hummingwolf | (no subject)

Randomly hearing the live version of Peter Gabriel's "Shaking the Tree" with Paula Cole singing along is almost enough to make me forgive today for bringing me a migraine.

Yesterday in my wanderings I noticed a United Methodist church sign had been altered since the last time I saw it. Normally it has sermon times, maybe some cutesy one-liner (like "OUR CHURCH IS PRAYER-CONDITIONED"), and the message
ALL ARE WELCOME.

What I noticed yesterday was a bit of clarification:
REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
ALL ARE WELCOME

I understand the reason for the addition. The Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church decided this week that a pastor who had been suspended without pay for denying church membership to "an unrepentant homosexual" should be reinstated. [T]he court declared that the United Methodist Book of Discipline "invests discretion in the pastor-in-charge to make determination of a person’s readiness to affirm the vows of membership." So it makes perfect sense that this UM church should make it clear on their sign that they are not like that other UM church. It seems strange to me, though, that the "ALL" would need to be clarified. What should they do next, clarify what they mean by "WELCOME"?

David Sylvian is now singing on a Ryuichi Sakamoto track. This works too.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

heh.
perhaps the 3rd line should be something like "TO OUR POTLUCK ORGY"

Hah!

Oh dear, the concept of a potluck orgy is frightening. What if somebody brings a LICORICE DOUGHNUT?

then they obviously are possessed and would be exorcised immediately. *nod*

I've never heard of a United Methodist exorcism. They probably exist, but I don't know for sure. Maybe they contract out their demon-possessed to the local Catholics. Heck, if I've been to UM churches where the pastor married a Catholic or the music director was a Catholic (and I have), it seems to me that getting the Catholics in to do the exorcisms would make poifect sense.

hehe. the new ghostbusters ;)

I always get suspicious about those 'all are welcome' signs, and any other indication that somebody wants my involvement in an exclusive club. They tend to change their minds later on and decide that I am not as much a part of 'all' as they'd originally told me I was.

Yeah, "All are welcome" does all too often seem to mean "All are welcome--as long as you always agree with us."

More and more Methodist churches are becoming what are called "Reconciling" churches. They make a point of being open and welcoming to everyone. Granted, as Christians we shouldn't *have* to clarify that everyone is welcome. But because of situations like the one cited above, a lot of churches now are reaching out and saying 'Yes, everyone is welcome here. Welcome to attend, welcome to join, welcome to participate in all aspects of our church experience'.

We work toward the day when we don't have to clarify "All".

I'm actually in favor of religious leaders deciding who gets to be a member of their church/coven/whatever based on behavior. If someone consistently behaves in a way that contradicts the teachings of the religious group, it makes sense for someone to say, "You're not really one of us." If religious beliefs don't affect your behavior, what are they for, after all?

That said, this business of having one pastor decide that someone is ineligible for membership is a ridiculous thing in a United Methodist congregation. They still move pastors to different churches every few years, don't they? What happens if one person is accepted as a member of their local church by one pastor, and the new pastor assigned two years later believes that that person should never have been considered a part of the church? I wish the whole denomination would decide what kind of church the true Church is supposed to be and live it out.

Next they'll start arguing over what the meaning of "is" is. :-P

If someone consistently behaves in a way that contradicts the teachings of the religious group, it makes sense for someone to say, "You're not really one of us." If religious beliefs don't affect your behavior, what are they for, after all?

Interesting point, although it's a slippery slope. The church can (and often has become) a tool for social control, and there are situations where this can be abusive.

I was raised Catholic and most closely identify with Unitarianism. Unitarianism is so broad that it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where a person's behaviors would be seen as not in line with the teachings of the church.

On the other hand, murder is considered pretty much universally unacceptable, and yet I have heard stories of Christian pastors and churches whose beliefs encouraged them to forgive and support the murderer.

The church can (and often has become) a tool for social control, and there are situations where this can be abusive

Any kind of power--social or otherwise--can be used abusively. That doesn't mean that the power itself is a bad thing. Social control has its uses, such as convincing people it's not in their best interests to go around hurting other people!

Social control has its uses, such as convincing people it's not in their best interests to go around hurting other people!

Funny... I went to church every week growing up until I was well into high school. Few of the people there, even regulars, seemed to learn a damn thing... particularly when it comes to the treatment of others. They did however learn to be harmful and hateful and knee jerk judgemental about other people's lives without knowing even the basic facts of that person's life or even considering any sort of compassionate thought or response. I am not saying that this is true of all churches, but it's true of far too many.