No, we certainly need to do something about the Klan. My argument is with people who put that onus on white people generally, as if simply having the same color skin as a Klansman makes you guilty.
And of course, people in the hypothetical town, regardless of race, who have the ability to do something about the Klan problem, need to step up and do whatever they can. But some white person three states away has much less to answer for, in my opinion. And it shouldn’t depend on your race in the first place, assuming you’re not part of the “good old boys” network, working and associating with these Klansmen and looking the other way at their crimes.
So my issue with the OP is that somehow the “good” Christian churches (which ones are “good” being debatable, I’m just assuming they exist for the purpose of argument) have to go above and beyond their everyday enthusiastic support for LGBT issues, simply because other so-called Christians elsewhere have been utterly awful to LGBT people. I don’t see how that follows.
It seems to me that supportive, welcoming churches should be applauded for being supportive, not chastised for not doing enough. Let’s hold them to the same standards as supportive, welcoming employers, social clubs, families and friends of the LBGT community. Let’s not treat them worse simply because they share the same nominal religion as some unrelated group of bigoted assholes. Does that make sense?
OTTOMH Dionysus was at least bisexual. the Hindu hero Arjuna was a bisexual transvestite (as well as being a great warrior). The Chinese monkey king was the god of bisexuality (and the life of any party). I could go on but I’m not at home and don’t have access to my library.
That wasn’t my post - but there are several groups that call themselves Presbyterian. We don’t all answer to the same set of rules (the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions). It is safe to say that not all Presbyterian groups agree with the PCUSA stance on LGBT rights.
PCUSA is the largest, and was created when we finally got back together with the Southerners 100 years after the end of the Civil War. Seriously - it took that long. However, we are losing churches due to our progressive stance on LGBT to more conservative Presbyterian umbrella organizations. At the same time, my individual congregation (which is arguably the most progressive in our Presbytery / local organization) continues to grow as younger people find out that they can be a Christian without needing to be a bigot (plus we have donuts and on Saturday nights a jazz band.)
That larger number probably includes (list from Wikipedia)
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – PC (USA)
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC)
Cumberland Presbyterian Church (CPC)
Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)
Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO)
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA)
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS)
Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly
Reformed Presbyterian Church – Hanover Presbytery
Covenant Presbyterian Church
Presbyterian Reformed Church
Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States
Korean American Presbyterian Church
Free Presbyterian Church of North America.
No harm, no foul. In our congregation we regularly march, marry, and celebrate LGBT actions. Please note that Presbyterians are NOT known for being loud however. We mainly call committee meetings to determine what should be done, then bring it to Session for a vote, and finally defend it all at a congregational meeting.
From a National organization basis, The Book of Order is very particular on how changes are made, and it took us awhile to finally get everything done - and even now it is a delicate balance.
Oddness. Let me quote myself, then, from that post (and I’ll avoid quote boxes, in case your browser isn’t handling them properly – it all looks just fine on my browser).
"Speaking as a member of a UMC congregation which recently elected to become an Reconciling Congregation (“openly welcomes persons of all sexual orientations and gender identities to fully participate in all aspects of its congregational life”)…this is by no means a done deal in the UMC.
The UMC’s Book of Discipline currently states:
‘Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only with the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.’
and it also states:
‘The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.’
At the church’s 2016 general conference, addressing (and possibly changing) these statements was hotly debated. Many Methodists from the US and Europe were in favor of removing this wording, but this was opposed by many from Africa and the more conservative wing of the UMC in the US. The general conference wound up assigning a group to research the issue, to report back in 2019, but there are those who believe that the issue may lead to a schism within the church. "
Edit: I just realized that you may have been only reacting to my correcting (or not correcting) nelliebly’s number for UMC membership. What I had been trying to point out to you was in reaction to you flagging the Book of Discipline’s anti-homosexuality stance in post #91, and noting that I had already mentioned this yesterday.
Yeah, what I had been trying (and failing) to capture in quoting you was not the 7 million vs. 14 million, but your mention of the UMC policy. Sorry about that.
Many consider the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts to be a gender-variant person at worst, and a transgender individual at best. Matthew 19:12 may refer to either transgender persons or intersex persons.
There is sometimes a lack of courage that I see among the low-level clergy of major religions, which may be related to what Czarcasm is trying to point out.
I give a LOT of speeches to clergy and congregations of churches in the midwest. In some cases, the church I visit is one where the denomination is officially against the very existence of people like me, but the local clergy are either tolerant or even enthused and affirming. Normally after I give my speech about my life and that of my people, there will be half the congregation coming up to hug me, some crying, some saying “we really had no idea that we were hurting people like you,” etc.
But when I ask the clergy if I should advertise and send transgender persons to their congregation if they are so inclined, then the faces tighten, and suddenly it’s “well…we *personally *affirm folks like you, but the Bishop/High Priest/Metropolitan/whomever…they’re kinda funny…” or “well, officially our denomination…yeah. Give it time.”
Not always, but I’m used to it. I did manage to “convert” a Baptist minister into becoming ordained as a Methodist, because they were so horrified at their own denomination’s treatment of people like me.