bible. I’ll caveat by saying I don’t mean any of this as a direct criticism of you, but if the cap fits…

Firstly, I see that people will cherry pick from the Bible and use it as a vehicle to justify their own preferences and biases. Because most of the Bible is written in flowery, metaphorical, ambiguous prose, people can read all sorts into it - which links into the first point.

Secondly, I don’t really know on what basis it is justified in being called the word of God. From my perspective, it’s a collection of disparate writings by individuals or groups that they’ve penned to articulate their personal explanation of the world around them, or to promote an agenda etc etc. Then, much later, someone else with an agenda, personal opinions, personal preferences, etc. pulled some of these writings into a collection to be used for their own power grab or to legitimise what they wanted from a group.

Secondly, some of the Bible content is horrific. I don’t see how a person can believe in a God that instructs people that women shouldn’t be heard in Church. That’s some bloke in the past justifying his own sexism, his own misogyny. And if you subscribe to that view today “because it’s the word of God” then you are also guilty of only justifying your own sexism and misogyny.

The Bible also contradicts itself. Love thy neighbour, thou shall not kill, or send a bear to kill kids, or stone a woman to death if she’s involved in a fight to protect her husband from harm and uses a knee or a punch to the assailants groin to do so.

It’s all over the place - as you would expect from a collection of writings from a disparate group of individuals, from different times and places, with different views, opinions, and agendas, some of which was subsequently collated for use to subjugate a group of people over someone wanted dominion.

The Bible is not a single book; it is a collection of books whose complex development is not completely understood. The oldest books began as songs and stories orally transmitted from generation to generation. Scholars of the twenty-first century are only in the beginning stages of exploring "the interface between writing, performance, memorization, and the aural dimension" of the texts. Current indications are that writing and orality were not separate so much as ancient writing was learned in a context of communal oral performance.[9] The Bible was written and compiled by many people, who many scholars say are mostly unknown, from a variety of disparate cultures and backgrounds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

It could mostly be fictitious, urban myths, rumours, gossip, Chinese whispers, some of it could have been produced for entertainment, or as stories to tell children to keep them in line - an ancient version of the Elf on the Shelf.

The Bible is simply a compendium of the guesses and prejudices of iron-age and pre-Medieval-age persons unknown.

A persons stated belief in the Bible, and their subsequent explanation of that belief, is usually a window into their personality rather than a explanation of how and why the Bible should be treated as God’s word. I find an interesting question to be “If the Bible didn’t exist, how would you behave differently than you do currently?”

I’m open to hearing something compelling about why the Bible should be considered as a work sponsored by a divine all-knowing being who created the world. I just haven’t heard it yet.

[ceeboo]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to offer a few examples.

Is a Bible believe Christian required to believe that creation was made in 6 literal days? No, there are many in-house debates discussions around various aspects of this - ex: day in Hebrew can mean a 24-hour period or a very long time.

Does a Bible believing Christain get to pick and choose what Scripture teaches based on what they like/prefer and reject what they don't? No, this is a common problem in modern Christianity. Christians need to accept all of it or none of it, in my opinion. Some of it can be very uncomfortable and unpopular.

Does that help or no?

This maybe a conversation for a different thread but, I have a couple of challenges about that kind of position with the Bible. I’ll caveat by saying I don’t mean any of this as a direct criticism of you, but if the cap fits…

Firstly, I see that people will cherry pick from the Bible and use it as a vehicle to justify their own preferences and biases. Because most of the Bible is written in flowery, metaphorical, ambiguous prose, people can read all sorts into it - which links into the first point.

Secondly, I don’t really know on what basis it is justified in being called the word of God. From my perspective, it’s a collection of disparate writings by individuals or groups that they’ve penned to articulate their personal explanation of the world around them, or to promote an agenda etc etc. Then, much later, someone else with an agenda, personal opinions, personal preferences, etc. pulled some of these writings into a collection to be used for their own power grab or to legitimise what they wanted from a group.

Secondly, some of the Bible content is horrific. I don’t see how a person can believe in a God that instructs people that women shouldn’t be heard in Church. That’s some bloke in the past justifying his own sexism, his own misogyny. And if you subscribe to that view today “because it’s the word of God” then you are also guilty of only justifying your own sexism and misogyny.

The Bible also contradicts itself. Love thy neighbour, thou shall not kill, or send a bear to kill kids, or stone a woman to death if she’s involved in a fight to protect her husband from harm and uses a knee or a punch to the assailants groin to do so.

It’s all over the place - as you would expect from a collection of writings from a disparate group of individuals, from different times and places, with different views, opinions, and agendas, some of which was subsequently collated for use to subjugate a group of people over someone wanted dominion.

The Bible is not a single book; it is a collection of books whose complex development is not completely understood. The oldest books began as songs and stories orally transmitted from generation to generation. Scholars of the twenty-first century are only in the beginning stages of exploring "the interface between writing, performance, memorization, and the aural dimension" of the texts. Current indications are that writing and orality were not separate so much as ancient writing was learned in a context of communal oral performance.[9] The Bible was written and compiled by many people, who many scholars say are mostly unknown, from a variety of disparate cultures and backgrounds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

It could mostly be fictitious, urban myths, rumours, gossip, Chinese whispers, some of it could have been produced for entertainment, or as stories to tell children to keep them in line - an ancient version of the Elf on the Shelf.

The Bible is simply a compendium of the guesses and prejudices of iron-age and pre-Medieval-age persons unknown.

A persons stated belief in the Bible, and their subsequent explanation of that belief, is usually a window into their personality rather than a explanation of how and why the Bible should be treated as God’s word. I find an interesting question to be “If the Bible didn’t exist, how would you behave differently than you do currently?”

I’m open to hearing something compelling about why the Bible should be considered as a work sponsored by a divine all-knowing being who created the world. I just haven’t heard it yet.

Hey IHAQ,

There is a lot there - I have heard these challenges, as well as others, many times before. As I mentioned to DD, I might find the courage (and time it would take) to start a thread and lay out my personal positions on these various things.

Yes - The Bible is grimy, gut-wrenching, horrifying in many ways, full of deep angst, littered with ugly war, loaded with human pain, etc.- That's because the Bible describes humanity and the Creator of creation (which includes humanity)

To just scratch the surface (for now), I would suggest that the Bible - From Genesis to Revelation - is one story that is precisely woven together in a way that, in my view, simply cannot be explained by anything other than Divine hands all over it.

YMMV - And that is fine by me.

[I Have Questions]

To just scratch the surface (for now), I would suggest that the Bible - From Genesis to Revelation - is one story that is precisely woven together in a way that, in my view, simply cannot be explained by anything other than Divine hands all over it.

Really? Is it not simply a glorified history of the Israelites written by Israelites?

Some of the stories of the Pentateuch may derive from older sources. Scholars such as Andrew R. George point out the similarity of the Genesis flood narrative and the Gilgamesh flood myth.[8][x] Similarities between the origin story of Moses and that of Sargon of Akkad were noted by psychoanalyst Otto Rank in 1909[12] and popularized by 20th-century writers, such as H. G. Wells and Joseph Campbell.[13][14] Jacob Bronowski writes that, "the Bible is ... part folklore and part record. History is ... written by the victors, and the Israelis, when they burst through [Jericho (c. 1400 BC)], became the carriers of history."[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

I’d imagine a Canaanite history might have told a different story.

And to say that it’s been out together with Divine Hands, you have to accept that you see God’s hand in the killing of children and the raping of women. Don’t you?

[ceeboo]

To just scratch the surface (for now), I would suggest that the Bible - From Genesis to Revelation - is one story that is precisely woven together in a way that, in my view, simply cannot be explained by anything other than Divine hands all over it.

Really? Is it not simply a glorified history of the Israelites written by Israelites?

Some of the stories of the Pentateuch may derive from older sources. Scholars such as Andrew R. George point out the similarity of the Genesis flood narrative and the Gilgamesh flood myth.[8][x] Similarities between the origin story of Moses and that of Sargon of Akkad were noted by psychoanalyst Otto Rank in 1909[12] and popularized by 20th-century writers, such as H. G. Wells and Joseph Campbell.[13][14] Jacob Bronowski writes that, "the Bible is ... part folklore and part record. History is ... written by the victors, and the Israelis, when they burst through [Jericho (c. 1400 BC)], became the carriers of history."[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

I’d imagine a Canaanite history might have told a different story.

And to say that it’s been out together with Divine Hands, you have to accept that you see God’s hand in the killing of children and the raping of women. Don’t you?

If you are dug as deep as you appear to be in your positions, why are you asking me for my views (or are you not really asking?)

The things you choose to bring up strike me as being parroted by folks like Harris, Hitchens, Ehrman, Singer, Shermer, Dawkins, etc. So, I am guessing you are pretty firm in your current worldview. If that's the case, why would you be asking me (a Bible believing Christian) questions? Is your desire to "get me" or to "win a debate"? I don't debate - I share my views when I am asked to share, and I usually don't share if/when I believe that the person asking is not really interested to hear my personal views, rather, they are intending to smash them with their assumed superior views.

I'm just not interested in that.

[I Have Questions]

Really? Is it not simply a glorified history of the Israelites written by Israelites?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

I’d imagine a Canaanite history might have told a different story.

And to say that it’s been out together with Divine Hands, you have to accept that you see God’s hand in the killing of children and the raping of women. Don’t you?

If you are dug as deep as you appear to be in your positions, why are you asking me for my views (or are you not really asking?)

The things you choose to bring up strike me as being parroted by folks like Harris, Hitchens, Ehrman, Singer, Shermer, Dawkins, etc. So, I am guessing you are pretty firm in your current worldview. If that's the case, why would you be asking me (a Bible believing Christian) questions? Is your desire to "get me" or to "win a debate"? I don't debate - I share my views when I am asked to share, and I usually don't share if/when I believe that the person asking is not really interested to hear my personal views, rather, they are intending to smash them with their assumed superior views.

I'm just not interested in that.

You've stated that you believe the Bible to be the Word Of God. All of it. But rather than assuming you are accepting of a God that promoted the killing of children and the raping of women, I thought I’d give you the chance to say that you don’t actually believe God facilitated those things.

You don’t have to respond to my question, obviously. But where does that leave everyone in terms of understanding what you actually believe about the Bible? What does it say about your commitment to discipleship on behalf of that God?

Personally I see it this way - if the Bible is the word of God, and God is the type of divine being that feels justified in killing children and raping women, then I want absolutely nothing to do that divine being. They are not worthy of my worship. If God isn’t the type of divine being that feels justified in killing children and raping women, then the Bible cannot possibly reflect the word of that divine being. I don’t see a third option.

[Marcus]

...Does a Bible believing Christain get to pick and choose what Scripture teaches based on what they like/prefer and reject what they don't? No, this is a common problem in modern Christianity. Christians need to accept all of it or none of it, in my opinion. Some of it can be very uncomfortable and unpopular.

Does that help or no?

Not really. When I read opinions like this, I am always reminded of the scene from West Wing:

President Josiah Bartlet : Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs : I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet : Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs : 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet : Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745700/ch ... /nm0000640