I have a pretty unique perspective on this as someone who’s worked in churches my entire adult life. Probably the hardest interview question I’ve ever been asked–across both technical and non-technical interviews–was when I was interviewing to be the organist at a large UMC church in early 2019, right before the General Conference vote that set all of this off. They basically summarized the situation to me and then asked if I was comfortable coming into the position not knowing which way the vote would go. In many ways, this question felt like asking if I had principles and if I was willing to stick to them. As a progressive person, I had to really think about if I’d be ok being in a place where I wouldn’t be allowed to play for a same-sex wedding.
That church’s senior pastor was one of the leading figures in the movement to affirm LGBTQ members. We quietly performed at least one same-sex marriage while I was there, which was technically in defiance of the denomination’s restrictions. Since then, I’ve moved to one of the most prominent progressive mainline Protestant megachurches in the US. We’ve had long standing partnerships with many LGTBQ organizations, and we do lots of tangible things for all sorts of underrepresented communities. We had a visiting trans pastor speak about a month ago, and they received an instant ovation from the congregation.
My point in all of this is that it frustrates me to see comment sections like much of this one where people insist that every church is a highly regressive place. As someone who’s in the closed door meetings, I promise you that there are many that are not, and it’s not just all a ploy to try to stay relevant in today’s society. Some places really do support these causes because they believe in them.
(As a footnote, I’ll say that I don’t like to talk about my religious views online, as it might put me in a weird position with my current and potential future employers. An acquaintance of mine wrote a great blog post that sums up my feelings well.)
Your point is well-made, but I worry you’re applying literal interpretation to rhetorical generalizing that require slightly deeper reading. For better or worse, humans like to make sweeping generalizations, and only in the most extreme instances do they legitimately believe they apply to everyone in that given population.
For example: The women tweeting about how “men suck” isn’t thinking of every man that has ever existed; she knows men aren’t a monolith; she has a picture in her mind of a particular type of man, one that has been a source of trauma for her and countless other women. If you know you aren’t that type of man, then you know that her words aren’t directed at you; the same principle, imo, applies to churches and religion.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but on the whole religion is used as a tool of exclusion and oppression much more than it is used to promote compassion and progress. When people make generalizations about churches and religion, they’re envisioning the regressive, bigoted zealot that has been the source of trauma for so many. The church you describe would not fall into that category, so try not to take such comments to heart.
I really like how you put this, and the example given.
Removed by mod
A mistranslation of some milennia-old texts, published by a bunch of crusty old 17th-century white men is an interesting hill to die on, isn’t it? Imagine what these self-righteous bigots would do to Jesus (a bold and prominent brown socialist) if they met him on the street.
No doubt the pro-hate faction considers this a win, seeing it as a purification of the church.
So be it. Let them rot in their spotless echo chambers.
A lot of these pastors have to be looking at their steadily declining congregations and thinking maybe it’s not the kids who are wrong, after all.
That requires at least a mediocre amount of critical thinking skills and those are taboo in religious organizations, so doubt it.
deleted by creator
Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view that every religious leader/person is stupid and unable to critically think?
Why? They clearly choose not to apply that ability to a big part of their lives. In this specific case under discussion, their entire career requires not applying any critical thinking. Their paycheck depends on their ability to convince other people of things that are not and can never be supported by any actual evidence.
It’s the reason that crowd is so susceptible, as a trend, to con men, malicious misinformation, and developing entire belief systems off a Facebook meme that pairs one politician’s face with a fake quote or a quote from a totally different politician. They’re trained, often from birth, that evidence is not necessary in the process of deciding what you want to believe; in fact, that evidence is often the bad guy (in that it opposes “faith”).
So, no. We’ll drop the characterization if and only if it stops being relevant to our day-to-day lives in America. It’s not the atheists who are saying they think I should get the death penalty (DeSantis’s preacher), that I should be shot in the back of the head (Texas Baptist Church), that God should kill me slowly (Pure Words Baptist Church), and that I should be hunted with dogs (governor of SC).
deleted by creator
you honestly believe EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS PERSON EVER has no critical thinking skills?
I honestly believe the ones that matter certainly don’t. The ones who are paying the church’s bills and showing up to their pep rallies every week are very clearly not spending any time thinking about it.
The LGBTQIA+ pastors that started a socialist christian church in Kentucky?
Who? Let me know when they start affecting actual government policy, or even just going on TV and saying “We condemn those other Christians who say gay people should be shot in the back of the head.” That’s what we’ve been demanding from Muslims since 2001, why are you special?
MLK? Malcom X? Johann Bernoulli, Blaise Pascal, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,
Blah blah blah, fallacious appeal to authority, blah blah blah. Name-dropping is not “critical thinking”, and you really shouldn’t have included a literal, straight-up alchemist in that list if you were trying to use it to make a point.
all of whom are some of the most important mathematicians in history and were religious, all couldn’t think for themselves?
MLK and Malcom X were mathematicians? TIL.
Immanuel Kant, famous influential philosopher, no critical thinking.
So what I’m hearing you say here is: “If smart people believe in magic sky fairy, magic sky fairy must be logical to believe in,” which is about the level of discourse I’d expect from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking. Thanks for being an object lesson.
Please disengage, this is simply not productive. I understand you may have been tangibly hurt by religious folks who have persecuted you or your loved ones. I have suffered real harm from this as well. But making sweeping statements about broad categories of people is generally not a great take and being confrontational with a moderator asking for some civility in a thread and appealing to humanity is not a good look.
They’re responding to the mods energy.
deleted by creator
You’re a mod and being this way publicly? Personally attacking?
You know, it’s fine to dislike religious people and believe different things. But you’re acting pretty intolerant here. Insulting others beliefs and intelligence isn’t cool just cause you disagree with it.
“Level of discourse…from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking.” “Magical sky faerie” “fallacious appeal to authority”. You sound like a pseudo-intellectual who gets off on putting down others and you found a population that you feel you’re allowed to do this to.
Reported your comment as well. You don’t have to be nasty just cause you dislike someone’s perspective on life. And don’t hit me with “well they hate xyz people”. I know you know not all religious folks share the same view - or I’d at least hope so.
So what I’m hearing you say here is: “If smart people believe in magic sky fairy, magic sky fairy must be logical to believe in,” which is about the level of discourse I’d expect from someone unfamiliar with the concept of critical thinking. Thanks for being an object lesson.
This is such a bad reading of the comment that I can only imagine you’re acting in bad faith. You have made the assumption that reason will inevitably lead people to the same conclusions about the world, but that is not true, and that is what the OP is bringing up. How is it that many people, when presented with the same sets of facts, and using the same reasonable principles, can come to differing conclusions? This question should keep you up at night, but instead it seems you’re only interested in saying “those other people are dumb, I am smart.”
This question should keep you up at night
I’m sorry. The question that keeps me up at night is “How are people able to just decide to believe something with no (or less than no) practical evidence?”. Just because a lot of people have managed it, even people who are very evidence-based in every other part of their life, doesn’t mean I can just do it. I’d literally have to think less about the implications of such a thing on the everyday world. I’d have to stop asking questions (like: “Does God help anyone? If so, how does he choose? If not, why pray?”, and no, “we just can’t understand him” is not an answer I can just choose to believe because I like it).
So yeah, this is obviously a “me” problem, since everyone else on this instance seems to intuitively grasp the idea that one can actually come to a valid, reality-based conclusion that God exists and I’m the “2010 New Atheist” for not being able to get on board.
I think 75% of the population literally try not to have critical thinking in one major aspect of their life that literally says don’t think, have faith.
It’s a part of religion to not think, to follow and obey. It’s sweet you want to defend them in other avenues, but cognitive dissonance is also causing a lot of sorrow and pain while religious people on majority are standing back and following their leaders, even the progressive ones, aren’t willing to progress fast enough. They’re still following something that’s usually mostly historically been oppressive and regressive to maintain power over the masses.
The issue is the framing of “organized religion” when what you really mean is “Christianity”. This has been the problem with new atheism for a long time: take valid criticisms of Christianity, along with the trauma and experiences in Christian churches, and then try to paint all religion with that same brush. And you can’t do that.
You’re angry at Christianity and its hegemony in American life. I get it and I share many of those fears and frustrations. You mentioned things happening in FL. I’m in FL, and as a queer person it’s fucking terrifying here. But the momentum behind that push isn’t coming from synagogues or mosques, or from Hindus or Buddhists or Taoists. It’s an explicit white Christian supremacist movement.
Christianity’s dogma, style of worship, mindsets, etc don’t map to other faiths. And even inside of Christianity there’s people who are trying to push back. But saying that things like this are characteristic of all religions shows a complete lack of understanding of faiths outside of Christianity.
Probably not. Atheistic fundamentalists are still fundamentalists. Their thinking is just as flawed
I mean. They’re doubling down on stupid i think it’s fair to call them out on it. In order to follow most organized religion, you are taught to kill critical thinking and have faith. It’s literally a part of the whole thing
You’re in a thread that literally is about churches not going along with homophobic takes. People keep saying “religious people should stand up against the bigots” and because they are in the example, you have bigots splitting off. And then turn around and insult the intelligence of said religious people still.
Who really is the person showing a lack of critical thinking skills? I’d argue the one whose take lacks any nuance.
It’s about one small group. And one that couldn’t stop being taken over by assholes and has a schism because the more conversative left.
Among those who say they were raised exclusively by Protestants, roughly eight-in-ten now identify with Protestantism, including 80% of those raised by two Protestant parents and 75% of those raised by a single parent who was Protestant. Most who were raised exclusively by Protestants but who no longer identify as such are now religious “nones,” with smaller numbers now identifying with Catholicism or other religions.
I have done a lot of research and could have a nuanced discussion. I don’t think claiming people who have negative options are “2010 Atheists” is the bit of a bigot in this case. I think religion has enough people carrying water who were just raised in it and don’t think critically.
Not all religious people are unable to think critically, but all religious people are able and willing to think uncritically, that is what “faith” is.
As a former UMC, it’s nice to see such a large chunk of them willing to break off rather than adopt pro-hatred policies.
I still think religion is generally pretty silly, but it’s slightly less silly when it becomes a tool for enriching people’s lives instead of making them hate themselves and others.
Actually, the one’s breaking off are the conservative ones. They’re mad because the main assembly won’t enforce the homophobic rules. They’re joining a splinter denomination that’s more hardline.
Thank you for the correction.
Having grown up in a UMC church that hated the gays, I assumed otherwise. I’m glad to hear the majority are becoming more mainstream.
I don’t know if it’s a majority yet, but there’s a significant enough number of progressives to make it a deal. So yeah, there’s some hope there.
So wait, are the churches that are leaving in support of the LGBTQ bans that they have? Or are they protesting them? Because the article wasn’t totally clear but it seemed like the conservatives were the ones leaving.
So it’s conservatives leaving because they can tell the winds of change are coming?
deleted by creator
It’s a lot deeper than that.
Since the 70s, there’s been a couple lines in their Book of Discipline (central doctrine and interpretation) that say that people are to be loved, but the practice is homosexuality is “inconsistent with Christian teaching”. We progressives have been trying to take that back out but the “traditionalists” play legislative games to prevent and real debate. On the flip side, it says nothing about trans people because progressives play the same games too keep their bigoted crap out.
Back in 2019 the UMC held a special General Conference to address the issue. The traditionalists paired up with churches from Africa and a couple other places to make things worse but also created an easy way to leave the denomination. Right after, they started the GMC denomination and started leaving the UMC . IOW, they shit the bed and then moved out.
It’s really screwed up because the US congregations tend to be affirming and are shirking while the overseas congregations are more traditional but growing. They had the long term advantage. I think they just wanted to burn it all down. Think Steve Bannon and his desire to destroy the US government
There is also another layer of convoluted-ness to my understanding. Even though the homophobic churches won and prevented removal of anti-gay language, the homophobic churches in the US are all pissy as no one is enforcing it. Progressive UMC churches openly ignore and break the homophobic rules.
So the UMC has been bleeding churches from both ends in the US. I believe most have been homophobic churches running away because no one is enforcing their bigotry, but some are progressive churches which have left because they did not want to appear to support the bigotry still in the doctrine and to avoid any risk of the bigotry being enforced on them in the future.
The United Methodist Church wants to allow LGBT people to be members, the people splitting off don’t. It is weirdly worded but there’s a new conservative sect called the Global Methodist Church that’s more anti gay and I would guess most of the churches splitting off are going to join that sect.
Not so United I guess
I grew up and was quite active in the UMC. Seeing stories like this give me some hope that the church is finding it’s way again after the evangelicals took over. The evangelicals seem to be the ones that are leaving, btw. I left long ago and consider myself non-religious due to the evangelical movement that’s grown so powerful these days.
I decided to look up the church’s position and found it here: [https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-what-is-the-churchs-position-on-homosexuality] Still leaves a lot to be desired, but it’s a step in the right direction. Albeit very small step.
This comment section really gives me pause though. You don’t have to agree with someone’s spiritual or religious views, but you should respect them. Now, if those religious views are hateful and encourage violence, then yes by all means call them on their BS. I’ll hold the bull-horn for you and have your back if things go sideways. But the hate and anger in this comment section was aimed at the people that are trying to change the church for the better, not those that left because they hate the LGBTQ+ folks. Seems folks forgot the humans.
Removed by mod
I did not write a full dissertation on my personal feelings on religions role in societal growth and collapse because I didn’t think it was relevant. Therefore, you really do not have any basis for judging what it is I need to research or learn to distinguish. I may agree with your world view, but I have not given you any data with which to make that conclusion.
Removed by mod
If I may ask, why do you think evangelicals maintain their position on homosexuality? Any idea where it came from? ~Strawberry
A literal interpretation of the old testament bible. And the idea that a nearly 3000 year old collection of verbal teachings by a mostly tribal society is still applicable today. There are a lot of rules there that if they followed would lead to some hilarity. Some that would lead to a lot of heartache too. [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_actions_prohibited_by_the_Bible] The evangelicals ignore the parts of the new testament they don’t like and the new covenant that Jesus represents. Read that as they ignore the parts about love and compassion for your fellow human; living with grace and kindness.
A literal interpretation of a mistranslation.
Multiple intentional mistranslations. Added to that cherry picking which gospels you want to add because some of them contradict the religion you’re trying to build.
Ah yes, the “apocrypha”. One would think an ideology supernaturally delivered to anointed individuals by an omnipotent and omniscient deity wouldn’t have so many contradictions and texts left on the cutting room floor.
I’m confused. Is the fifth the pro or the anti LGBTQ part? Probably the former though.
“I don’t think any of us want to see any of our churches leave,” he said. “We’re called to be the body of Christ, we’re called to be unified. There’s never been a time when the church has not been without conflict, but there’s been a way we’ve worked through that.”
Well, here’s the thing: you either move with the times or you get left behind. The German Catholic Church is in a similar trifle with Rome since recent years. IIRC it’s over letting women and married people be priests. Rome still follows a hardline NO on that but what they don’t get is that it’s not really up to them. This is no longer a niche opinion in Germany that you can squash from on high. The church’s stance is the niche opinion now.
