I don't think that the GLBT community inundating church's would do anything but cause more chaos, more distrust and stronger anti- homosexual feelings.

There ARE church's out there who are GLBT friendly and inclusive. When I left the Mennonite church, I left because I no longer believed the same way they did.

A church, not a religion or a faith, but a church, is founded on like mindedness. Most church's are governed by a constitution, or a written sometimes unwritten, creed of idealogies, rules, dogma and doctrine. I tend to think of church's as a "club". Just as each club has it's own sets of standards and rules, so do church's. Just like in a club, if a club member did something totally against the rules, OR no longer felt the want or need to follow club rules, they would either leave on their own, or be kicked out.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. Many Christians don't believe that homosexuality is right. They think it's a one way ticket to hell, and you know what? It is perfectly OK for them to think that. What makes that attitude NOT ok, is when they try and legislate their idealogies and doctrine and belief, on those who do not believe the same way.

If we inundated the "unfriendly" and non-inclusive church's, we are doing what they are doing to us; trying to force our own idealogies and beliefs on them.

I feel that us doing that to them, would be as equally wrong as what they are doing to us.

Just my own thoughts.

totally not what i said

I am all for respectful protesting. I've done it, even within my own church.

Before I left the church, someone was speaking on spousal abuse and his (guest speaker) idea that the abused shouldn't seek outside help or leave. They should go to their chuch and allow the church to deal with it.

I had just come home from mission work in KY and WV. There I worked as a child and parent advocate at a shelter for abused women and their children. I knew the statistics. I had even met a young woman who had come there, who's father in law was a respected preacher. When she went to him with bruises all over her face and body, he told her she should try to be more pleasing for her husband so he wouldn't need to correct her.

This poor young woman and her little girl popped into my mind and before I could over think it, I stood up where I was sitting, and turned my back on the speaker. I stayed in that position, quietly, while he finished his sermon. I didn't move, I didn't flinch, I prayed.

I've only ever done that one time. I have gotten up and walked out of a church, but that was so over the top for me, that I couldn't let it go unchallenged.


If the LGBT all went as a large group to an unwelcoming church and integrated ourselves with them, waited until they loved and accepted us, then "came out".

Well, if that we me, I would feel decieved. I understand what you are saying, I truly do. But, there are very loving and honest people out there who TRULY believe that all gays are going to hell. In that love, they pray, they encourage but they won't budge from that belief. Most of them are NOT the ones trying to dictate their beliefs through laws enacted against our rights.

There will always be prejudices, always be people who will only ever see things as black or white. That is OK with me, as long as they keep it out of my "life".

And in return, I will keep my beliefs out of theirs.

An apology is one thing; but..... it can also be completely meaningless. How many people have we known that have apologized for their actions and yet did the same exact thing, later on?

I appreciate sincere apologies, but I also expect their actions to match their words, for that apology to mean anything to me. When they start taking actions to ensure that they never do that again, and are attempting to make amends for the wrong that they have done, THEN I am impressed, but not until then.

As far as I can tell, many of these apologies are coming from the point of view of "love the sinner, hate the sin." It will take a re-thinking of a religion's belief and interpretation of sin to change this view.

I really liked what you said about a few apologizing for what "they did." It got me thinking (along with some comments on the initial post) about personal responsibility for your own misguided beliefs. It's almost a cop-out to apologize for what "they" (in the name of your religion) did.

Another poster mentioned the bracelets, and that is so heinous. There's no words for that crap. And it buries and overshadows many good people of faith that are coming from an honest place on this issue. It makes the distrust even greater.

Isn't going to church, just going to church? At the heart of this argument is the fact that it sounds like many feel a need to announce we are queer to enter a church. If we hide it, we are being deceptive. If we are authentic, we risk being rejected. It's something we confront all the time. Who do we tell we're queer? It's another part of heterosexual privilege.

One of the most humbling/honoring experiences I ever experienced was during my seminary life when a Professor apologized to me for all of the bigotry/racism he practiced against black people in the name of Christianity. He apologized not only for his actions but for those who claimed to represent Christ who had done inhumane things against others simply because they were black. I won't go into all of the details but it was a powerful moment for both of us. I know I'm an odd duck but this meant something to me and got me thinking about a lot of things. And this moment was one of many that changed my life.

Do I think that folks should just flippantly stand around on corners saying, I'm sorry for all the idiotic, foolish, condemning words and deeds ever done against our community? No. But do I think that churches who have been silent on the issue need to come forward and speak out against the hatred that has been voiced? Yes I do. Do I think that Pastors in the mainstream religions need to step forward and acknowledge the damage that has been done to many because of the message and exclusion that has been done? Yes I do.

Again, maybe it's because of the number of people I speak with. But the willingness to do this accompanied by actions that support the words do go a long way for some. I see the apology as saying we are sorry for what you have experienced. We are sorry that you have been treated like a second class citizen. We are sorry that people have misrepresented our faith. We are sorry for <fill in the blank>. There are several ways to express this and demonstrate this. For some this would be an excellent catalyst in facilitating spiritual healing.

Just my thoughts.

And a great perspective. I really resonated with the part I bolded!

There... those words are the key for any real apololgy from a Christian.

The original language, which most modern bibles are based, does not say the same thing as those modern text.

Many things in the writen word have been twisted and taken out of context.

I am gay, transgender, and a Christian. I have studied the orginal text which the bible was based on. I know for myself, what it says. Not what someone else said, or told me about it.

and... I feel like I have just put a 'bulls eye' on my back for someone/anyone who has an ax to grind against Christians. Everytime a person lumps people into stereotypical groups.... the truth gets lost.

If you are really an open minded and accepting human, you will say, "That person has a twisted sense of faith." or "That particular organization, is messed up." and not lump ALL Christians into the same pile of flith.

When people react to stereotype, or exclusively their own personal experience.
The whole truth/ big picture gets ignored.

I agree with most of your post but I struggle to understand this perspective. I totally understand how this Professor can apologise for his own actions against those who were black. However, what gives him the right to apologise for others in the way that they have acted?

To me, whilst I'm sure it's not intended as such, offering up an apology on behalf of a people is extremely arrogant unless you are an official representative of those people and have explicit authority to offer up such an apology.

In this instance, this Professor appears to be taking it upon himself to speak for, and represent, a large proportion of society. He doesn't. He can only represent himself (and, perhaps, those in his close circle) .... he cannot assume the voice of others.

Gotta quit following Ciaran around into threads like this one (I'm really not!)

This reminds me of the movement that pops up now and then, that white people should pay reparations to African-Americans for slavery, as a kind of apology. I see obvious problems with that: not every person of color is African-American, or descended from slaves, the lineage of many people of color in this country is much longer than that of most whites, so many white people weren't even here during those years; how do you classify biracial people, etc. That's another post, and probably a heated one ;).

Same with say, one German apologizing for all of Germany for the Holocaust. Many Germans opposed the Nazis and others aided Jews and other victims.

I just don't see how one person can speak for an entire group, when not all of that group participated in any kind of oppression.

I've more thoughts on this matter and will post them when my 12 hour office day ends .... Alas, it has only begun.

This is awesome, but long

Thank you so much for posting this! What an amazing young man.

I think it's more basic than that. Rather, it's not whether all in the group participated in what is being apologised for. Instead, it's whether all the group, whether they participated or not, actually feel a desire or a need to apologise.

For example, someone might suggest that he or she is apologising on behalf of all Christians for the injustices that GLBT peoples have suffered over the years. However, that person is indicating that he or she speaks for an entire people or movement when clearly he or she does not. A personal apology is real - an apology from a person on behalf of a people or movement may have honourable intentions but it comes across, to me at least, as crass and arrogant.



There are times when it is possible to apologise on behalf of a people. That's when the person apologising is in the (fortunate) position to be able to do so from both a personal and a corporate perspective i.e. as a bone fide representative of a people or society.

Ironically, probably the most moving example of this in the 20th century was when the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt fell to his knees at the holocaust memorial on a state visit to Warsaw in 1970:

http://i926.photobucket.com/albums/a...andt_Willy.gif

This was an extremely poignant moment and went some way towards easing some of the multitude of pain that remained following World War Two. That's not to suggest that all Germans were responsible for the attrocities caused by the Nazis. However, it was right and proper that the German nation apologised for this.

That said, it had to be the Head of State doing so, as Head of State but with personal emotion. A German individual cannot apologise on behalf of the German people / German nation anymore than I cannot apologise on behalf of the Northern Irish people for the attrocities that have been carried out by my people against the England nation over recent decades.


Hope that makes sense. I realise that my spelling here is proper English (i.e. we don't use "z"s) not Americanised English and that's something I definitely won't be apologising for :)

>>I think it's more basic than that.

So do I, I am not the 'group' I in no way speak for the 'group' I am a person who knows better, I know more than the unenlightended persons within the group as far as education and experience is concerned. I am not a follower in a crowd, I am a lone voice, standing up, for what is right. I offer a small hope that others will learn as I have and make the turn to no longer follow the crowd.

>> Rather, it's not whether all in the group participated in what is being apologised for.

So, I as an individual and what I have to say, mean nothing to you? ... it doesn't matter that I personally didn't, "do the crime" so to speak, it doesn't matter that I know its wrong and say its wrong to treat gay's or any other human being in a hurtful, harmful and judgemental way just because of the way they are?
So then... I am now, by your standard, a person who has no right to set myself apart and say I don't agree with the 'group"? I don't fit the stereotype... I know that 'they' (the loud mouthed majority) are wrong and it hurts me? ..that it makes me sad to see it? ... You don't want to hear the truth that I know, they have twisted the words and rewritten the book? Are you saying, you will not accept--from me--? That they are NOT speaking the truth, but they are spouting a misrepresentation of that truth I know.


>> Instead, it's whether all the group, whether they participated or not, actually feel a desire or a need to apologise


faith in Christ is not a 'group pass' event, it is an individual relationship between the Creator and the created,

when a gang of 'red shirts', attact a person in the street, does that make all of the people with 'red shirts' equally responsible?... of course not.

When I see someone spouting hate, under a Christian banner, I hurt. I would like to be able to make them stop, but I can't control them.
All I can do is say, "I am sorry, it isn't right for that to happen."

... and you have the choice to accept what I say as valid...
or lump me in with the crowd.

Its interesting how prejudice works that way.