Halloween is over, folks, but we’re still seeing some “scary” descriptions popping up.
Take a look at this piece titled “Highlands Church takes all-inclusive approach to homosexuality” by Electa Draper for The Denver Post.
An evangelical church can be a scary place for gay people, yet the Rev. Mark Tidd’s Highlands Church in Denver is trying “to live and love without labels” in an inclusive community.
This kind of open-minded approach to full church life for gay, lesbian and transgender people, along with everyone else, Tidd said, could be “kind of the kiss of death” for a new congregation, one started just last Christmas.
“But I knew it was the right thing to do,” Tidd said.
Whoa. Hold on there. Why would an evangelical church be a scary place for gay people? Are we supposed to just know what she’s talking about? When I think of the word “scary,” I think of bears, dungeons, hurricanes, not entering a building where people might disagree with me. Nevertheless, Draper should ask the pastor for some examples of how it might be scary for gay people.
Also, let’s look at that headline again: “Highlands Church takes all-inclusive approach to homosexuality.” Reporters don’t usually write the headlines, but why would a newspaper use “inclusive” to describe a church that doesn’t include people who believe the traditional Christian interpretation of sexuality. How is that inclusive?
Moving on, it looks like Draper was actually covering a symposium “offering a progressive perspective on homosexuality and Christianity.” Yes, the church offers one perspective. She writes that the pastor lost half of his congregation and two-thirds of his financial support, but what did those people have to say about dropping their support?
Then she quotes another pastor who changed his preaching style.
“Any of us who take steps in this direction soon find ourselves in a hornet’s nest,” said theology professor Mark Achtemeier of Dubuque Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian who no longer preaches church exclusion of gay relationships.
“If you had told me 10 years ago I would be standing here … speaking out in favor of gay marriage and ordination, I would have told you (that) you were crazy,” Achtemeier said.
What changed him was witnessing the real lives of gay Christians who were persuaded that same-gender attraction was a disorder and genuinely tried to embrace celibacy or live as heterosexuals.
I still don’t understand—Why does Achtemeier find himself in a hornet’s nest? I also don’t get how watching “the real lives of gay Christians” changed his mind to stop preaching against gay relationships. Instead of quoting Achtemeier, she quotes the first pastor again and then paraphrases:
“Achtemeier said Christians shouldn’t settle for an interpretation of the Bible that doesn’t make powerful sense of ordinary human lives.”
What does making “powerful sense of ordinary human lives” even mean?
Draper ends the story with this bit:
The symposium drew more than 100 people, most of them heterosexuals, event organizer Joe Quillin said. People from several churches and ministries attended.
Quillin said his search for speakers reminded him of “how scary it still is” to be gay and Christian.
It is interesting that different pastors would come together for a symposium like this, but it feels so one-sided for an event that only drew about 100 people. Draper again assumes we know what she’s talking about. What about his search was scary? Why leave this to our imagination?
 | Posted at 7:40 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (23) |
November 25, 2009, at 7:51 pm
Are you deliberately being obtuse here? Is it so hard to see why a gay person might be nervous in that sort of crowd?
November 25, 2009, at 8:47 pm
Well, nervous how? Scary how? Should they fear for their life? Are the scary evangies gonna lynch ‘em up? Yeah, that happens a lot in your average evangelical church.
Uncomfortable? Sure. But scared, or frightened?
November 25, 2009, at 8:52 pm
You don’t have to be in danger of getting stabbed or something to feel intimidated.
November 25, 2009, at 9:29 pm
Back to the press coverage issues, people.
November 25, 2009, at 9:34 pm
To be fair, Tmatt, while my back & forth with Stoo is not related to the press coverage, I think “Scary How?” is a question that is relevant.
Does the reporter think that a gay person in an evangelical church is in danger of physical harm, and therefore should be scared? If so, on what grounds?
Or does the reporter feel that it is self evident that it is scary to be around people who view things differently in a fundamental way than you do?
When I first read the lead, I said “Well, duh!” But then I thought about it some more, and the absurdity of the unsubstantiated remark became clear.
November 25, 2009, at 10:32 pm
In correctly labeling the lede unsubstantiated, Jon in the Nati hammers well the nail. We can’t say from the lede that the Rev. Tidd even intimated that evangelical church is a “scary place” for gay people much less said it. Based on Tmatt’s excerpts (I didn’t bother to read the entire story), organizer Joe Quillin is the most likely suspect. At best, the reporter based the lede’s assertion on a partial quote from the end of the story. As likely is that she synthesized her own views with what she thought the others think, and then she offered flat-out a point of view the story supports by inference alone. At best, sloppy reporting. At worst …
November 26, 2009, at 8:56 am
“When I think of the word “scary,” I think of bears, dungeons, hurricanes, not entering a building where people might disagree with me. Nevertheless, Draper should ask the pastor for some examples of how it might be scary for gay people.”
I might be willing to accept the idea the lede is under-substantiated, but to suggest, as jcalvin seems to, that it expresses a hidden agenda, seems off-base. It makes me wonder: how much and what kind of previous exposure to the issue should the reporters (or lede writers) assume in their readers?
I think it’s fairly obvious, at least among LGBT people, that churches might be called “scary” places. The threat is not primarily, as Jon in the Nati suggests, the risk of immediate “physical harm.” (Though Stoo is right to say that entering a building filled with people who disagree with you is intimidating, even if you don’t expect physical violence.) For many, it’s the fear of being told that you are profoundly displeasing to God and must accept a change in life far more radical than anything heterosexuals, as such, have to make (at least as far as this gay man can tell.) And to express surprise that eternal damnation is a scarier thought than lynching is… well, just plain odd.
Ironically, the more faith the LGBT person has in the rest of the message of the church, the more fear he or she is likely to experience.
To say this is not ideology — it merely reflects the emotions experienced by a large group of LGBT people. I would assume that this should be obvious to anyone who has given the issue thought. But maybe I’m wrong….?
November 26, 2009, at 10:37 am
If you think the evangelicals’ crimes against LGBT individuals is a matter of simple “disagreement,” that’s the heart of the problem right there. Would you characterize lynch mobs as “disagreements”? Would you characterize Jim Crow as a “disagreement”? These are the realities LGBT individuals live through every day - the fear of being a victim of violence for nothing more than being open about who they are, and the systematic and continued denial of their equal rights under the law. And yes, so-called “Christians” - and particularly self-identified evangelicals - are at the vanguard of the anti-LGBT hate movement in this country.
Quite frankly, to those of us who have LGBT friends and who follow the daily news of violence against LGBT individuals and the systematic denial of their basic civil rights, it is nothing short of self-evident that an evangelical church would be a scary place for an LGBT individual. This isn’t a reflection of the reporter’s ideology, but of her awareness of the situation. To go into a church where you know a vast majority don’t think you should have legal rights, and where there are likely a few people who think you should be beaten or even killed just for being who you are, is a scary proposition.
November 26, 2009, at 10:49 am
That’s exactly the issue. To obtusely ignore the extreme attitudes of so-called christians is inexcusable. Is the logic that they are religious so they must basically mean well? The attempts of evangelicals to infiltrate their beliefs into the political system is scary not just to the LGBT community.
November 26, 2009, at 11:19 am
For most believing Christians, the “scary” thing about attending Church is the personal encounter with God, who demands that we change our sinful ways in order to enter into unity with Him. That means putting aside our sins and conforming our lives to His will, as revealed in Sacred Scripture and the teaching of His Church. We used to speak of the gift of the Holy Spirit called “Fear of the Lord”, namely the fear that my conduct would displease God, together with confidence that He would provide us the grace we need to overcome our sinfulness.
Perhaps that’s what the author meant by “scary”?
November 26, 2009, at 12:02 pm
Over at the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association’s site there is a discussion of this journalism.
http://nlgjareact.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/balancing-things-out/
The examination also covers Sarah’s presentation and responds to it:
November 26, 2009, at 12:19 pm
So, if I said that entering a room full of atheists was “scary”, would you sympathize, or think I was crazy? After all, “You don’t have to be in danger of getting stabbed or something to feel intimidated.” Oh, that’s different?
How about a self-styled-mainline church where I anticipate being surrounded by PC “liberals”? Where there are likely a few people who think I am such a reprehensible person that it was just fine to beat me up for trying to express my views (Or, as so many “liberals” have, tell me I am lying.)
November 26, 2009, at 12:39 pm
A room full of the PZ Myers crowd, say? That could be daunting for a theist, sure.
November 26, 2009, at 2:42 pm
Tmatt @4, yes, follow the journalistic issues. But when a post is as obtuse as Sarah has been here, that’s a journalistic issue within the blogosphere.
November 26, 2009, at 7:15 pm
Wow! What a tremendously balanced article that avoids all generalizations and stereotypes about traditional Christians! So well-researched, too.
November 26, 2009, at 8:29 pm
Chris, I have to say that I disagree with you. I think the article… oh! Sarcasm… I see what you did there!
November 26, 2009, at 10:47 pm
Why ask these questions of people who can’t answer them? Befriend some gay folks and ask for their insights, rather than picking at other writers views about gays’ views of your views.
Otherwise, it’s just whining.
November 26, 2009, at 11:26 pm
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Catching up on some of these comments, I should clarify. I don’t meant to make dismiss the idea that a gay person might feel uncomfortable in a gay church. However, the reporter does not give any examples of why that might have happened.
November 27, 2009, at 3:07 am
I feel the same; to be honest, it is not too much of a stretch to see why a gay person might perceive a conservative evangelical church as threatening, and feel uncomfortable there. The problem, of course is how it is presented in the article. (That is, vaguely, and with a great deal of generalization.)
November 27, 2009, at 1:51 pm
Sarah says:
Colorado has been the state where GL people and Evangelicals have clashed for decades. There was Amendent 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
Also, the Hell House treatment of LG people began there:
http://gothamist.com/2006/10/02/hell_house_1.php
And the ever commenting Rev Bob Enyart broadcasts from Colorado:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart
For some reason, Colorado is a place where there have been many political battles between EC’s and GL’s. The Denver Post has covered the conflict for decades. For DP readers, the context is already established and well known.
November 28, 2009, at 10:55 pm
dalea, thanks for your comments. Journalists are supposed to show, not tell. So this is a case in which the reporter could have given us some examples from the pastors so we can see for our own eyes, not from her interpretation. It makes the story stronger and gives us a better sense of what’s going on.
As for the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association’s critique, I don’t think Mr. Triplett read my post very carefully. My main concern was not whether the reporter called someone with a more traditional view (though that certainly would have strengthened the story).
Why not? Why should a reporter make this assumption that her readers know what she’s talking about? Why not give anecdotes to show us - isn’t that what journalists do?
November 29, 2009, at 1:19 am
Sarah, I suspect journalists write in different fashions depending on their audience. This appears to be a local story, written for a local audience. One which has been following the battles between LG’s and EC’s for decades. Had she been writing for a national audience, then there should have been more filling in as you suggest. But for locals, this is another chapter in a very long book. The article also left out that the church in question is near Columbine HS.
November 29, 2009, at 8:05 pm
Sarah, big fan of your posts here and at Christianity Today’s politics blog, and fellow Wheaton grad. That said, I totally agree with your assessment - the press should show, not tell. For a reporter to state that any assembly is “scary” to anyone without a word of clear explanation is unprofessional and lazy. When an article draws a conclusion, it must do so on the basis of facts and reason, not insinuation, however justified.
The day reporting consists of winks and nods instead of rigor and facts is the day news becomes gossip. Unfortunately, much of news has become gossip already.