Other Christian Dopers, Your Input?

[TeaElle]

Posting Note: I have been vascillating about posting this for three days. I'm specifically putting it here in IMHO because I'm not looking for a debate and I'm not angry, so the Pit isn't right anyway, even though this topic can be divisive. I'm specifically looking for the input of people who relate to the situation and can speak specifically to it.

Background: I am a Christian, but my denomination is not open and affirming to gay people and stands firmly opposed to gay marriage, in the church or elsewhere. I, on the other hand (as evidenced by many posts on these Boards) am not opposed to gay marriage as a matter of law; I strongly beleive that when it comes to civil behavior, the Constitution and guarantees of equality trump religious teaching. If congregations or denominations don't want to perform gay marriages, that's their call just as they currently don't perform weddings for every hetero couple who walks through their doors, but that should have no bearing on the law.

That said, my dilemma: I am a part of a nondenominational Christian chorale group. The members come from all across the spectrum of Christian belief. This poses no problem, in general. We all love the music we're singing and we all like one another.

We close each rehearsal with a time of group prayer which is preceeded with the sharing of prayer requests and praise reports. We pray in a circle, and anyone who wants to pray aloud for any of our requests, in thanks for any of our reports, or for any topic that they feel germane, can do so.

At our last rehearsal, one of the members shared (as a praise report) that his son had gotten engaged. When we were praying in the circle, this same member spoke up and thanked the Lord for the blessing of his son finding a good woman to be his wife. Then he went on, and further thanked God for the "institution of marriage" which God "ordained made holy as one man with one woman together under the leadership of Christ." He capped it with "And we thank you, Lord, for raising up elected leaders and church officials who will continue to fight to preserve the sanctity of your holy gift of marriage and protect it against the onslaught from perverts and heathens." :eek:

I was standing right next to this guy, holding hands, and getting physically repulsed. he's part of what I know as a fairly liberal church and fairly liberal denomination, so I was surprised. I was also shocked that this guy conflates a church marriage with a legal marriage. I know that many do, but it's not a logical position. I mean, if all marriage is meant to be under the leadership of Christ, does that mean Jews and Buddhists and atheists aren't married? Or don't have a right to be? It's an untenuous position, IMO.

But I was most surprised in that this guy just presumed that we'd all agree with his sentiments. And in prayer, I feel like anyone who didn't was put into a very uncomfortable and difficult situation -- though God certainly knows all of our hearts and minds, how could I, or any of us, say "amen" after such a prayer when we don't agree with it?

I'm feeling unable to let it go, though. I know, because the friend I ride along with mentioned it as we were driving home that evening, that I'm not the only one who disagreed with what was said. In addition, both she and I agree that certain statements he's made over the weeks could indicate that our group director is gay, though he's not out.

I really don't want to debate the topic of gay marriage with the guy who prayed, I doubt it'd make one bit of difference. But I feel like I should make a suggestion to him that political statements, especially ones that are so very divisive and imbued with such angry language, have no place in corporate prayer with a group of people from so many different Christian perspectives. I'm not planning a confrontation, just a gentle mention that there wasn't a need to "go there" and that he might want to think before he goes there again. After all, we're supposed to let our brothers and sisters know about these sorts of easily avoidable offenses, aren't we?

I am interested in the opinions of those who are willing to focus on the question at hand, which is: should I say something to my fellow choraler?

[Lord Ashtar]

I would guess that he probably thinks everyone agrees with him because the "Christian position" is that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, he probably feels he could say a prayer like that and nobody would disagree with him.

Have you considered sitting down with him in private and discussing it with him? Tell him why you believe what you believe. You never know, you might change his mind.

[Gary T]

I'm still thinking about whether it would be helpful to bring this up to the individual mentioned.

What I do have an opinion about is the type of open group prayer you mentioned. This incident makes a splendid example of why I don't care for that format. I would suggest that having a brief prayer together with ONE speaker (minister, chorale director, someone who knows better than to get on a soapbox) for the benefit of the group is more befitting the situation. I'd be inclined to explore a change in that direction.

[Phlosphr]

While I certainly do not agree with Lord Ashtar's final statement, I do believe speaking to him in a civil manner would be the best route to take. I would not start by thinking you want to change his mind. But I would not let him think that you and others agreed with his assertion. To me, this is the very reason I have problems with Christianity. I was raised Catholic, and am now quite Unitarian. Loving your fellow human being goes very far in my faith with the Universe.

[amarinth]

I have no idea....

But I'm going through an incredibly similar situation (non-denominational group, members from a variety of churches, group prayer or formal sharing) and that issue, and other issues, crop up in prayer and in sharing, and I have no idea what to do about it.

So far, I haven't been able to come up with a way that wouldn't be worse than the original problem - so, thank you for opening this thread.

[Zoe]

I have recently faced a similar problem with one of my husband's cousins who was forwarding me anti-gay marriage emails. She assumed that because I am a Southern Christian that I would be opposed to homosexuals marrying.

Although I would also find the prayer offered by the group member offensive, prayers are an offering to God of what is in our hearts. It is not subject to approval by others.

May I suggest that rather than discussing what was "wrong" in his prayer with him, offer your own prayer that is an example of love and nonjudgment. Pray for minds open to the full meaning of compassion, the blessings of marriage on those who love, the wisdom to exercise more control in our own lives and less in others. Pray for our countries leaders that they might do the same.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth. This is just to say that these are things that I might think of myself. In this case I think I would add a request for patience and understanding for those with a differing viewpoint. ;)

Pax

[dangermom]

You know your fellow singer better than I do, so I don't feel like I can make a judgement as to whether he would be receptive to your suggestion. All I have to suggest is that you limit yourself to only two choices: either say something directly to him, quietly, or don't say anything to anyone that could possibly be construed as criticism of the guy.

[Zoe]

our country's leaders

(Sorry. I was an English teacher. :smack:

[toadspittle]

Not a Christian. But I second Zoe's motion--offer your own, positive prayer. Pray that God strengthen all loving relationships, and grant our leaders the wisdom to recognize all committed, loving relationships with the same social and legal protections that the rest of us are so blessed to enjoy. And that people of all persuasions may no longer have to fear the unjust hatred of their fellow man for simply loving another person.

(I'd say make up something like: "My nephew is getting married next week! Let's all pray that Bob and Harold enjoy a long, happy life together in wedded bliss."--but no reason to ask for lightning bolts... Do you know any gay people who are eager to marry? Bring them up.)

[Gary T]

I've thought about it some more, and I've come to this: What was described constitutes espousing a political viewpoint and passing blanket judgment on strangers. I don't think either is appropriate in a prayer circle. Bringing it up to the individual is warranted.

...prayers are an offering to God of what is in our hearts. It is not subject to approval by others.
Fair enough for private prayer. For public prayer, there are some things others should not be subjected to.

May I suggest that rather than discussing what was "wrong" in his prayer with him, offer your own prayer that is an example of love and nonjudgment. Pray for minds open to the full meaning of compassion, the blessings of marriage on those who love, the wisdom to exercise more control in our own lives and less in others. Pray for our country's leaders that they might do the same.
Something like this could be construed as a return volley in an "argument by prayer." It appears to me it would be treading on dangerous ground.

In this case I think I would add a request for patience and understanding for those with a differing viewpoint. ;)
That I would agree with.

[Steve Wright]

I think I agree with Zoe - pray for tolerance, and understanding, and the knowledge that God's love is extended to all sinners. Something like that.

[Mangetout]

I'm in pretty much the same boat myself at the moment, over the broader issues of human sexuality, including gay marriage, but also the issue of privacy for transsexuals.

So far, I've spoken to one person about it and it actually went much better than I expected; starting with something like:

Look, I think the church is actually on the brink of crisis over this issue because a lot of people really want this to be a completely black-and-white issue about pure people versus utterly vile perverts; only trouble is that it simply isn't like that in the real world, no matter how much we might wish it - the vast majority of people simply don't fit into those neat little pigeonholes.

[kunilou]

Some good advice here.

DON'T say "amen."

DO add a prayer for tolerance and understanding.

DON'T get into a "war by prayer."

And remember, God will judge whether a prayer is meritorious or specious.

[Cardinal]

I'm going to be a rarity here, and be the one who's actually not so ok with gay marriage. To be more specific, I don't believe that the church in entirely off base in beliefs about gay activities (not Fred Whackjob, whoever that guy is), at least the ones like my church who have a "we respectfully disagree" attitude.

OTOH, I'm conflicted about the role of the government in enforcing a view like that. My libertarian (sometimes) leaning heart doesn't often like laws being passed unless they're reaaaaally necessary.

I do identify with the OP, though. I've had it just ASSUMED in church groups that evolution was some sort of lie of the devil, and what are you going to do? Starting an argument right there won't get you anywhere. The person is by definition so uninformed on the matter that using logic has about a 5% chance of working.

I think that going to the guy in private and telling him your personal view, and that you don't think that loving Jesus means that you necessarily have all the same political viewpoints.

To get anywhere, you'll have to affirm your religious beliefs first, and explain how you don't like the idea of the gov. making laws like this, because it allows for laws that restrict something near and dear to his heart in the future.

I'd also be tempted to throw in something about how American Christians complain like Nero's outside ready to burn them, but in fact they haven't begun to suffer for their faith. But that's probably not a good idea now.

[Omnipresent]

Some good advice here.

DON'T say "amen."

DO add a prayer for tolerance and understanding.

DON'T get into a "war by prayer."

And remember, God will judge whether a prayer is meritorious or specious.


I'm going to have to agree with Kunilou on this one. Say nothing.

You stand with hands embraced and know full well that someone will pray their mind. That IS their pray after all. Not yours. Also, it's their opinion. You don't have to agree with it. But if you don't, that's when YOUR prayers come in.

It isn't between you and he. It's between you and Him, and him and Him.

[MaxTheVool]

I am not a Christian, or a spiritual person, but...

I think that staying silent about an issue you really object to just lends an aura of agreement. People who are in the fence about the issue should be made aware that people whose opinions they presumably respect don't all agree with the guy who's talking loudest.

[Gary T]

It isn't between you and he [sic]. It's between you and Him, and him and Him.
Well, it would have been between the Lord and him if only the Lord had heard it. Saying it out loud, publicly, does make it everybody else's business, especially if the group dynamic is such that assent and support are implicit.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I have recently faced a similar problem with one of my husband's cousins who was forwarding me anti-gay marriage emails. She assumed that because I am a Southern Christian that I would be opposed to homosexuals marrying. I had a similar problem with family members sending me racist, anti-immigrant diatribes.

Writing an email back thanking her for the "absolutely hilarous" email she'd sent to me, "the best laugh I'd had for days", just "absolutely hysterical" and tellin how I really appreciated her "efforts to lighten my day by sending me this funny parody" got me pulled from her distribution list real quickly.

[Starving Artist]

I agree that it would probably be best to say nothing. My own opinion is that you're only going to antagonize this guy no matter how tactfully you approch him, and that his response is likely to be to try to line up everyone he can to support him in his position. I think the situation could very easily deteriorate into one in which there are two camps, both hostile to the other, and your pleasant chorale experience will become strained at best and fall apart at worst.

It's been my experience in life that most people you encounter in day-to-day life are far less reasonable and willing to calmly discuss divisive matters such as this as are those on the SDMB. I think the likelihood is that the problem will simply die out unless he's on such a mission that he will continue to look for opportunities to offer up such prayers. I know it would be difficult to swallow, but I would do just that for the overall good of your singing group and experience. Then, if he continues along these lines and it doesn't die out, perhaps several of you who feel the same way could approach him and try to resolve it amicably.

[iampunha]

"Lord, we thank you for the wisdom you have given us, the zeal You have placed in our hearts to discover the world You made, and the compassion and love to remember that each of Your children is worthy of the love You have given to each of us."

It would take an interesting individual to take issue with that prayer, as it's so nonspecific and dogmatically-based that only someone with a real dissonance between what is taught and what is believed would disagree ... and, in so doing, out him or herself as being apart from the flock, so to speak, at which point it probably becomes a matter between that individual and the deity in question and/or that individual and the pastor/preacher/priest/etc. of the congregation. IMO, anyway. YMMV, etc.

[devilsknew]

As someone who doesn't attend church and is thoroughly offended by most Christians of this hardline variety. I can only say, ever thought of giving up organized religion and related events? How can you find affinity and Love with bigots and God-inspired, righteous hate??
I am maybe not the best person to offer advice like this, but doesn't Jesus have some good zingers in the New Testament that you could possibly quote or include in the next group prayer ...WWJD?... and all that. Seems like he stuck up for a couple of heathens and perverts if I remember right.

WWBD?
With gentleness overcome anger.
With generosity overcome meanness.
With truth overcome deceit.
-The Buddha (Dhammapada)

(Sounds an awful lot like something Jesus would do, too.)

[thirdwarning]

It's hard to say what would be best here, because we don't know the people involved. He may have been simply somewhat shortsighted, or he may really be trying to push something here. I think if you feel he'd respond to gentle, calm discussion, then it's worth a try, if only to remind him that things are often not as cut-and-dried as we think they are.

I think what I would do is suggest, just for clarity and charity within the group, that everyone be very careful to keep their prayers personal, and avoid making statements with them. Just kind of a "routine" reminder that shared prayer is not a discussion. And maybe wait a week or so, so it doesn't look as if you're singling him out, but trying to keep things going the way they should.

Maybe a simple closing could be suggested, that includes prayer for all of our leaders, local and national, who have to make decisions and choices for the people, that they will be guided by love and wisdom to do the right thing.

[Lord Ashtar]

While I certainly do not agree with Lord Ashtar's final statement, I do believe speaking to him in a civil manner would be the best route to take. I would not start by thinking you want to change his mind. But I would not let him think that you and others agreed with his assertion. To me, this is the very reason I have problems with Christianity. I was raised Catholic, and am now quite Unitarian. Loving your fellow human being goes very far in my faith with the Universe.

I'm really not trying to turn this into a GD, but I have to ask: why would you not want to change his mind? Calling homosexuals "perverts and heathens" sounds like bigotry to me. Shouldn't we try to squash that?

[thirdwarning]

Lord Ashtar,
I read that more as, don't expect to change his mind when you talk to him, but let him know that you don't agree. Letting him see another point of view, tactfully presented, may go a long way toward change, or at least understanding.

[Lord Ashtar]

Thanks, thirdwarning. That's what I was going after initially.

[MrVisible]

Well, I guess now I have a better understanding of why the public face of christianity is that of bigoted hatred. If you can't bring yourself to denounce that kind of prejudice when it rears its head in a small prayer group, then what chance do the tolerant members of christian churches have of making a difference in the role that religion is currently playing on the national political stage?

The bigoted member of your group had the courage of his convictions. Where was yours?

The idea that politeness might stop you from speaking up when someone is condemning your neighbors is appalling. Stand up for what you believe, or why bother to believe it at all?

[Gary T]

Well, I guess now I have a better understanding of why the public face of christianity is that of bigoted hatred. If you can't bring yourself to denounce that kind of prejudice when it rears its head in a small prayer group, then what chance do the tolerant members of christian churches have of making a difference in the role that religion is currently playing on the national political stage?

The bigoted member of your group had the courage of his convictions. Where was yours?

The idea that politeness might stop you from speaking up when someone is condemning your neighbors is appalling. Stand up for what you believe, or why bother to believe it at all?
Sigh. The OP specifically said she's not looking for a debate on the matter. There's a time and place for wrestling with such issues, and choral group rehearsal is neither. Her question, and the responses, have to do with how to deal with someone innappropriately injecting the subject into a closing prayer at said rehearsal (which is not the same as a prayer group, in common usage of the term).

Practically speaking, denouncing the fellow's opinion, which you recognize as a conviction, is highly unlikely to accomplish any good. Discussing it with him, in an appropriate venue, is a different matter. It's not a matter of politeness or of lacking the courage of one's convictions. It's a matter of when, where, and how to best deal with it.

[Belrix]

I have similar views to yours and disagree with other members of my church on theoligical issues, too. I'd apply the golden rule here and keep quiet about this.

Turn the situation around - how would you feel if somebody came up to you and suggested that you weren't being their kind of Christian.

On the other hand, if the issue become a discussion, then discuss your views. Don't however, IMO, discuss this person's personal prayer - even if it did turn into and editorial.

[Belrix]

I have similar views to yours and disagree with other members of my church on theoligical issues, too. I'd apply the golden rule here and keep quiet about this.

Turn the situation around - how would you feel if somebody came up to you and suggested that you weren't being their kind of Christian.

On the other hand, if the issue become a discussion, then discuss your views. Don't however, IMO, discuss this person's personal prayer - even if it did turn into and editorial.

Pretend I can spell, too.

"...becomes a discussion..."
"...an editorial"

-------------
As a postscript, I think the time and place of the prayer/editorial made discussion of it inappropriate. The time to discuss this is in small group situations intended for bible discussions or one on one if you were very bothered.

[TeaElle]

Thank you all for your input.

As I said, I don't want to sit and debate with this guy about the politics of marriage. I don't want to get into an argument about the "proper" way to pray. I just want to do what I can so that none of our chorale members are left feeling uncomfortable and bothered unnecessarily after a time which is supposed to be uplifting and refreshing.

I think that instead of discussing this with the guy, I might ask our director if he feels that it merits a mention of some kind. He has a very gentle manner and if he agrees, and says something, I know it'll be taken well. Probably better, I think, than anything I might say.

[Helen's Eidolon]

(disclaimer: I am not a Christian)

I agree that a choral group's group prayer is not a place for theological debate or controversy. For exactly that reason, I think it would be appropriate for you to discuss your concerns with whatever authority figure there is, the director or something. A gentle reminder by him/her rather than you to keep politics out of prayers could go a long way towards harmony.

[Happy Lendervedder]

I might approach the director and ask if it would be possible to discontinue the "Popcorn Prayer" (that's what we called it when I was a kid), and just have people submit requests to an appointed prayer leader.


Also, and forgive my strawman, but what if a person tossed out a prayer that was technically "Biblical," but actually came out as anti-Semetic, anti-woman, etc.? Would you feel the need to say something then? Would I? I would like believe I would, but I also know how hard it is to speak up in such situations. So I empathize with you, TeaElle.

I would probably just do what I (and Gary T) said above.

Good luck.




Happy

[devilsknew]

Just to add my two cents, [/i]again[/i]. Whether you want to believe it or not, this is a spiritual battle. I mean this figuratively, of course....not in the full sense of "battle" and certainly not implying divisiveness, but there is good mojo and bad mojo (i.e.- black and white magic). I think it is important that you cast the counterspell, in an equally vocal and righteous way matching his prayer....or risk losing resonance in the effectiveness of your prayer and, hence, belief. You need to put the word on the wind powerfully and with conviction. Again, I'm not talking about divisiveness, although this seems like a foregone conclusion, as he has sown those seeds already. To quote a bumper sticker I once saw, "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes."

[Kalhoun]

This thread reinforces why I hate organized religion. You keep your true opinion to yourself because it would be impolite to stand up for civil liberties? How do you think the gay population feels when the majority of organized religion is "impolite" to them every day? Choir practice shouldn't be the forum for political discussion, but since he opened the door, I think it's within your rights to close it. If he does it again, remind him that there is an appropriate place for his ideas to be discussed, and then be sure to show up so you can give him your opinion on the subject.

[kung fu lola]

I'm with LaurAnge and Kalhoun. I think that you should approach the director and ask him to have this discussion with the Offender:

"There have been complaints about the statements you made in your prayer last week. Some members of the group were made to feel uncomfortable, and this is not in the spirit of cooperation and fellowship that I would like the choir to have. In the future, please feel free to pray about political issues in privacy. The prayer circle is meant to be inclusive, not divisive. I'm sure that, as someone who is trying to live a Christlike life like the rest of us, you can respect that."

Only not so snarky. I have zero investment in being Christlike, so I would say it that way.

[Edlyn]

Posting Note: I have been vascillating about posting this for three days. I'm specifically putting it here in IMHO because I'm not looking for a debate and I'm not angry, so the Pit isn't right anyway, even though this topic can be divisive. I'm specifically looking for the input of people who relate to the situation and can speak specifically to it.

Background: I am a Christian, but my denomination is not open and affirming to gay people and stands firmly opposed to gay marriage, in the church or elsewhere. I, on the other hand (as evidenced by many posts on these Boards) am not opposed to gay marriage as a matter of law; I strongly beleive that when it comes to civil behavior, the Constitution and guarantees of equality trump religious teaching. If congregations or denominations don't want to perform gay marriages, that's their call just as they currently don't perform weddings for every hetero couple who walks through their doors, but that should have no bearing on the law.

I'm bringing my comment to this first because the distinction you made is important, but it often gets lost when it's discussed. Let "marriage" remain as "marriage" as it has been in our churches through thousands of years, and let "civil union" be "civil union" as governments instituted when they started regulating it. Don't call both marriage and don't blur the distinction from where they originated. I believe that understanding this fundamental difference between the two will facilitate tolerance within our society at large. So where then would the conflict be?

To answer your question on how to respond to another's prayer that is in conflict with your heart, I would at that point silently diverge into my own prayer for understanding of His word and/or for my fellow Christian if I am certain of His Will.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

I believe that understanding this fundamental difference between the two will facilitate tolerance within our society at large. So where then would the conflict be? Well, here's an example of 'where the conflict would be":
One of my friends (half of a gay couple who have been together for 20 some years) recently had to have surgery. The hospital was not going to allow his partner to be there with him, despite them having wills, medical power of attorney documents, etc. Their policy was that only immediate family members by marriage or blood relation could do this. So his partner was forced to run around to City Hall to get a certified copy of the Minneapolis ordinance, and bring it to the hospital administration, and argue with them to get them to abide by the law. This was certainly stress he didn't need in the middle of worrying about the pending surgery! (Note: this was only the hospital administration -- the doctors & nurses who dealt with them had no conflicts at all -- very professional.)

So the conflict is that there are hundreds of laws, tax regulations, government policies, hospital policies, organizational membership plans, etc., etc., which all mention the word "marriage". To change them all to include "civil unions" would take forever. A lot easier to just call a marriage a marriage.


P.S. About your statement "facilitate tolerance within our society at large" -- I don't want to be tolerated, I want the equal rights that our Constitution guarantees to us all.

If I was to be sarcastic, I'd respond to you Christian willingness to "tolerate" me by saying "how very white of you!.

[Quartz]

As far as I am aware, all the major Christian religions - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Methodist - are officially against gay marriage. Therefore, regardless of my own views, I have no problem with his mentioning the clergy. I do have a problem with his mentioning elected officials and would counsel the person who made the prayer in question from that angle. I'd suggest telling him that you're uncomfortable about including politics in public prayer.

[Edlyn]

Well, here's an example of 'where the conflict would be":
So the conflict is that there are hundreds of laws, tax regulations, government policies, hospital policies, organizational membership plans, etc., etc., which all mention the word "marriage". To change them all to include "civil unions" would take forever. A lot easier to just call a marriage a marriage.


P.S. About your statement "facilitate tolerance within our society at large" -- I don't want to be tolerated, I want the equal rights that our Constitution guarantees to us all.

If I was to be sarcastic, I'd respond to you Christian willingness to "tolerate" me by saying "how very white of you!.

Holy Matrimony is performed by a priest, minister, rabbi, etc., and a civil union is performed by a judge or notary public. Since the former has been performed longer than the later, the term "marriage" and what it traditionally meant should remain with the originator.

I personally don't care what is easier, I care about doing the right thing to all concerned. (Does that mean any thing to you?) Let the government make a change on the paperwork, hospitals change their policies to accommodate both, etc. It would not take forever and while their going through it, it would be an opportune time to get rid of redundant forms.

Your last comment was totally uncalled for even as an "if".

[kung fu lola]

As far as I am aware, all the major Christian religions - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Methodist - are officially against gay marriage.

Except for The United Church Of Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/14/uc_gay_marriage030814), and the Unitarians (http://www.cuc.ca/queer/press_release_gay_marriage.htm). If you felt like including all the descendants of Moses, I'd mentionReform Judaism (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/01/011604jewishMarry.htm).

[whiterabbit]

The United Church of Christ is extremely gay-friendly in my experience. Do not confuse with the Church of Christ -- the two are very much opposites.

[geewhiz]

The Unitarians are not Christian. They were the first group to ever vote themselves out.

The official viewpoint is that homosexuality is wrong. This is decided on basis of scripture that condemns homosexuality. Homosexuals can come to church (in fact it is encouraged) but can't hold leadership positions just as two people who were living together unmarried can't. There are guidelines for this just as there are guidelines for seletion of pastors, deacons,etc. Oh and mine is pastored by a husband and wife team. They are both ordained. (These are the positios in my church)

I don't think that speaking up in the choral prayer would have done alot of good and could have possibly split the group up. And because he has the traditional viewpoint, you would have come out the enemy. Best thing to do (and I have been in this situation only mine is equality of women in the church) is to stay silent and when it comes your time to pray just pray for tolerance.

And I agree that God knows hearts and minds. In the end, it is His decision on how He wants to deal with this situation. KIng David was once told by God not to worry about everyone else and to work on his relationship with Him. I really try to live by that.

[kung fu lola]

The Unitarians are not Christian. They were the first group to ever vote themselves out.

Funny, that, since I know more than a few who believe that Jesus was the Messiah and that He died for their sins. If that's not a Christian, what is?

As for your assertion that "the Bible condemns homosexuality;" some very smart people aren't so sure. (http://www.cebiaz.com/book/) I don't know if YOU have credentials vis a vis theology, but this guy does, so I'm gonna believe him over you, if you don't mind. Oh, and here (http://www.jesusmcc.org/freespirit/rev_james.html) is another learned person who disagrees with you. And another! (http://www.jesusmcc.org/freespirit/not01.html) And another! (http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/knight.html)

My point is NOT that homos are accepted in so-called "mainstream" Christianity. I know they're not, because I can look around me and see all kinds of misery caused by that unfortunate fact. My point is that you can't make blanket statements like that and be correct. Not to mention, that "everyone agrees with me" does not constitute a logical argument, since it is a logical fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html).

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

The Unitarians are not Christian. They were the first group to ever vote themselves out.
Untrue. You don't have to be a Christian to be a Unitarian, but there are Unitarian Christians.

[Helen's Eidolon]

Holy Matrimony is performed by a priest, minister, rabbi, etc., and a civil union is performed by a judge or notary public. Since the former has been performed longer than the later, the term "marriage" and what it traditionally meant should remain with the originator.
First, I'd like to apologize to TeaElle for continuing this hijack. But I feel as if I've typed this out a million times in the past couple of weeks - as a point of data, the Romans and Greeks had civil, very non-Christian marriage long before Christian priests started performing it. They did not originate the term marriage, nor the institution.

[Edlyn]

You forgot the Jews, dear.

[TeaElle]

Continuing the hijack, who had what first is irrelevant on its face. We're talking about the law, and right now, the legal entity that allows two people to have their relationship recognized by the state is called marriage. It's not called holy matrimony, it's not a sacrament, it's not a sacred union, but it is a marriage. That's what it's called.

The fact that religions also call the spiritual entity that allows two people to have their relationship recognized by the church/synagogue/temple/community is also called marriage is confusing but doesn't have any bearing on the application of the law, and the equal protection of all citizens under the law, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Back on topic now, I mentioned, in very vague terms, something about the gay marriage issue in the presence of the director at this evening's rehearsal. He quickly engaged me in conversation and made it clear that he was also bothered by the politicizing of our prayer last week, and had mentioned it to the pray-er in a phone conversation over the week and the conversation ended with an understanding that the pray-er (who has apparently been known to merge the political and the religious in the past) will not do that again. I hope that this holds true; we will be working together throughout much of the presidential campaign and I don't think anyone needs a repeat of what happened.

[yosemite]

He quickly engaged me in conversation and made it clear that he was also bothered by the politicizing of our prayer last week, and had mentioned it to the pray-er in a phone conversation over the week and the conversation ended with an understanding that the pray-er (who has apparently been known to merge the political and the religious in the past) will not do that again. I hope that this holds true; we will be working together throughout much of the presidential campaign and I don't think anyone needs a repeat of what happened.
That's good news.

I don't think it's ever inappropriate to voice your concerns about such a matter, as long as you do it tactfully and in private.

Churches (and in this case, church groups that span many different denominations) are made up of individuals. All these individuals are bound to have different viewpoints and sensibilities. To simply "suck it up" and silently accept something that you deem to be unpleasant with nary a complaint doesn't sound right. People should always be able to converse with each other about such matters and to not be afraid to do so.

I'm glad that things are going to work out.

[yosemite]

I should probably ammend my previous comment about such conversations always being in private. There are probably times where discussing such issues should be done in public, and done immediately.

However, as a general rule, I think it's usually best to voice concerns and criticisms in private. I think most of us are more receptive to whatever message (or criticism) we are being given when told in private.

[Drastic]

A friend posted this quote, from the oft-quotable Mark Twain, in a LJ entry awhile back. I daresay it has resonance no matter what one's personal faith is--and has direct bearing on the frequent advice to be silent, to be quiet, to avoid confrontation.

It must be that the increase comes of the inborn human instinct to imitate--that and man's commenest weakness, his aversion to being unpleasantly conspicuous, pointed at, shunned, as being on the unpopular side. Its other name is Moral Cowardice, and is the commanding feature of the make-up of 9,999 men in the 10,000. I am not offering this as a discovery; privately the dullest of us knows it to be true. History will not allow us to forget or ignore this supreme trait of our character. It persistently and sardonically reminds us that from the beginning of the world no revolt against a public infamy or oppression has ever been begun but by the one daring man in the 10,000, the rest timidly waiting, and slowly and reluctantly joining, under the influence of that man and his fellows from the other ten thousands. The abolitionists remember. Privately the public feeling was with them early, but each man was afraid to speak out until he got some hint that his neighbor was privately as he privately felt himself. Then the boom followed. It always does.

Mark Twain, THE UNITED STATES OF LYNCHERDOM (1901)

Join less slowly. Join less reluctantly. The boom's a'coming.