North Carolina and “the Gays”

Posted on

A few weeks ago, I voted against NC Amendment 1, also known as “the marriage amendment.” Unfortunately, the Amendment passed with 61% of the vote.

This amendment has thrust North Carolina and the (predominantly religious) supporters of the Amendment into the spotlight.

Just prior to the election, Baptist Pastor Sean Harris preached in a sermon that you should beat the gay out of your kids if they show predilections for such things.

And this week, Baptist Pastor Charles Worley suggested rounding up all the gay men and women and putting them in electrified fence enclosures so they could not escape (one for the women and one for the men). His logic is that if we do that, they will die out very soon because they cannot reproduce.

You can’t make this stuff up.

I had a way, I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers, but I couldn’t get it passed through Congress. Build a great big large fence, fifty or a hundred mile long, put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified ‘til they can’t get out. Feed them, and you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce.

The thing is – this is nothing new. These attitudes and opinions, while morally reprehensible and repugnant, have been making the rounds from pulpits for years.

It was just never publicized quite the way it is now.

Amendment One passed for several reasons. It was deceptively coined “the marriage amendment.” The majority of NC is, unfortunately, rural. I don’t want to make the assumption that rural=uneducated or ignorant, but it’s hard not to jump down that train when you look at the counties where the amendment passed compared to the counties where it did not. By calling the amendment “the marriage amendment” you make it seem like the amendment is simply about defining marriage. Many of the people I spoke to who supported the amendment believed that all it did was define marriage as between one woman and one man. They did not understand how the amendment could strip rights from anyone.

North Carolina is a largely religious state. We are part of “the Bible Belt.” Sermons like the ones referenced above are far more common than people realize. It’s easy to find those Christians who say “yeah, but we’re not like that – we believe that God is love!” but the sad truth is, in the South, Christians who believe in tolerance and equality are not in the majority.

It is my hope that people will continue to call out these pastors and other “Christians” who continue to stand in opposition of civil rights and liberties. If enough people see it happening, then maybe something can finally change.






Mark Driscoll Owns a Suit!

Posted on

Honestly, the only reason I’m posting this excerpt from Mark Driscoll’s Easter Sermon is because I’ve never seen him wear a suit!

 

But to touch on the content… MAYBE IF I SCREAM MY HEAD OFF EVERYTHING I SAY WILL SOUND BETTER AND YOU WILL ACTUALLY LISTEN TO ME. BECAUSE THE BEST WAY TO TALK ABOUT LOVE IS BY SCREAMING AT YOU.


No Beards Allowed!

Posted on

I didn’t realize any church would have a “no facial hair” policy, but apparently they do! Pastor Jack Schaap was asked to explain, and his answer is laughable.

Basically he says there’s nothing wrong at all with facial hair, but we don’t allow it because I have the power to control what people do.

Also… forty thousand people attend this church on a regular basis? I find that very hard to believe. It is a “megachurch” – I don’t dispute that. But I don’t see how forty thousand people fit in this auditorium.

And why does a pastor need marble counter tops in his office?


Schaap Responds to 20/20 Story

Posted on

Jack Schaap, pastor of First Baptist Church in Hammond, IN, was one of the pastors shown in the 20/20 expose of IFB churches I talked about in my last post. He’s the one who said “It will be a cold day in hell before I get theology from a woman.”

This is a clip of his sermon the following Sunday.


20/20 on the IFB Church

Posted on

This past Friday night, 20/20 aired an investigative report on the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Church, looking into allegations of child abuse (see it here).

I find myself conflicted as I write this post. On the one hand, I despise a lot of things about IFB churches. I was born and raised in this sort of community (though, for full disclosure, we did not attend church for 10 of my formative years). When I left that church, my senior year in college, I referred to it as a cult. I disagreed with 90% of the words that came out of the pastor’s mouth. I felt the church was neither loving nor compassionate. It was full of hatred, bigotry, and arrogance.

But on the other hand, I do still think back on those years somewhat fondly. It was the first time I ever felt the spirit of community. The general population among the congregation is good hearted and trying to please God in the ways that they have been taught. I don’t want to be too disparaging because these people were the biggest part of my life for a very long time. My earliest memories are of church.

As I write this, I’m realizing just how deep-seated the brainwashing really was. Yes, I removed myself from it. But I find myself wanting to defend their actions and justify church positions despite knowing how unforgiving and detrimental these churches can be.

This episode of 20/20 focuses on three women and the abuse they faced in church, primarily sexual abuse. Tina Anderson (I wrote about this story last summer), the primary focus of the piece, was a 15 year old girl who was raped by a male member of the church. When she became pregnant and came forward to her pastor, she was accused of adultery and made to apologize in front of the entire congregation for her sin. She was sent away until the baby was born, and afterwards, while allowed to return to church, she was not allowed to re-enroll in the church school she had formerly attended.

The abuse and the church’s response to the abuse is disgusting and reprehensible.

However, 20/20 takes the actions of one church (or 3, since there are 3 women interviewed) and presents every IFB church as the same. Sexual abuse was not a part of the churches I was involved with – these churches, these women, are the exception, not the rule. Not all IFB churches are the same; sweeping generalizations like this don’t do anyone any good (let’s think about how the whole world is fairly quick to realize that Fred Phelps and the WBC are not indicators of all Christian behavior).

Let me be clear: I’m not saying IFB churches are not bad churches. They absolutely are. But I find that I have a problem with the implication that all IFB churches are pastored by monsters and sexual predators.

These pastors are elitist, racist, prejudiced, homophobic… yes. They embrace a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible… yes. They treat women as second-class citizens in their patriarchal worldviews. But none of that makes them sexual predators. And presenting this as a dangerous-to-the-children (physically) religious movement is dishonest. I know several male members of an IFB church who would string a child rapist up in the closest tree.

Continue reading »