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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just to add my two cents, again. 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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!.
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.
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”.