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.
....
A willingness to disregard established freedoms of expression and worship in pursuit of new freedoms will ultimately destroy more than it creates. Or, as Pope Leo the Great wrote, "Those who are not good to others are bad to themselves."
That sounds simplistic, but it is also correct. Tearing others down does not build up. Instead of bullying the electorate, the gay community needs to calmly make their case, ask for support, and bring it to a vote as many times as it takes. If the Christians are wrong to proselytize without actually getting to know their neighbors, well, the gays are also wrong to browbeat, intimidate, or ruin others, instead of working within the democratic process.
The Christians at Castro need to remember that Jesus joined others in community. Excusing nothing, he loved others, even in all their faults and — only when asked to — he healed them. He never just said, "Hey, I'm going to whip a little faith on you, whether you want it or not."
Meanwhile, the churches should reconsider their roles in authenticating marriage. Governments issue birth certificates; churches issue baptismal certificates. Governments issue death certificates; churches pray the funerals. Governments issue divorces; Churches annul. Both work within their separate and necessary spheres, serving the corporeal and the spiritual. It is only in the issue of marriage that church and state have commingled authority. That should perhaps change, and soon. Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.
==============================
Some of the comments are interesting.
Rachel Peepers:
Elizabeth Scalia.
So you're a Catholic. And in your mind, that's supposed to innoculate you against attacks when you attack Christians for praying and singing.
I find your article pathetic.
Who are you to judge and determine the right way for demonstrating Christians to act. How do you judge a condescending look? Is that different from a fearful look? Or a pensive look? Or a confused look? Oh, I know, you're talking about condescending actions, like praying. Is the Twilight Zone music the soundtrack of your life?
Then you pulled out the "What would Jesus do, card".
I don't know. Do you? Are you God?
Maybe Jesus would renounce homosexuality. Or maybe he'd offer to marry any gay couple who was there. Not.
Love the sin, hate the sinner about sums up the Catholic Church's stance on the matter.....
Tristan Phillips:
Moral equivalence takes on a special, noxious level when someone tries to cover their own ass by saying they're part of a group they're bashing.
Putting outright physical violence and forcible rape on the same level as praying and singing is particularly vile. Go back to the hole you crawled out of Ms. Scalia, and spend some time really learning about that which you preach about.
No comments:
Post a Comment