Church Shopping, Again
“The reason why many are still troubled, still seeking, still making little forward progress is because they haven’t yet come to the end of themselves. We’re still trying to give orders, and interfering with God’s work within us. ” A.W. Tozer
I’ve been irregular at best for the last two-plus years about church attendance. When I go, I’ve been increasingly sporadic about where.
Like most people, I had the pandemic and attendant lockdown as an excuse for a year-plus. On the heels of that came a string of health issues, particularly a hip replacement that led to MRSA and an allergic reaction to the first antibiotic prescribed to address it.
My overall vigor level has come back enough for me to be functional, and even robust for periods of a day. So now it’s time to face the question: Where shall I take my place in the bride of Christ?
The journey
I’ve only been what I’d consider an actual Christian for a decade at most. I had to feel my way through a process of sorting out a lifetime of head trips to get there.I was raised in the Presbyterian Church where my father had been a member since 1945. Our family was regular about attendance. I sang in the primary and junior choirs, went to Sunday school after the service, and was confirmed at age 14. My parents, particularly my dad, were comfortable with the approach the congregation took toward a life of faith. The minister was a mix of sociocultural preoccupations – this was the 1960s – and a genuine theological foundation rooted in southern Presbyterian thought. This fit well with our family’s lifestyle. We and our neighbors were typically middle class. There was cocktail hour before dinner, a Republican political affiliation, civic involvement (my father insisted I join the Boy Scouts when I turned 11), and an emphasis on manners and comportment. There was, however, room for the occasional dirty joke told in the company of close friends. My parents slowly and with visible discomfort relented on issues such as hair length, and, by the time I got to college, my drug use.
Let me back up, though.
Shortly after I’d been confirmed, my father took the minister to lunch and announced he was leaving the church. The final straw, he told him, was the PCUSA’s donation to Angela Davis’s defense fund. Fast forward to my college years and early adulthood. I dove with abandon into the full panoply of secular-yet-sporting-the-facade-of-spiritual-earnestness offerings available to a boomer coming of age: beat literature, eastern thought, rock music, and the aforementioned drugs. My ideological conversion experience preceded my religious one by a good three decades.
I’d been attending a Unitarian fellowship, and one Sunday morning, the guest speaker was from the local Peace Fellowship (which met at the Presbyterian church where I’d grown up). He’d just come back from a “fact-finding” trip to El Salvador and Nicaragua and was eager to bad-mouth Reagan policy in the region.I’d just read Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family by Shirley Christian, and knew the speaker was leaving the most important part of the story out. During the Q&A portion of the service, I stood up and said as much, going into arcane detail about the Marxist-Leninist nature of the FMLN and the FSLN. I shocked myself, and the congregation as well. Jaws dropped. From there, I subscribed to National Review and Commentary and pursued a master’s degree in history. I also became a conference junkie.
The most memorable gathering I attended was a spring 1987 event hosted by Midge Decter’s Committee for the Free World in Washington. Among the groups that had people in attendance was the Institute on Religion and Democracy. That group was at the forefront of the effort to keep leftist ideology out of institutional Christianity.I wrote my master’s thesis on mainline Protestantism’s leftward drift as a major cause of its denominations’ bleeding members since the 1960s. It turned out to be a sprawling mess, because it had to pass muster with faculty advisors who were not sympathetic to my take.The years passed, and I focused on levels of life such as career, marriage, my zeal for conservatism, travel and music.I finally started church-shopping a little over ten years.
My longest stay was at a little country Methodist church. I went because the pastor was a friend. He’d been a student in my rock and roll history class at our community college. He was a recovering alcoholic whose sermons drove home the seriousness with which we ought to take the matter of grace.He was also great at fostering a sense of community. Chili suppers were particularly fun. He and I would talk smack about who had the more authentic recipe. He was moved to another church, and my attendance tapered off. I could tell how the next minister leaned on the question of a looming UMC split on the question of gay marriage. The families with children quit coming. The community feel dried up.Then I tried a few other churches, and then the situations recounted above transpired.
Where to go from here?
I am skittish about getting involved anywhere at this point. The pitfalls are myriad and various. There’s the progressive temptation to which many churches have succumbed. Since 2015, however, there’s arisen the equally secular Trumpist infection that poisoned even such respected figures as Franklin Graham. There is also the never-ending cascade of revelations about sexual corruption in various ministries. I sometimes wonder if there’s not a touch of snobbery in my reluctance to just land somewhere. I’ll be honest: I can’t stand modern praise music and I’m uncomfortable about not joining in with the demonstrative behavior I see at most services anymore. I guess the days of organs, robes and old-school hymns are fading fast.
But I do feel the need to land somewhere. For one thing, I’m utterly horrified at the complete obliteration of the architecture of creation our society has undertaken in the last ten years. We’ve jettisoned the basic sexual dichotomy of the human species – indeed, the entire animal kingdom – and the institutions – think marriage – that enshrine that. So I’m church-shopping again. And I am humbly and sincerely interested in tips from anyone that I’m instinctually inclined to respect on how to select one.Your insights and recommendations are most welcome.
I’m a Catholic. We’ve got the full range of worship variety. Two thousand years of watching the State has left us not-surprised-but-disappointed with government, and always nudging things to get better. You might find yourself comfortable attending a Catholic church if you avoid the folk Masses, but we’re not Protestants, and if you’re looking for Protestant beliefs we’re not that.
If you’re looking for something high-church, then Anglicans are an obvious choice, although I doubt you’d be happy with their social agenda. Missouri Synod Lutherans used to have a reputation for conservatism; as far as I know they may still, but I just don’t have many Lutheran connections. I don’t know where you’re located, but there are some older denominations in the US – I’m thinking of names like Friends and Brethren — that probably never got caught up in the mainline rise and fall. I’d even bet some of the smaller offshoots of Lutherans and Anglicans haven’t gotten into pop music and progressivism.
My main advice is to do it. You’ll take your lumps; just don’t walk away angry when you don’t find a perfect match. You’re looking for communal prayer, and prayer is about God, not you. You’re better off actually attending a service and grumbling (or offering it up to God) during the tambourine songs than just telling yourself you should get around to it. Best of luck.Report
Reading this, I’m struck by how modern it sounds, how the author feels entirely free from the heavy hand of Church and State.
Free to discover the truth of the world based entirely on his own intuition and reason, free to accept or reject the authority of any entity outside of his own conscience.
Which makes it all the more ironic getting to the final paragraphs and discovering that what he is “shopping” for is something that would deny Rick Rubin the same freedom.
I’m seeing a lot of this, people labeling themselves various flavors of “conservative” or “traditional” or whatever, who are nonetheless entirely modern in their being, modern in thought, modern in their worldview asserting their freedom to pursue their own truth regardless of authority.
This isn’t a criticism necessarily. I renounce Modern Architecture and all its evil works in favor of neo-traditional forms of expression.
But I know that the word “Neo” is so important here. The way I look at the world is fundamentally incomprehensible to a 16th century architect. Even if we arrive at the same shape of building, we are separated by an unbridgeable gulf.
What we are seeing in essays like this is a Neo-Traditionalism, one that has an affinity for tradition, but rejects its core worldview. If the author actually lived in the 16th century for example, an essay like this would result in torture or execution.
There was an effort throughout the 20th century to reconcile this, to create a new form of thinking which was evolutionary where modernism was revolutionary. A way of thinking which kept the best of the old and embraced what was good about the freedom of the present.
In the art and architecture world, this is being done by artists using representational art with modern themes, or buildings evoking traditional forms but adapting new technology and proportions.
I’m not seeing much of this in the self-described “Traditionalists”.Report
The letter kills but the spirit gives life.Report
Church hopping is modern in the sense of being post-Treaty of Westphalia, but there have always been differences in practice between individual parishes, so a 12th century Florentine would have had the option too. I don’t know who Rick Rubin is offhand, but is he barred from finding communal worship he agrees with? I think even most prisons in the US offer some variety.Report
The last link in the essay explains that Rick Rubin is obliterating the architecture of creation.Report
His name is Dave, not Rick. The link doesn’t accuse him of obliterating the architecture of creation. It isn’t about religion. Rubin is free to worship however he wants. The only point you got right is that Quick failed to distinguish between obliteration of a structure and obliteration of the traditional formulations about that structure.Report
That makes more sense, thanks. Rick Rubin is a record producer, and what I know him from is being the other guy in McCartney 3,2,1.Report
Oh, right! I saw that interview, and can definitely say that’s the Rubin who is obliterating the architecture of creation.
The other one is just gay and married.Report
I hear you, and I see you.
I am happy to recommend a traditional service at your local ELCA Lutheran Church. ELCA stands for Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but its not the kind of *evangelical* you may be recoiling from upon reading that.
We have open communion, will ordain practicing gay ministers, and the last two senior pastors I’ve had have been female. We also have organ music, robes, and real wine at communion.Report
I’m about 10 years younger than you, I think. Grew up in Disciples of Christ churches, where individual congregations vary a lot in how “open” they are (officially the denomination itself is “open and affirming” as regards LGBTQ issues and same-sex marriage; individual small congregations, especially in the South, sometimes differ).
But one comment you made struck me: “I guess the days of organs, robes and old-school hymns are fading fast. ” This is the church I grew up with. The one I belong to now is more traditional in the forms of worship than many, but even it has gone more to praise songs (for simplicity, I guess) than what I ideally like. I miss the old hymns and the more-liturgical patterns. I get that maybe we need to go more “casual” for those who are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with the more high-church trappings. But I want something DIFFERENT from day to day life when I attend church – I still dress up, I still like a little formality.
The church I belong to now – and have since I moved here – is shrinking; people are dying off at an alarming rate and we have few new members joining. If we fold, I’m not sure what I will do – I absolutely do not want a prosperity-gospel place, or a place that has hitched its wagon to certain political movements, or a megachurch. I guess the Presbyterian church here is still pretty old-school and also “stay in our lane,” but I fear they won’t outlive the congregation I’m in, since they’re in similar straits to us.
I don’t know. I know I need a church: I don’t have a family (never married, never had kids), “work doesn’t love you,” and there are really no local hobbyist groups I could be a part of; church is pretty much the only place these days I find “my people” and the thought of losing that terrifies me.Report
You didn’t quite say when you wrote this, but it’s a thing that could possibly be argued in 1992, but…in retrospect, it seems like a poor reason.
Here’s a graph: https://religioninpublicblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/reltrad_long_gss_repel.png?w=723
You’ll notice some interesting things there. There’s a timespan where it’s possible to argue that evangelical denominations are poaching from mainline…it’s 1970-1992, where the percentages of the two basically switched places. In fact, if you look, you can see zip-zags that often exactly mirror each other. Clearly the two groups are trading with each other.
And….just as clearly, that stopped in 1992, when Christianity just started hemorrhaging people to ‘No Faith’. Heck, after that point, there’s still some places where evangelicals popped upward for a very short span because mainline dropped down, but any gains get steadily ground away.
What is actually happening is that mainline protestants (and to a less extent evangelicals) are not looking for better churches…they’re not looking for churches at all. They’re just walking out, apparently.
Now, have evangelical churches drifted leftward since 1993? That really seems unlikely, and if that’s not the reason for _their_ decline, we really have to question if we should consider it the reason for anyone else’s.
…there’s actually an even better question here: Why do we think the levels in 1970 were ‘normal’? Cause the 1960s were actually a high point in religion.
In fact, what do we even mean by the levels? It’s an interesting paradox: While the number of people who report themselves as a member of a religion has declined, the amount of people _who attend church regularly_ has not really declined. (Pre-pandemic, I mean.) In fact, it’s been fairly constant for a long time.
So it appears what’s happened is that some percentage of people who did not really attend have stopped considering themselves members of denominations. (And maybe even some who do!)
I actually have my own theory about this, and it’s basically the same reason many people don’t want to call themselves Republicans as any more: Moderates used to be willing to identify as a member of a Christian denomination, even if they didn’t really care, and now they aren’t willing thanks to decades of the media allowing evangelicals and fundamentalists to pretend that they were the only representatives of Christianity.Report
Let me preface this by saying that having read this I think we have such different views on what makes a good church that I could not recommend one to you. However, having moved frequently and therefore had to go through the ‘church shopping’ thing a number of times, I do sympathize, so let me offer something general:
No church is going to be a 100% match, so decide what matter most to you.
Is it traditional music and services? Is it being centered on the Eucharist rather than the sermon (or vice versa)? Is it a friendly welcoming community? Or, since you mention this a couple times, is it a community explicitly unwelcoming to gay or transgender people? In broader terms, how politically aligned with you do you need a church to be in order to view it as a comfortable place to worship? (This is a legitimate question from my pov. I’m fine with a fairly broad mix of liberal and conservative, but I’ve literally walked out of churches preaching ‘vote this way or go to hell’ from both sides of the political spectrum). What specific points of theology beyond the basic statements of the Apostles Creed are important to you? (for instance, does a particular stance on communion, or adult vs baby baptism, or predestination matter a lot to you?) How much does outreach/mission/service to the community matter to you, and if so, what expressions of those do you care most about?
Have an idea going in as to what would make a church worth visiting again and what would instantly cross them off your list. Some of that you can figure out by looking at their website or a church bulletin, but for a lot of it you just have to go visit in person and actually talk to people there. The only shortcut I can suggest is that if there’s a charity you especially care about, get to know people involved in that and find out where they go to church. That’s often a good lead on a place to find a church home.Report
…the sheer amount of people who think the author is looking for a place accepting of LGBT people instead of looking for a place not accepting of LGBT people boggles me.
Seriously, everyone, read the last paragraph, please. He does not want a church that is happy with gay people, or however he’d want to phrase that.Report
The sheer number appears to be 1. If that.Report
cam did.
Jennifer Worrel did.
fillyjonk did, I think, because advising him to join a regressive church in a denomination that is officially ‘open and affirming’ is extremely silly advice (Especially since that church is liable to change in a direction he doesn’t want!), and her comment seems to be ‘This denomination is officially what you want although individual churches might differ’, when it is in fact the other way around.
Half the top-level comments on this got it wrong and exactly backwards. (And one of the ones that got it right was me, which I don’t really count when judging how correct this site is getting things.)
Hell, even if we go by all posters, five of us, including me, got right, and three got it wrong. I think that is a pretty large amount, proportionally, of people.Report
Actually, cam’s first sentence states clearly that he doesn’t agree with the author enough to recommend a particular church, but discusses the process of finding a church in general. And Fillyjonk explains something similar, saying that while grew up in a more open and affirming church than the author would like, one thing about worship (not doctrine) resonated with her. Jennifer may well have been recommending her church for the liturgy and the non-evangelicalness, with a warning about sexual mores.
ETA: Also noteworthy that those commenters and I replied in the spirit of the original article, which was looking for recommendations rather than a debate about what he should want in a church.Report
I’ll give you cam, I misread that post, but…no, the other two posters are talking about LGBT stuff in a completely backwards direction that makes very little sense for someone trying to find a place that _isn’t_ okay with them.Report
Hey, as a Catholic, I think he’s probably going to choose a church I’d disagree with, but the point of the original article was to discuss and solicit advice on finding a church, not to debate what a church should believe in. It’s possible to give advice to someone that you don’t agree with completely. If fillyjonk and Jennifer misread the article, they’re guilty of the mirror image of what you did with cam’s post, but they weren’t trying to make a stink over it. I guess I have to wonder why you went all “it’s made of people” over this.Report
You thinking that me saying ‘He does not want a church that is happy with gay people, or however he’d want to phrase that.’ means I am debating what church he should attend with is some SERIOUS reading comprehension failure on your part.
It is me trying to clearly and objectively state (So much I’m carefully saying ‘I am not sure how he would phrase this’.) what he wants in a church. I made no judgment whatsoever, I’ve actually not made any judgement in this entire thing of any sort of religious beliefs, and trust, I have _very_ strong opinions about anti-LGBT Christians, but I don’t really think this post is the place for it.
And I am ‘making a stink’ of it because it’s a pretty jackass thing to give backward recommendations. Even if done accidentally, it’s pretty crappy to just leave a page full of accidental backward recommendations and no actual forward one.
And thus the reason I pointed it out was TO TRY TO GET SOMEONE TO MAKE A REAL RECOMMENDATION FOR HIM.Report
And I’m explaining this like you don’t know this, but my actual response to you is pretty damn clear that my complaint was not ‘How dare this guy have these religious beliefs’, but is literally ‘We are giving really bad recommendations here because a large chunk of us misread his request. Everyone needs to go and reread it’.
So it’s not even poor reading comprehension, it’s just a weird assumption you made that I was condemning him and then kept in spite of obvious other evidence.Report
Well, your first comment on the thread was a tangent rather than a suggestion, then you joined in on pillsy’s “you should change your mind” subthread. So maybe you really felt the need to shout “hey, he doesn’t like gay people, so we should give better suggestions” and just forgot to say the second part. Also the way you phrased it made it clear that you objected to the author’s views.Report
I have no suggestions. Many of us won’t have suggestions for this.
…ah, yes, the ‘blame me for the thread I joined instead of what I said in it’ trick.
It’s weird how you got ‘rubbed the wrong way’ by my original comment and felt the need to respond to it _before_ I posted in that other thread, though.
But in that thread, you may have noticed that my comments were, in fact, entirely about an article proporting to be about ‘gay conservatives’, and not anyone’s choice of church. Just because someone else said something doesn’t mean I did.
And my first comment is, in fact, not a tangent, but something directly mentioned in the article. It’s not the the _request_, which again I cannot help with, but it is not off-topic.
And I feel it’s sorta funny you’re complaining about things being offtopic when, uh, I made a pretty serious attempt to get people _on_ topic (and am really the only person who tried that) and you decided to surreally argue with that attempt!
I don’t have to say the second part, saying ‘Everyone is doing this wrong and they need to reread the thing we’re supposed to be doing’ _implies_ ‘Everyone should do it that way instead’.
The boss: Hey, a lot of people are filing things in this current job by their last name, but please reread the requiresment of this client…they want it sorted by first names.
You, later: The boss didn’t explicitly _ask_ us to sort by the first name. He complained about how we were doing it wrong and told us to reread the requirement and told us what it said, but he didn’t _literally_ say ‘So do it that way’. He must have instead secretly been stating his dislike for sort of sorting!
No, I stated it pretty neutrally, it’s just that not being accepting of gay people is generally not considered a good thing, so me merely stating the truth comes off as negative. That isn’t really anything I can do anything about.
But since you seem to think I failed, it’s odd how _you_ used a euphemism of ‘the author’s views’ instead of stating of what those views were in this obvious neutral way you think must exist.
So let’s hear it. How _exactly_ should I have stated it? Please describe the sort of church he looking for WRT their views of LGBT people.Report
I thought cam and fillyjonk did it politely but clearly. As for whether people understood that you were asking for better suggestions rather than criticism, do you think people have heeded your call?Report
Urm…after reading it he clearly does not want a church that is comfy with LGBT. So more than one and the others that were mentioned below.Report
Yes “We’ve jettisoned the basic sexual dichotomy of the human species – indeed, the entire animal kingdom – and the institutions – think marriage – that enshrine that.” is pretty much the entire reason I’ve not commented on this piece.
I think any churches I’d have to recommend the author would find a poor fit.
Pretty clearly anti-gay and anti-trans, but most of the sort of church he’s after — the old-style Protestants and such, have been very accepting of the LGBTQ community for a very, very long time.
I do like the nice little implication that it’s not just religion, those fools are rejecting the REAL SCIENCE too in that statement.Report
Um, cam actually said “…Or, since you mention this a couple times, is it a community explicitly unwelcoming to gay or transgender people?…” So, actually did assume they were looking for a place not comfortable with LGBT people.
However much I personally would avoid a church that was explicitly unwelcoming, my advice was sincere in offering a way to find a church. In my opinion a person is more likely to grow in grace within a community than isolated.Report
If the communities I was comfortable with consistently alienated me by having positions on a political controversy that I disagree with, I would definitely reconsider my position, on the grounds that it’s in tension with my other values.
Maybe not change. Maybe it’s my other values that are wrong.
But I wouldn’t sit back and assume it.Report
That said, if the communities where I felt comfortable had values that were in conflict with the ones expressed in the linked article, I would absolutely jettison the values expressed in the linked article, because they are extremely silly.Report
Hilariously, I disagree with almost nothing in that article besides the implicit conclusion that ‘conservativism’ is something we should aim for instead of it being obvious patriarchal nonsense. Listen to this:
That’s the actual quote centered on the page, that’s the supposed _takeway_ of this article.
Conservativism is apparently now just Puritanism, “the haunting fear that someone somewhere is having a good time.” Heaven forbid a political philosophy try to make people happy in any manner!
And I like he gives this paragraph:
…and then doesn’t really answer it, because his answer is actually just ‘the patriarchy’ and his concern that teh gays threaten said patriarchy, what with their undermining of gender roles.
Seriously, I have bookmarked this and will be giving it out as a link to any gay or feminist conservatives I run across. He manages to just perfectly summarize everything, all while being certain that people will be upset something isn’t respecting the ‘sex difference of parents’. And for all I know, that is the audience of his, but it really is masks off for everyone else.Report
I mentioned on another thread why we need to come up with actual arguments as to why fascism is bad, rather than Holocaust references.
Because there is a large and growing body of people for whom liberalism and tolerance are no longer universally beyond debate, but merely one side to be considered.Report
We can’t, because they do not actually listen to reasons of things.
Here on the political internet, we’re used to saying ‘X is would help people so is a good thing’ and having the other side say ‘X would actually injure people in complicated and obscure ways so is a bad thing’.
And, yes, this is often nonsense, but conservatives at least felt the need to explain _why_ gay marriage would be harmful, for example. That it might look good in the moment, but it would undermine traditional marriage in some manner.
The problem is that, since conservativism locked into place in the 90s and isn’t allowed to change, all their arguments sorta stopped holding water. Like, normally, they’d just sorta update and hope everyone forgot, but they aren’t allowed to do that any more. Like, gay people being accepted has had basically no impact on society in any manner outside of that.
But… they’ve recently discovered a secret: No one actually cared about their bogus arguments to start with. They were always excuses.
What a large portion of their supporters want to do is hurt the right people.
As I’ve mentioned before, I became massively disillusioned in conservativism because of Trump…which sounds weird for someone who wasn’t a conservative at the time, but I thought a lot of them really did believe dumb things that caused them to come to bad conclusions that sorta incidentally harmed people, and Republican leadership took advantage of that to pass laws their actual constituency (the wealthy) wanted.
And with Trump throwing a good chunk of that stuff out the window, it became extremely clear the actual point was, and had always been, to hurt people, and if anything the Republican leadership had been keeping them in check.
I think the idea of ‘explaining how fascism is inherently evil and not merely _accidentally_ evil in recent history’ is a workable concept, because a large chunk of the right is perfectly on board with doing the sorts of things we’d be explaining fascism is evil for having.Report
Sorry, I mean I think it’s *not* a workable concept.Report
I agree on all points save one, that I believe there is value in having a clear and loud and unequivocal defense of human dignity, even if it doesn’t turn the tide or win a lot of converts.
Like Sophie Scholl bravely and futility handing out antiNotsee pamphlets, having a clarity in our own minds can help retain our sanity.
Like how in the present moment we are being urged to think of ourselves as grooming children, it isn’t enough for authoritarians that you bend the knee, but you must also recite the creed.Report
I don’t know why I’m taking this so personally, but it’s shocking to me that you guys did this on the “Church Shopping, Again” comments section. Maybe it’s because this is the most intolerant display I’ve seen in a while. Like there was one corner that didn’t conform to The Agenda, so you had to go there and spread it.Report
I would not take it seriously. You and I disagree on the politics of (some of) this issue and for all I know I’m right down the pew from you. At least if you’re ever part of the Saturday evening crowd.Report
I dunno, man. Maybe it’s that we’ve been talking about this site and cancelling and that stuff lately. DavidTC’s comment was like some kind of parody of the worst impulse in human behaviour when it thinks it’s in a homogenous group. -Stop, why are you people talking to him, he’s not one of us!- And I just love that cam replied with a yeah, of course I talked to him, I’m not a jerk. I don’t normally react viscerally to gross comments, but David’s just hit me.Report
Forget it, DavidTC. When Pinky goes into Hall Monitor mode, there’s no reasoning with him.Report
We take it seriously as well.
Here is the Republican Senator from Florida:
The nuclear family is crucial to civilization, it is God’s design for humanity, and it must be protected and celebrated. To say otherwise is to deny science.
The fanatical left seeks to devalue and redefine the traditional family, as they undermine parents and attempt to replace them with government programs. We will not allow Socialism to place the needs of the state ahead of the family.
So yeah, if there was one guy saying this stuff we would chuckle and turn the page.
But there I’d a very large portion of America which has not made its peace with multiculturalism or tolerance and is fighting very hard to impose its will on the majority.Report
I’m going to tell you something that will blow your mind, Chip. Did you know that Joe Biden goes to a church every Sunday that does not allow gay marriage, or even condone gay relationships?Report
And?Report
President Biden has also made it quite plain, as a matter of secular policy, where he disagrees with that church.Report
Do you think we’re unaware he’s Catholic or what?
He was also one the one pushing Obama to be pro-gay marriage, and has made his public positions on LGBTQ issues, abortion, and a host of other cultural issues quite clear.
What next, are you going to blow our minds with the fact that Lincoln was a Republican?Report
I do too, and Christ’s actual teachings in the Four Gospel’s are quite consistent on His view that humans were all God’s creation and thus deserving of HIs love.Report
Scientifically, there are at least 6 genders in the human genome:
People with Turner syndrome present as female; people with Klinefelter, XYY and XXXY present as male. They can live their lives without ever being diagnosed. They represent, by your numbers, .3% of the population at most. There are also malformations of the genitalia that can make sexual determination at birth more difficult. If we’re talking about LGBT or LGBTQ, these conditions are unrelated, and if we’re talking about LGBTQIA, then these people represent a tiny fraction. I have nothing against them.
But you didn’t bring them up to clarify anything; you brought them up to obscure the topic. And no, there aren’t six genders in the human genome, because by definition gender isn’t physical. I have nothing against people who aren’t masculine heterosexual men or feminine heterosexual women, either. None of that changes the definition of marriage.Report
The “definition of marriage” is what we say it is, and nothing else.Report