The Pew Research Center released a poll yesterday correlating attitudes toward homosexual persons with religious affiliation.
The poll data reflect an apparent backlash:
- opposition to gay marriage among evangelical Protestants has risen nine percentage points, from 71 percent to 80 percent, since July 2003
- the belief that acceptance of gays would be bad for the nation has risen eight percentage points since 2000, from 23 percent to 31 percent
- the belief that gay themes and characters are too prevalent in entertainment media has risen from 37 percent to 48 percent since 2000.
The data may also reflect moral tunnelvision among some (not all) evangelicals. While 13 to 28 percent of mainline Protestants and Catholics say their churches discourage homosexuality — reflecting these churches’ modest prioritization of homosexuality against greater moral concerns — 59 percent of evangelical Protestants say their churches discourage homosexuality.
Evangelicals for Social Action is likely to argue that these churches spend far too little time each week addressing key Christian moral concerns such as poverty, white-collar crime, racism, religious bigotry and violence, just vs unjust war, domestic abuse, consumerism, smoking, drinking, sexism, hubris, and lying.
Not to mention dancing, card playing, movie going, women riding bicycles and makeup. These were the big concerns of cC’s when I was a kid.
Sounds like they oughta cut loose, footloose.
Dale and Natalie, all that would require hardcore self-examination and repentance from most of the people in the church. Who wants that? Why not keep picking on a small minority within the church, as well as outsiders? It’s so much more entertaining than a sermon on gossip or white-collar crime, and almost everybody gets to feel fantastic about themselves!
Seriously, Mike, thanx for the link.
Checked out what was available on the linked site. Much of it is not in service at this time. Does this group have a following of over 3 dozen ec’s? Lived in Chicago at the time of the gathering and never heard of this bunch. Do recall the ugly relationship between gays (at that time and place) and the ec. Does this group take any positions on gl issues? Or is it all environment and peace type stuff. What I notice fairly consistently is that very tiny groups of ec’s are presented to gays as signs of progress with our message. Having checked out Sojourners, I remain consistently underwhelmed by this whole line of thought. Looking thru the site it seemed to be composed of people from those ec’s that do not have roots in the British Isles or the US South. Namely: the Dutch Reformed Church in America, the Skandinavian Evangelical Free Church and the Swedish Evangelical Covenant. And most likely with the urban parts of these churches. So, tell us more please. What positions if any do these groups take on glbt issues? And what impact does that have?
Went further, and used the search archives in Prism, their magazine. First used ‘gay’. Got 30 references. Excluding those to Marvin Gaye’s music, I tried each one. NOT ONE WOULD OPEN. All had been removed or something. Same using ‘homosexuality’. Perhaps I did something wrong. Most from the blurbs looked to be early in the HIV epidemic. And not much to do about current concerns of actual living glbt’s. What if anything does this group do for and about gay people?
ESA has been around for decades. Like Sojourners and Call to Reform, they call on evangelicals to address real social ills and sins. My impression has always been that they agree-to-disagree on scapegoat issues like abortion and homosexuality.
Sorry to hear their web site is in sad shape. I didn’t even know they had a website until I found it a couple days ago.
I am a member of an Evangelical Free congregation so I can speak to that. Because EFCA has a congregationalist form of government there are differences between congregations. With that caveat out of the way, the EFCA sees themselves as refugees from both liberal and fundamentalist churches. The official position of the denomination (1978 position paper) is that homosexual behavior is sinful but forgivable. But, that is not really their focus. For example, because the denomination is largely middle class there is quite a focus on the sins of the middle class (1988 position paper).
Because GLBT issues tend to distract from our own personal repentance (as already noted above) it is not normally a topic. For example, when our church went through Dobson’s Bringing Up Boys, the chapters on homosexuality were axed. During the follow-up small groups, I stressed that we should be open to our children about our weaknesses and failures. The overriding principle here is that we have enough sin ourselves to worry about other people’s sins.
The one area where homosexuality is brought up is our attitude towards it. See the following link. We are encouraged to “challenge others publicly when they are making fun of others because of their race, gender, ethnic background, religion, appearance, disability, or sexual orientation”. While very few of us are homosexual, all of us are judgmental. Since different people are judgmental in different ways, the topic is usually dealt with in a broader fashion rather than the specific instance of being judgmental towards GLBT people.
So, yes, the issue of homosexuality can and does distract us from our own personal responsibility. It is also a very “convenient” sin because it doesn’t tempt many of us. Many of us realize that. So, we try and place the focus on our own sin instead. Irenic evangelicals are a small part of the overall evangelical community, but — be encouraged — we are also the fastest growing corner of it.
There is a new label for us: “Freestyle Evangelicals”. See the following story.
Rich says:
“While very few of us are homosexual, all of us are judgmental.”
Which certainly sounds like the Free Chruch of my childhood. The last time I was in one, I recall we all sang ‘Trygare Kan Ingen Vara’. My recollection is of a church that focused entirely on personal piety. Setting an extra place at the table, avoiding hair do’s for women, no make up etc. Surprising how far the Free Church has come. Thanks for the information.
The changes were a result of trying to get past being an ethnic and suburban church. The Gospel needed to be both timeless and timely. It was the latter effort to be culturally relevant that got the so-called neo-evangelicals in trouble with the traditional evangelicals. The traditional evangelicals view us as “sell outs” because they think we are throwing out Scripture. This is not true. Rather, our cultural interactions are driven by Scripture itself.
Scripture does not allow us either to isolate from the culture nor to be at war with it. The latter is the case because the culture consists of people and people are the ones for whom Christ died. If Christ could forgive those whom literally killed them, we should do no less for the people in our culture. We believe that the culture is best transformed not by warring with it but from the inside out, one person at a time, starting with us.
Hmmm, the EFC I recall was rural and urban; not suburban. And I can recall how these churches dumped all those who had been with them for so long in their rush to become just another biblebarn. The callous way that long established traditions were tossed out made a rather poor impression on lots of us. Mainly on those who had been born into such circles, or were related to those who had been. So, I am not convinced that this turning their back on ethnic traditions and concerns was a positive. In fact, it really seems to have been a very nasty way of using and abusing a lot of long time supporters.
After all, the lovely Swedish language needlepoint had been made by many of our family friends and members. Tossing it into the trash did not endure the EFC to me. But if that is how to present the Gospel, count me out.
I am sorry to hear that was your experience. What attracted me to the congregation I am currently attending is the wide diversity of ages and backgrounds. There is both a respect for tradition along with the desire to not be trapped by it.
Here’s one description of moving away from an ethnic church and the whys behind it.
This is what I meant by the Gospel being relevant. To this day the leadership of the denomination is heavily Scandanavian (e.g., my pastor’s name is Oleson). Yet, they have seen beyond their heritage without abandoning it. Those of us who are not Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian appreciate their hospitality.
Rich says: ‘Those of us who are not Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian appreciate their hospitality.’
Thanks for the information Rich. I searched and checked out the website for the church. Remember the building, on Ashland just off of Foster. Near Trumbull School, where my father went in the 1920’s. I lived in Chicago in the 70’s and 80’s. My memories of coming out and being gay are very tied up with this area. Haven’t been there for about 5 years. Everyone I knew is dead, so it is sort of painful.
But I do know that a few blocks from your church is Ann Sather’s restaurant, run by an openly gay man. And the old Swedish Masons Hall, Svithiod, is now the leather bar Eagle’s Nest, or something like that. This is an area that has always had a large gay community, complete with bars, restaurants and shops.
My other experience is that the churches in the neighborhood have consistently and rigorously turned their backs to the gay community that literally sits on their doorstep. Bethany up on Elmdale, one of the oldest Swedish churches in the midwest refused to let the gays and lesbians flooding into the neighborhood use their building. Instead they prefered to import Korean immigrants to make up the congregation.
Which is their choice. Those of us who are the grandchildren etc of the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes (as well as the Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Slovaks, Hungarians) who built these churches have experienced first hand the rejection practiced by these churches. And have moved on.
In Andersonville in the early 80’s the only religious leader willing to work with People With AIDS was a rather quirky old worker priest, Father Earl. The rest, the EFC, the MC, the Lutherans would have spit on anybody with AIDS who came near their buildings.
Sorry to run on so. This stirs up a lot of memories for me. Most of them very unpleasant.
This tends to sound very emotional because it is for me a major issue. The churches being discussed here are those to which I have ties, of memory, of family, of ethnicity. They tend also to be the venue through which I experienced the homophobia and rejection for being gay that comes from christian churches. Perhaps it is because I know the places and the settings of the ones mentioned here that my feelings are so strong. All I can say, is what good is it to reach out to street whores, immigrants etc all the while rejecting the gays and lesbians around you? In my experience, these churches personify ‘the looking down their nose at gay people’ mode of christian expression. Words fail me in stating my loathing of them and their works.
Dale said:
Don’t apologize for your emotions. What good does it do? This:
Will we still look down our noses at you? Maybe. But, we are still only a couple of years into being intentionally inclusive and institutionally repenting of racism. Old habits die hard but with the Spirit’s help they do die.
I do not see what was done long ago as racism. Instead it strikes me as a sensible program because the issue is not race, ethnicity etc: it is language. For a church in an immigrant community the choice of language is paramount. I can certainly see why a Swedish church would not reach out to speakers of other languages. And racism is not a part of it.
Still I reflect on the churches you describe. I recall the endless nastiness coming from them. The deliberate policy of slights and putdowns. Which very much colors my views of them.