Christians listen up

The Anchoress is speaking, in my less than humble view, for God:

There is a video making the rounds that shows an angry mob of California gays confronting and intimidating Christians over the passage of Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in that state. Michelle Malkin has a narrative of the event that sounds worse than the tape, which already sounds pretty bad.

Reportedly the Christians met once a week to pray and sing on the public corner. Whether they’re hoping to “straighten out” gays or simply trying to facilitate encounters with Christ is unclear, but their method is problematic; it’s not how Jesus would do it.

Jesus went to the people he wanted to meet and he ate with them — or served them. He fellowshipped and got to know the community in personal and intimate ways. He attracted them with his love and his stability. He didn’t stand around singing hymns and praying for them, which might have seemed both separatist and condescending — and therefore off-putting — to the very people he hoped to engage.

The Christians may have unintentionally come off as condescending. We may presume that they would not want a crowd of gays meeting on their curb each week to proselytize. As a Catholic I would take issue with other Christians, no matter how well-intentioned, standing at the curb praying for my redemption based solely upon their knowledge not of me, but of my habits or my religion. Their singing songs for my salvation would come off as sitting in judgment of me. Even if that’s not how they meant it.

There is more... and I think it to be worthy... more than worthy... of your time.

Comments

[chuck aka xtnyoda]

Kind of a tough call to me. I certainly see the writers point, and agree...to a point.

I quit the "Right to Life" walks years ago when I finally decided that all the walks in the world weren't going to change a thing, the only change either way is going to happen in the federal court systems or state legislatures and I just came to realize that walking/marching would accomplish nothing. It had simply become a way for us to be politically postured by...politics.

OK, so I'm not a real quick read.

On this thing.

The "gays" don't want folks praying for nor singing for them in the Castro district. I can certainly see the singing and praying in "their" district as being quite provocative. I wouldn't have anything to do with it. We can still pray for anyone, anywhere, in fellowship, in our buildings/meeting places...and if we felt the ones we were praying for were wrong then we should be praying with a burden for their transgressions...not as making declarations requesting God's judgment to fall upon them...but begging God to change their hearts...in abject humility. If we were ever to be in a situation of open confrontation...our demeanor should be the same...a broken heart.

Now, for the "gays".

They have no problem having their "gay pride" marches and celebrations...and they certainly don't conduct them in the meeting halls of folks with like minds. They are quite insistent on parading down the streets of the general public making their desires know to all, and it would seem in a rather "in you face" manner.

Perhaps they could use a few lessons in humility as well?

So...are they going to insist on being the only ones with the right to assemble and have their say?

That is the sticking point to me.

[BroKen]

It seems strange to me that a site called "brutally honest" would take some Christians to task for being merely "provocatively honest" though not the lest bit brutal.

I think the Anchoress is misguided in both her assumptions of Jesus' methods and in her conclusion. She says, "He (Jesus) didn’t stand around singing hymns and praying for them." Just how does she know that? We do know that Jesus could be very provocative, even brutal at times (ask the money-changers.) And it seems that the provocateurs in this case were attempting to make contacts and build bridges as the Anchoress suggests and had been for about three years according to their (or what seems to be their) account of the incident.

http://www.jhopsf.org/

Now, to the Anchoress' conclusion, she seems to be advocating a separation of church and state on marriage where the state certifies and the church sanctifies. That is actually what we have now. The state certification of gay relationships, not the church's sanction, is what is at stake with prop 8 and the like. I have never performed a wedding without a license and as a pastor I still had to be certified by the state to perform weddings.

Apparently, this little band of worshipers got caught up in the swirl of emotions around prop 8. That the rest of us would cut them off or dismiss them as crackpots is distressing. You might not do as they did. They might have been unwise or misguided, but they did NOTHING wrong. When did blaming the victim become our MO?

[chuck aka xtnyoda]

Just one more observation here:

Isn't this the Marxist method? "Get in their face!" "Make them look like bigots!" "Drive them behind their walls and take away their public voice!"

"Then we have the 'bully pulpit' and everyone disagreeing with us we will label as extremists." "Regardless how long it takes, we will wear them down, then we will win...and take ownership."

[Mommynator]

I love the Anchoress for her calm, but when she goes hyperCatholic, she loses me.

I grew up Greek Orthodox - you know, the only "true" religion (at least that's what I was always told).

I went to a Lutheran grammar school that (horror of horrors) made us memorize scripture and Luther's Small Catechism (a very worthy work written for children, but could teach adults a thing or two).

I had a major conversion experience at Billy Graham's 1968 NYC Crusade.

I read the Bible for myself, I attended two different Bible colleges and studied lots o' theology and related topics (my degree has a theology minor).

I realized very early that no church or priest or pastor or evangelist or anyone else was going to stand with me on The Day, whether at my death or at the Judgement.

Only Jesus would be there for me and with me. I recognize where she comes from, but cannot accept an organization that seems to be a conglomerate of spiritual red tape and "influence" (pray to this Saint - he or she will get the job done, whether the job is God's will or not).

Ritual is all fine and good, but people get stupidly superstitious with ritual. I can knock over dozens of catholics within my work vicinity who have no idea what their faith teaches, no idea that the superstitions they carry with them are ineffectual, no idea of Christ's saving work and God's magnificent grace.

I think she gets it, but I rather doubt the vast majority of catholics in this country do.

Now I'm not saying there aren't various and sundry weird types at the other end of the theological spectrum, but our discussion here is about catholicism vs. some people who wanted to pray for homosexuals and make themselves available to them in case they'd had enough of the degradation, disease and diseased thought that goes with that life.

In the Anchoress' terms, maybe that's their vocation and maybe you could throw some prayer their way.