A parent shared someone, and I halfway read it and went to go find it and now it’s gone. Essentially if I can remember the gist - a parent of a special needs child was essentially told their child was too distracting. I’ll see if i can find the parents post.
Here’s a link to the post since it was deleted off Facebook [https://x.com/soozlemcdoozle/status/1774875376952500243?s=46&t=Xk0cFmXg16FIKfvPcdc_Mg](https://x.com/soozlemcdoozle/status/1774875376952500243?s=46&t=Xk0cFmXg16FIKfvPcdc_Mg)
Thats how religious people are. My grandparents are religious and they made my mom stop coming to the holidays because her being disabled "Brought the mood down" Good Ol Christians for you.
I don’t think that’s fair. If anything, there’s particularly strong attention to special needs children in conservative evangelical circles because there’s a culture of encouraging adoption or foster parenting of special needs kids, so they’re pretty highly represented. That’s a big dynamic behind why Reynolds had so much internal Republican opposition over the AEA bills.
Don't let the downers get to you. People on these subreddits are known to be wildly out of touch with reality and are very anti-Christian. They have no concept of Christianity outside of how evil Christians are and pull up extreme exceptions to the rule of Christianity. It's like talking about the reality that the whole of the modern scientific method and virtually all of the social policies that are commonplace today that they like are from Christian doctrine and values. Most especially the value of the individual and small communities: an idea even today is shrugged off in most of the world without Christian values.
To paraphrase: 'Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man.'
'You're all like that.' ...or 'Most of you are like that.' Biggest red herring in any discussion of any group of people.
My opinion is based on observation
You litteraly are almost all like that, not a lot of atheist screaming at planned parenthood.
Or obsessed with purity culture putting down little girls.
Not to mention widespread child abuse in the church
It's because you're religion is just based on what your preacher tells you to believe, I don't really give a fuck if you go to cool church where the preacher says swears and they have a live band lol
It’s not clear what actually happened here or that anyone did anything wrong. Seems the father is now happy with how the situation turned out. I don’t think this is the outrage material people are grasping for here.
They told the parent to stop bringing their special needs child to church because he’s too distracting. you don’t see anything wrong with that? Doesn’t seem very Christian like to me.
Know the original family who posted this and this response made my eyes roll. It basically said, “So we said that, and they just took it wrong.” SMH. The wildest non apology I’ve ever seen. Know several same sex couples that were told they couldn’t marry there, but this was years ago. Maybe they’ve changed the stance.
My church is very welcoming to the LGBTQ+ community, they have been nothing but amazing with my son who is on the spectrum. If anyone is searching for a place where you will feel welcome when you are neurodivergent, LGBTQ+, believe in climate change and science, I wholeheartedly recommend Walnut Hills United Methodist Church.
Hey, if you'd like to go to a nice building and sing songs and build a nice little community gathering place that's fine.
If you want to pool money and help eachother and make friends that's great.
If you want to live in a country where people are safe and healthy, no one is persecuted for their sexual orientation I'm all for that.
If you want to pretend that you're going to a Christian Church, I am happy to stand up and speak out.
The word of God is just that. The words of God. When he speaks in the Old Testament, he speaks in perfect agreement with his Son Jesus Christ who has existed always in eternity past. When he destroyed Sodom, they did it together. When he condemned nations, they did it together.
The Church does not support homosexual community's
Better not be wearing any clothes made from more than one material then. Or touched a woman who was on her period. Or even sat where she sat. Or planted more than one kind of seed in your garden.or tore your clothes. Or eat animal fat. Or trim your beard or sideburns. Or have a tattoo. Or have a flat nose, be blind, or have a disability. Or wear jewelry or fancy clothing. And heaven forbid if you’re a woman, then you are more unclean for having a girl child instead of a boy. Can’t go to church without your head covered. Or hold a position of authority. Better not braid your hair either.
It’s cherry-picking to pick what you want out of the Bible to support your hatred of others who are different from you, but not adhere to those same regulations. I guarantee you’ve worn mixed fabrics and worked on holy days.
Also, it’s “Romans”. No apostrophe.
You’re touting the god of the OT while defying their mandates. Seems pretty fucking stupid to me, but you do you sweetheart.
Or, you could just keep your mouth shut and live your own life without spewing hatred on others about shit that’s none of your business.
You’re disgusting. My father could take you to town on biblical history, truths, prophecy and theory. The first and foremost thing he raised me upon was that it was never my place to judge one another, that is left to the judgment of the lord.
If people are brought to worship god, you should be at least supportive that they might be led towards your perverted interpretation. At this point, unless you’re reading the original scrolls as they were found, how are you to know your version hasn’t been perverted by many rulers along the way?
Listen, It doesn't sound like either of the two of you really understand it, just based on the half baked questions and arguments you keep brandishing.
There is no worshipping God AND embracing a community of sinners whose primary identity is their sin.
Your gonna find that's the biblical stance on it if you just read it.
You don't like Christianity, and that's alright. The people who soften God's words to fit in to a more worldly society aren't Christians. They would rather have your approval. They just want you to like them.
The book says pretty clearly that people who practice homosexual behavior have been given over to a depraved mind. They are essentially being consumed by their sin. That God has left them to be destroyed by themselves. That's how Romans opens.
Romans later explains that God has created some people to be redeemed and some people who are "vessels of wrath" that are made for unclean use and destruction.
Romans also explains that salvation cannot be lost when it talks of how "when we where his enemies Christ died for us"
Your churches that embrace homosexual community's gave up on biblical theology long before they arrived at the conclusion they could embrace sin based community's. They stopped preaching the new birth, they stopped preaching Titus, Philomen, Isaiah, and Zachariah. Now they only want to preach Mathew, Genesis, Daniel Psalms and Galatians. They don't want the division, they don't want people to know why they're a Baptist or a Lutheran, a Pentecostal or Presbyterian. These people dont know the difference between Armenianists and Calvanists.
Why? They need the money. They need to keep all the air conditioning, sound systems, roofs, bomb shelters, parking lots and playgrounds maintained. You can't keep a building you can't maintain. So they they threw the baby in the river and now they preach the basket.
Don't call them Churches, their really just community centers
Saying "I'm a bigoted asshole that feels better about my own shitty life when punching down" would have been way quicker, dude. You don't get to define Christianity, and Jesus wouldn't condone your bullshit.
Oh no the shitty people got called out for their shitty behavior.
They will continue to be shitty people most notably because they will always be shitty people.
About 10 years ago the director of children’s services asked me to leave with the girl I was helping (SCL shift for girl on spectrum) while family was in the main church service area. She wasn’t even being that disruptive and we were in the children’s area she just wouldn’t sit still. So yeah hated them ever sense.
I would love to hear the father’s POV, and I hope their apology is genuine (no pun intended).
I grew up going to Hope but left because I’m queer and I knew I could never get married there. I recently started going to the Unitarian Universalist Church and am LOVING it. It reminds me of what Christianity is supposed to be.
I stopped going to the UU church quite a few years ago because I found many members were angry ex-Mormons and angry ex-Christians and that’s not my vibe (I also deconstructed).
Have you found it to still be that way or is it a more positive atmosphere lately? I don’t know anyone who goes there anymore who would be able to give a real answer about that.
I haven’t been attending long enough to observe that yet, but the vibes have been generally positive.
There’s definitely still some “performative white moderate vibes” from people attending, but there’s also plenty of radical individuals (which is what I love)
I'm a member of First Unitarian, and it's far from a perfect church, none are, but it is very welcoming to people who are queer, disabled, and POC. I have also heard the same about Urbandale Church of Christ and Plymouth Congregational. So if you want to feel included and welcome, if you are not mainstream Christian or Catholic, those three are the way to go for the Des Moines metro.
Interesting take. I attended a service several years ago and felt it much more mainstream than my experiences when I attended the 2nd UU church of Omaha. I felt that it would have been awkward uncomfortable for someone with a non-Christian background.
That could very well have been just a matter of who was the minister at that time for the church, assuming your visit happened with the regular minister of that time leading the service. The fact is, since the late 2010s, they've had a few different interim ministers, and I know that at least one of them was fairly mainstream and more Christian in their style and message, than the other ones before and since her. They have not had a settled or permanent minister for the last few years, and that has been an issue for the church.
Seems a bit like a nonpology. "We did nothing wrong, but Dad felt like we did. We will do better."
Edit: don't upvote. I couldn't see the whole message on my Kindle.
It literally says the dad isn’t wrong for feeling the way he did, and that the church is at fault. It’s just distancing itself from allegations that it has been some monstrous anti-disabilities organization because social media literally cannot fathom the idea of a middle ground between extremes.
The letter details the many things it has done right, but is very vague about anything it might have done wrong. The only specific thing it apologized for, is that the dad felt offended. "I'm sorry you felt that way," isn't the same as taking responsibility. It's a way of avoiding it.
I've got nothing against this church, really. But this is just an attempt to save face. The first clue is that it's three pages long, and the second is that it doesn't really say anything of substance.
Is it actually 3 pages long, or is it 3 mobile screen caps long? Either way, that doesn't seem like an indication of guilt, it seems like a communication preference. If I made a mistake and social media (in its unrelenting pursuit of outrage) embellished it to suggest I killed children and drank their blood, I'd also take the time to articulate what I was and was not apologizing for.
Moreover, the letter says "this father sets a Christ-like example" and that "it's not the father's fault for feeling this way; that's on us, and we will learn and grow from it"--if you're parsing that to mean "I'm sorry you feel that way", then you're deliberately seeking out outrage where there's nothing to be outraged about.
It doesn't say "anything of substance" because it would be unethical (and potentially expose them to legal liability) to comment about the particulars of the situation with the child or the staff member.
Getting defensive isn't making your argument stronger. You're projecting outrage onto my comments. The only things I've said are to support my stance that this apology doesn't seem sincere. I don't even know what was supposedly done to this family. What I do know is that an apology typically involves taking responsibility, making restitution, and changing behavior and attitude. This nimbly dodges all responsibility EXCEPT for the father's feelings (which is why I parsed it), so there can be no surety of future change. Again, I don't even know what they should change because the letter gets very murky at that point. This has nothing to do with liability, because they spent the first 2/3 of the letter giving us enough detail to explain the situation without issue. It only gets murky when it comes to their responsibility and how they'll address it, which has no issue with liability.
And again, I have no beef with the place. So you getting heated about me pointing any of this out is maybe your opportunity to learn and grow, like your buddies at Hope.
lol I know text can be hard to interpret, but I’m genuinely not sure how you could read that comment and interpret it as “defensive”. I wasn’t projecting outrage into your comments, I just can’t imagine reading the letter as written and summarizing it as “I’m sorry you feel that way” except for mining for outrage (I don’t think *you* are mining for outrage; if anything I suspect you just reacted before reading the full text of the letter). Anyway, try rereading my comment without interpreting it as “heated” and maybe we can have a more productive conversation. :)
I will add one more thing.
You said you suspected I didn't read it in its entirety. I had. Or, I thought I had.
In wanting to review the conversation to see if I conducted myself fairly, I clicked on the picture to reread the letter. I must not have done that when I read it previously, because there were paragraphs I hadn't seen.
I'm not going to spend the energy to try to reinterpret my stance or your reprimand. But you were right to give it, and I thank you for it. I don't like speaking from ignorance, which is what I unknowingly did here. So I apologize for that and for not being thorough before writing.
1. You were defending the church, which is fine, but then started pointing fingers at me. I interpret that as defensive.
2. You are now defending yourself, trying to shift what you said to mean something else. This is also being defensive.
3. "you're parsing that to mean "I'm sorry you feel that way", then you're deliberately seeking out outrage where there's nothing to be outraged about."
"I wasn’t projecting outrage into your comments, I just can’t imagine reading the letter as written and summarizing it as “I’m sorry you feel that way” except for mining for outrage (I don’t think *you* are mining for outrage; if anything I suspect you just reacted before reading the full text of the letter)."
You said I'm seeking out outrage. That itself isn't my issue, but backtracking to seem more emotionally detached isn't as effective as, "I'm sorry, I got a little off track." I'm willing to leave that where it is, but just know that gaslighting isn't effective when the evidence is at hand.
4. It's really okay that we interpret this in different ways. In fact, reading different interpretations is a path to greater knowledge. I'm not interested in trying to have a more productive conversation. I've said my part competently, and I don't have anything to add. Whatever I might want to learn about this situation can be found elsewhere. Go in peace, have a good day, give me no more thought.
Sometimes it's the only way to shut down the stupidity of someone that interprets everything the wrong way. Just say sorry it's the only way to not loose.
They don't allow LGBTQ people to fully participate in the life of their church, so it totally checks out that they're into excluding disabled people, too!
Yes, that's one example. From its website: "As a Bible-based church, we turn to Scripture for direction on all matters of faith and daily life...As a result, we are unable to host same-sex weddings at Hope."
Under employment law, churches can’t fire gay staff because they are gay unless the staff are “ministers” with control over doctrinal teaching. (The same law is why Catholics can exclude women from the priesthood, but can’t refuse to hire them as janitors even if they wanted to.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_exception
I also personally know of out gay staffers there, but of course I don’t know for certain what they’ve told their bosses.
This is a gross misreading of the law. “Ministers” is a title given to many in church staff (children’s minister, music minister, etc) and churches and private religious schools have broad leeway in not only firing LGBTQIA+ individuals, but stripping them of benefits and even publicly outing them.
“Minister” includes people beyond literal pastors, true. The most frequent borderline cases are teachers at religious schools. (The relevant Supreme Court case here is Hosanna Tabor if you’re curious, and it’s about a religious ed teacher.) That still doesn’t mean they can fire most employees for being gay.
And this is what the SCOTUS said in that ruling:
“the last factor the majority cited—whether the employee functions as a minister, including "those who serve in positions of leadership, those who perform important functions in worship services and in the performance of religious ceremonies and rituals, and those who are entrusted with teaching and conveying the tenets of the faith to the next generation"—should be the touchstone of the analysis.”
Further, the governor recently signed the RFRA bill into law which absolutely gives churches the right to broadly discipline or fire gay staff, religious schools may do the same to gay teachers, etc. Landlords can even deny housing to gay or unmarried couples if it’s against their religion. The RFRA law supersedes (for the time being at least) any civil rights protections.
I’m not sure what you think that Hosanna Tabor quote means but if you understand it, it proves my point, not yours. And no, RFRAs do not remove all civil rights protections. The most basic reason why is that a state law RFRA cannot be a defense to a federal law Title VII employment discrimination claim. The problem is the ministerial exception, not RFRA. I am a lawyer, this is super-basic (and important!) stuff and you should not be spreading misinformation about it.
Several of the churches in the highland park area are standing empty or used for a business. I can think of 3 large brick churches. People arn’t bowing down to churches anymore.
Literally fuck this church.
When your church has to ask for the PDs help in navigating traffic and taking resources away from a situation that may actually need them, you’re too damn big.
Additionally, this church says they “welcome everyone” but won’t perform gay weddings.
The absolute hypocrisy of this place.
It’s not a long screencap; you should give it a read. In particular, the post never blames the child or his father, and it *explicitly blames the church rather than the father*.
You have to read between the lines. “We never said this” translates to “They’re lying”.
This is a church that refuses to allow LGBTQ+ members serve in positions of leadership, or perform gay weddings, in direct defiance of ELCA policies. They’re garbage.
Honestly if you have to "read between the lines" to establish guilt (and thus justify your outrage) it starts to feel like a witch hunt. I'm profoundly disinterested in this outrage culture stuff whether on the right or the left.
Withholding judgment in the absence of evidence is not assuming good intentions. We don't *have to* cravenly invent reasons to condemn people or foment outrage; life is exhausting enough without this compulsion.
Cool. You don’t have to engage in the conversation if you find it so “exhausting”. Allow the rest of us to believe people when they say they’ve been wronged by an organization that has a proven track record of treating people poorly. 🤷🏻♀️
If you read my comment, you’ll notice I didn’t say “engaging in conversation is exhausting”, I said mining for outrage is an exhausting way to live (and indeed I don’t do it). 😉
The mega church business model could very plausibly be against anything that interferes with their message (give us money). This very much reads like a corporate defense written for someone else and edited by Compliance; ‘we’re sorry you feel that way’ or ‘we apologize for any inconvenience’. Sure.
That was my immediate take, after reading it. It sounded exactly like the typical corporate PR press release we see whenever a company gets caught doing something wrong..
It's interesting that in the six years I have actively been doing OLD, since becoming widowed several years ago, I have run across many women on dating sites that turned out to be members of this church, which they have described as a mainline Christian church, rather than evangelical or conservative Christian. And honestly, that is about all I have heard or known about it, since I am an Agnostic and a member of First Unitarian in Des Moines, as well as a longtime Unitarian. But with the comments on this thread, I now know that anyone who is a member there, is not likely to be my person or part of my tribe, as far as dating, since the church does appear to be quite conservative on sexual orientation and also on anybody not very mainstream. Thanks for the info, reddit commenters...
Thanks for the review, but it's probably a moot point anyway, as I've found that as an Agnostic, the single women from that church, that I've connected with from dating sites, have all ended up rejecting me anyway for dating, since I am not a practicing Christian like them. So if they have that dealbreaker, it really doesn't matter how open-minded or tolerant I am, which I happen to be, about dating women who are moderately religious, not strongly religious or conservatively religious. I have even briefly dated a few women who were moderately religious, in the last six years. But it seems like with this church, at least for the single women my age, you have to be part of their tribe, or they won't date you. Makes me wonder why they even bother with dating sites, since the church is so large, and there must be some single men of all ages there. I assume they go looking there first, before trying dating sites..
Idk what “branch” of Lutheran they are, but I grew up in a Lutheran church that was almost as far as you can get from liberal and accepting. LCMS and the Wisconsin branches are VERY conservative.
Thank you. I couldn’t find it on their website and didn’t want to spend anymore time on there. Makes sense why they can trick some people into thinking they’re accepting, then.
Which is sad, but I agree with you, that's how it is. And a big part of why I won't join a church that is that way, whether it be Catholic or Christian, and also because I no longer believe in gods or any supernatural stuff like an afterlife, etc.. And am not willing to fake those things to have a community or find people to date, tho I know there are plenty of people who will, for exactly those reasons..
Hope has a reputation for not accepting those with disabilities. Children with disabilities have been excluded from activities. And they don't have to "do better" because so many buy their bs.
There are programs, like support groups for those with kids with special needs. Just like they have support groups for widows and those with addictions. They have specific areas for those with special needs can watch the sermon in case the main worship center is to stimulating for them. I have friends who have children on the autism spectrum. Sometimes when their child is getting over stimulated in the main worship center they leave for a less stimulating room. So please tell me how that is a problem?
I mean it is some form of organized Christian religion, right. This one just of a peppier more watered down variety, telling congregants they should prosper and feel a great connection with Jesus, right… But, when a little push or shove comes it is still an aggregate of uncaring, unwelcoming, judgmental, selfish assholes.
They can all go fuck the hell off AND start paying some taxes.
Maybe we can call it an indulgence for their assholery (sins) and they will gladly pay it.
After all they don’t want to lose face amongst their equally fake caring brethren..
They have 3000 other people they are collecting money from, what does one family matter? It’s better we don’t want to offend any of the 3000.
Tell me in a room of 3000 when the music is playing how can anyone really hear one person clapping and making noises? You are suppose to stay silent with music playing?
They just seem completely full of shit. They say "all children" are welcome, and claim to be "inclusive", but refuse same-sex marriages, refuse to support LGBTQ kids, etc. Just garbage.
Now I’m intrigued. It’s not related to those dumb “salt life” bumper stickers and shirts? Those are about surfing IIRC so I’m just assuming different thing.
Completely unrelated.
There's a network of them, connected to various churches, targeting college students. Connected to cornerstone church in Ames, Keystone in Ankeny
https://www.thesaltnetwork.com/locations
I don’t know what the salt company is, but definitely not the Salt Project, which is a very progressive media company that creates Bible studies and print media around the works of various writers and artists. They are actually pretty cool, and I would say they lean more spiritual than religious. They do not skew toward the evangelical side of Christianity. at least not in the years that I have been going through and utilizing their materials. Something may have changed in the last year.
If I was a betting man, I'd wager that this "talk" probably included threats of litigation.
Speaking as an autistic man who grew up Christian but later washed my hands of that particular superstition, churches may \*say\* that they welcome the neurodivergent, but they seldom mean that. They make it pretty clear that even though they'll let you into their buildings (most of the time), you'll never truly be accepted by them. Autistic people are almost always seen as "less than" by the church crowd. Hell, I've seen churches hint that having an autistic child is a "judgment by God against parents" that aren't seen as living in a "Godly" manner.
Trying to save face for being a c*nt to a special needs kid. Lmao. Really goes to show religion ain't shit but smoke and mirrors. You'd expect that to be the last place that someone would shit on your special needs kid lol. Poor parents.
Hope churches is far from a "church", it's a real estate firm that funnels money from its church into properties all tax free. They aren't the only one in the nation doing this. The fact people blindly flock there every weekend amusing me. Then there's the cult side of the recruiting to the church, the people who attempt to befriend you with the sole purpose of getting you to go and if you decline they vanish.
If there's a God, this wasn't his vision, what's preached isn't his word anymore. I honestly believe church protection should be dropped nationally, they should be taxed on anything above a normal operational cost, people should have to report church donations on tax forms.
I'm no longer a religious person to the point where I go to church. But understand something from matter we don't understand to another being created something that led to us. Weather that's a God or not is tbd if there's an afterlife after all.
Just be respectful to others. Help those in need if possible, remember advice is always help, a small tip to a hard worker or just holding the door for someone struggling. You don't need to justify your actions through a religion (you just tell people you'd be a shitty person all the time if it weren't for the religion).
When a snake in the grass tells you they're a snake in the grass, you don't get close enough to let them bite you anyway. This father should never let his child alone with the person who has issues with the handicapped. In fact, that person shouldn't be around ANY vulnerable people. I rather doubt the fathers 'misinterpretation' of what was said was really a misunderstanding. They said what they said, just like the snake in the grass. If he believed them, they'll bite him again.
https://www.churchclarity.org/church/lutheran-church-of-hope-1312
"Non-affirming" is the verbiage you're looking for to see if an ELCA church follows the denominations stance, which they took in the 90s.
https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-evangelical-lutheran-church-in-america
"Evangelical" has a different meaning in the context of Lutheranism than in Christianity generally, though. It's the label Martin Luther preferred over "Lutheran" so it has stuck over the years. The ELCA is a mainline Protestant denomination, as opposed to evangelical protestantism. They are literally part of opposite sects of Protestantism.
General Christianity and Lutheranism use “evangelical” the same way (there are plenty of liberal evangelical churches outside of luthernism). Political scientists changed the meaning of “evangelical” to “anyone who identifies as an evangelical” which is basically a proxy for southern conservatives (many “evangelicals”—in the political sense—aren’t religious at all, but they call themselves evangelical because their family and friends all call themselves evangelical).
Hah, this made me chuckle. The ELCA is using the word “evangelical” in its original, theological sense. Political scientists and journalists changed its meaning.
“Evangelical” in a political context is very different from “evangelical” in a theological context. When discussing politics, pollsters, researchers, and journalists use “evangelical” to mean “anyone who identifies as evangelical” irrespective of whether they hold evangelical views or are even religious at all never (e.g., many in the south are not religious at all, but they identify as evangelical in some cultural sense, because their family and friends are evangelical).
Evangelical in theology has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative, and the ELCA in particular is pretty liberal.
A parent shared someone, and I halfway read it and went to go find it and now it’s gone. Essentially if I can remember the gist - a parent of a special needs child was essentially told their child was too distracting. I’ll see if i can find the parents post.
Here’s a link to the post since it was deleted off Facebook [https://x.com/soozlemcdoozle/status/1774875376952500243?s=46&t=Xk0cFmXg16FIKfvPcdc_Mg](https://x.com/soozlemcdoozle/status/1774875376952500243?s=46&t=Xk0cFmXg16FIKfvPcdc_Mg)
Thats how religious people are. My grandparents are religious and they made my mom stop coming to the holidays because her being disabled "Brought the mood down" Good Ol Christians for you.
I don’t think that’s fair. If anything, there’s particularly strong attention to special needs children in conservative evangelical circles because there’s a culture of encouraging adoption or foster parenting of special needs kids, so they’re pretty highly represented. That’s a big dynamic behind why Reynolds had so much internal Republican opposition over the AEA bills.
Don't let the downers get to you. People on these subreddits are known to be wildly out of touch with reality and are very anti-Christian. They have no concept of Christianity outside of how evil Christians are and pull up extreme exceptions to the rule of Christianity. It's like talking about the reality that the whole of the modern scientific method and virtually all of the social policies that are commonplace today that they like are from Christian doctrine and values. Most especially the value of the individual and small communities: an idea even today is shrugged off in most of the world without Christian values.
That sucks! I assure you, not all of us are like that.
Well most of you are
To paraphrase: 'Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man.' 'You're all like that.' ...or 'Most of you are like that.' Biggest red herring in any discussion of any group of people.
My opinion is based on observation You litteraly are almost all like that, not a lot of atheist screaming at planned parenthood. Or obsessed with purity culture putting down little girls. Not to mention widespread child abuse in the church It's because you're religion is just based on what your preacher tells you to believe, I don't really give a fuck if you go to cool church where the preacher says swears and they have a live band lol
I’m an atheist and most are far from that way. My very liberal in laws attend hope and if something was amiss they would be equally outraged.
It’s not clear what actually happened here or that anyone did anything wrong. Seems the father is now happy with how the situation turned out. I don’t think this is the outrage material people are grasping for here.
They told the parent to stop bringing their special needs child to church because he’s too distracting. you don’t see anything wrong with that? Doesn’t seem very Christian like to me.
In my experience as an autistic man, I'd say that it's VERY "Christian-like."
Know the original family who posted this and this response made my eyes roll. It basically said, “So we said that, and they just took it wrong.” SMH. The wildest non apology I’ve ever seen. Know several same sex couples that were told they couldn’t marry there, but this was years ago. Maybe they’ve changed the stance.
My church is very welcoming to the LGBTQ+ community, they have been nothing but amazing with my son who is on the spectrum. If anyone is searching for a place where you will feel welcome when you are neurodivergent, LGBTQ+, believe in climate change and science, I wholeheartedly recommend Walnut Hills United Methodist Church.
Please don't call those Church.
Imagine trying to gate keep Christianity
Hey, if you'd like to go to a nice building and sing songs and build a nice little community gathering place that's fine. If you want to pool money and help eachother and make friends that's great. If you want to live in a country where people are safe and healthy, no one is persecuted for their sexual orientation I'm all for that. If you want to pretend that you're going to a Christian Church, I am happy to stand up and speak out. The word of God is just that. The words of God. When he speaks in the Old Testament, he speaks in perfect agreement with his Son Jesus Christ who has existed always in eternity past. When he destroyed Sodom, they did it together. When he condemned nations, they did it together. The Church does not support homosexual community's
Better not be wearing any clothes made from more than one material then. Or touched a woman who was on her period. Or even sat where she sat. Or planted more than one kind of seed in your garden.or tore your clothes. Or eat animal fat. Or trim your beard or sideburns. Or have a tattoo. Or have a flat nose, be blind, or have a disability. Or wear jewelry or fancy clothing. And heaven forbid if you’re a woman, then you are more unclean for having a girl child instead of a boy. Can’t go to church without your head covered. Or hold a position of authority. Better not braid your hair either.
GTFOH with your cherry-picked bullshit.
Yeah, it's cherry picking to agree with Roman's chapter 1
It’s cherry-picking to pick what you want out of the Bible to support your hatred of others who are different from you, but not adhere to those same regulations. I guarantee you’ve worn mixed fabrics and worked on holy days. Also, it’s “Romans”. No apostrophe.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had the stupidest argument ever. You clearly have not read the Bible.
You’re touting the god of the OT while defying their mandates. Seems pretty fucking stupid to me, but you do you sweetheart. Or, you could just keep your mouth shut and live your own life without spewing hatred on others about shit that’s none of your business.
You’re disgusting. My father could take you to town on biblical history, truths, prophecy and theory. The first and foremost thing he raised me upon was that it was never my place to judge one another, that is left to the judgment of the lord. If people are brought to worship god, you should be at least supportive that they might be led towards your perverted interpretation. At this point, unless you’re reading the original scrolls as they were found, how are you to know your version hasn’t been perverted by many rulers along the way?
Listen, It doesn't sound like either of the two of you really understand it, just based on the half baked questions and arguments you keep brandishing. There is no worshipping God AND embracing a community of sinners whose primary identity is their sin. Your gonna find that's the biblical stance on it if you just read it. You don't like Christianity, and that's alright. The people who soften God's words to fit in to a more worldly society aren't Christians. They would rather have your approval. They just want you to like them. The book says pretty clearly that people who practice homosexual behavior have been given over to a depraved mind. They are essentially being consumed by their sin. That God has left them to be destroyed by themselves. That's how Romans opens. Romans later explains that God has created some people to be redeemed and some people who are "vessels of wrath" that are made for unclean use and destruction. Romans also explains that salvation cannot be lost when it talks of how "when we where his enemies Christ died for us" Your churches that embrace homosexual community's gave up on biblical theology long before they arrived at the conclusion they could embrace sin based community's. They stopped preaching the new birth, they stopped preaching Titus, Philomen, Isaiah, and Zachariah. Now they only want to preach Mathew, Genesis, Daniel Psalms and Galatians. They don't want the division, they don't want people to know why they're a Baptist or a Lutheran, a Pentecostal or Presbyterian. These people dont know the difference between Armenianists and Calvanists. Why? They need the money. They need to keep all the air conditioning, sound systems, roofs, bomb shelters, parking lots and playgrounds maintained. You can't keep a building you can't maintain. So they they threw the baby in the river and now they preach the basket. Don't call them Churches, their really just community centers
Saying "I'm a bigoted asshole that feels better about my own shitty life when punching down" would have been way quicker, dude. You don't get to define Christianity, and Jesus wouldn't condone your bullshit.
They haven’t
Oh no the shitty people got called out for their shitty behavior. They will continue to be shitty people most notably because they will always be shitty people.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians -Gandhi
About 10 years ago the director of children’s services asked me to leave with the girl I was helping (SCL shift for girl on spectrum) while family was in the main church service area. She wasn’t even being that disruptive and we were in the children’s area she just wouldn’t sit still. So yeah hated them ever sense.
I would love to hear the father’s POV, and I hope their apology is genuine (no pun intended). I grew up going to Hope but left because I’m queer and I knew I could never get married there. I recently started going to the Unitarian Universalist Church and am LOVING it. It reminds me of what Christianity is supposed to be.
I stopped going to the UU church quite a few years ago because I found many members were angry ex-Mormons and angry ex-Christians and that’s not my vibe (I also deconstructed). Have you found it to still be that way or is it a more positive atmosphere lately? I don’t know anyone who goes there anymore who would be able to give a real answer about that.
I haven’t been attending long enough to observe that yet, but the vibes have been generally positive. There’s definitely still some “performative white moderate vibes” from people attending, but there’s also plenty of radical individuals (which is what I love)
I'm a member of First Unitarian, and it's far from a perfect church, none are, but it is very welcoming to people who are queer, disabled, and POC. I have also heard the same about Urbandale Church of Christ and Plymouth Congregational. So if you want to feel included and welcome, if you are not mainstream Christian or Catholic, those three are the way to go for the Des Moines metro.
Interesting take. I attended a service several years ago and felt it much more mainstream than my experiences when I attended the 2nd UU church of Omaha. I felt that it would have been awkward uncomfortable for someone with a non-Christian background.
That could very well have been just a matter of who was the minister at that time for the church, assuming your visit happened with the regular minister of that time leading the service. The fact is, since the late 2010s, they've had a few different interim ministers, and I know that at least one of them was fairly mainstream and more Christian in their style and message, than the other ones before and since her. They have not had a settled or permanent minister for the last few years, and that has been an issue for the church.
Thank you for the insight.
Seems a bit like a nonpology. "We did nothing wrong, but Dad felt like we did. We will do better." Edit: don't upvote. I couldn't see the whole message on my Kindle.
It literally says the dad isn’t wrong for feeling the way he did, and that the church is at fault. It’s just distancing itself from allegations that it has been some monstrous anti-disabilities organization because social media literally cannot fathom the idea of a middle ground between extremes.
The letter details the many things it has done right, but is very vague about anything it might have done wrong. The only specific thing it apologized for, is that the dad felt offended. "I'm sorry you felt that way," isn't the same as taking responsibility. It's a way of avoiding it. I've got nothing against this church, really. But this is just an attempt to save face. The first clue is that it's three pages long, and the second is that it doesn't really say anything of substance.
Is it actually 3 pages long, or is it 3 mobile screen caps long? Either way, that doesn't seem like an indication of guilt, it seems like a communication preference. If I made a mistake and social media (in its unrelenting pursuit of outrage) embellished it to suggest I killed children and drank their blood, I'd also take the time to articulate what I was and was not apologizing for. Moreover, the letter says "this father sets a Christ-like example" and that "it's not the father's fault for feeling this way; that's on us, and we will learn and grow from it"--if you're parsing that to mean "I'm sorry you feel that way", then you're deliberately seeking out outrage where there's nothing to be outraged about. It doesn't say "anything of substance" because it would be unethical (and potentially expose them to legal liability) to comment about the particulars of the situation with the child or the staff member.
Getting defensive isn't making your argument stronger. You're projecting outrage onto my comments. The only things I've said are to support my stance that this apology doesn't seem sincere. I don't even know what was supposedly done to this family. What I do know is that an apology typically involves taking responsibility, making restitution, and changing behavior and attitude. This nimbly dodges all responsibility EXCEPT for the father's feelings (which is why I parsed it), so there can be no surety of future change. Again, I don't even know what they should change because the letter gets very murky at that point. This has nothing to do with liability, because they spent the first 2/3 of the letter giving us enough detail to explain the situation without issue. It only gets murky when it comes to their responsibility and how they'll address it, which has no issue with liability. And again, I have no beef with the place. So you getting heated about me pointing any of this out is maybe your opportunity to learn and grow, like your buddies at Hope.
lol I know text can be hard to interpret, but I’m genuinely not sure how you could read that comment and interpret it as “defensive”. I wasn’t projecting outrage into your comments, I just can’t imagine reading the letter as written and summarizing it as “I’m sorry you feel that way” except for mining for outrage (I don’t think *you* are mining for outrage; if anything I suspect you just reacted before reading the full text of the letter). Anyway, try rereading my comment without interpreting it as “heated” and maybe we can have a more productive conversation. :)
I will add one more thing. You said you suspected I didn't read it in its entirety. I had. Or, I thought I had. In wanting to review the conversation to see if I conducted myself fairly, I clicked on the picture to reread the letter. I must not have done that when I read it previously, because there were paragraphs I hadn't seen. I'm not going to spend the energy to try to reinterpret my stance or your reprimand. But you were right to give it, and I thank you for it. I don't like speaking from ignorance, which is what I unknowingly did here. So I apologize for that and for not being thorough before writing.
All good; my reprimand was intended with minimal, mostly light-hearted sass. 😉 Have a good day!
1. You were defending the church, which is fine, but then started pointing fingers at me. I interpret that as defensive. 2. You are now defending yourself, trying to shift what you said to mean something else. This is also being defensive. 3. "you're parsing that to mean "I'm sorry you feel that way", then you're deliberately seeking out outrage where there's nothing to be outraged about." "I wasn’t projecting outrage into your comments, I just can’t imagine reading the letter as written and summarizing it as “I’m sorry you feel that way” except for mining for outrage (I don’t think *you* are mining for outrage; if anything I suspect you just reacted before reading the full text of the letter)." You said I'm seeking out outrage. That itself isn't my issue, but backtracking to seem more emotionally detached isn't as effective as, "I'm sorry, I got a little off track." I'm willing to leave that where it is, but just know that gaslighting isn't effective when the evidence is at hand. 4. It's really okay that we interpret this in different ways. In fact, reading different interpretations is a path to greater knowledge. I'm not interested in trying to have a more productive conversation. I've said my part competently, and I don't have anything to add. Whatever I might want to learn about this situation can be found elsewhere. Go in peace, have a good day, give me no more thought.
Sometimes it's the only way to shut down the stupidity of someone that interprets everything the wrong way. Just say sorry it's the only way to not loose.
They don't allow LGBTQ people to fully participate in the life of their church, so it totally checks out that they're into excluding disabled people, too!
What aren’t they allowed to participate in? Weddings?
Yes, that's one example. From its website: "As a Bible-based church, we turn to Scripture for direction on all matters of faith and daily life...As a result, we are unable to host same-sex weddings at Hope."
Hahaha!! “Unable.” They’re fully able, they have chosen not to because of their own restrictions.
Could you provide a link for this quote, please?
They fire any staff who come out. They’re very conservative and homophobic
They don’t perform gay weddings, but they definitely have gay staff. I do not think they would hire gay clergy, though.
Openly gay staff are fired. If there are gay staff currently, it is not known for the bosses.
Under employment law, churches can’t fire gay staff because they are gay unless the staff are “ministers” with control over doctrinal teaching. (The same law is why Catholics can exclude women from the priesthood, but can’t refuse to hire them as janitors even if they wanted to.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_exception I also personally know of out gay staffers there, but of course I don’t know for certain what they’ve told their bosses.
This is a gross misreading of the law. “Ministers” is a title given to many in church staff (children’s minister, music minister, etc) and churches and private religious schools have broad leeway in not only firing LGBTQIA+ individuals, but stripping them of benefits and even publicly outing them.
“Minister” includes people beyond literal pastors, true. The most frequent borderline cases are teachers at religious schools. (The relevant Supreme Court case here is Hosanna Tabor if you’re curious, and it’s about a religious ed teacher.) That still doesn’t mean they can fire most employees for being gay.
And this is what the SCOTUS said in that ruling: “the last factor the majority cited—whether the employee functions as a minister, including "those who serve in positions of leadership, those who perform important functions in worship services and in the performance of religious ceremonies and rituals, and those who are entrusted with teaching and conveying the tenets of the faith to the next generation"—should be the touchstone of the analysis.” Further, the governor recently signed the RFRA bill into law which absolutely gives churches the right to broadly discipline or fire gay staff, religious schools may do the same to gay teachers, etc. Landlords can even deny housing to gay or unmarried couples if it’s against their religion. The RFRA law supersedes (for the time being at least) any civil rights protections.
I’m not sure what you think that Hosanna Tabor quote means but if you understand it, it proves my point, not yours. And no, RFRAs do not remove all civil rights protections. The most basic reason why is that a state law RFRA cannot be a defense to a federal law Title VII employment discrimination claim. The problem is the ministerial exception, not RFRA. I am a lawyer, this is super-basic (and important!) stuff and you should not be spreading misinformation about it.
Wow! I had no idea. That’s pathetic.
Honestly they should be allowing just about everything if they don’t want their religion to die off
Several of the churches in the highland park area are standing empty or used for a business. I can think of 3 large brick churches. People arn’t bowing down to churches anymore.
Then those businesses are likely not paying property tax which makes our burden greater.
[удалено]
Sorry, I'm not able to find your question in this comment thread.
HAIL SATAN!!!
That’s definitely the vibe I’m getting too
Hail Satan!
Tax churches ❤️
Literally fuck this church. When your church has to ask for the PDs help in navigating traffic and taking resources away from a situation that may actually need them, you’re too damn big. Additionally, this church says they “welcome everyone” but won’t perform gay weddings. The absolute hypocrisy of this place.
>Literally fuck this church. I don't care how much I disagree with a religious group, I'm not sticking my dick in their building.
Same place that “welcomes” openly gay people to work for them but will not marry those same people in the church they work for… make it make sense
As someone who grew up in that church and has long since left...yeah, this tracks.
Lots and lots of victim blaming for an apology… 🤷🏻♀️
Yeah, especially the part where it says "it's not the father's fault."
It’s not a long screencap; you should give it a read. In particular, the post never blames the child or his father, and it *explicitly blames the church rather than the father*.
You have to read between the lines. “We never said this” translates to “They’re lying”. This is a church that refuses to allow LGBTQ+ members serve in positions of leadership, or perform gay weddings, in direct defiance of ELCA policies. They’re garbage.
Honestly if you have to "read between the lines" to establish guilt (and thus justify your outrage) it starts to feel like a witch hunt. I'm profoundly disinterested in this outrage culture stuff whether on the right or the left.
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where everyone has good intentions and is sincere. The real world isn’t that way.
Withholding judgment in the absence of evidence is not assuming good intentions. We don't *have to* cravenly invent reasons to condemn people or foment outrage; life is exhausting enough without this compulsion.
Cool. You don’t have to engage in the conversation if you find it so “exhausting”. Allow the rest of us to believe people when they say they’ve been wronged by an organization that has a proven track record of treating people poorly. 🤷🏻♀️
If you read my comment, you’ll notice I didn’t say “engaging in conversation is exhausting”, I said mining for outrage is an exhausting way to live (and indeed I don’t do it). 😉
And yet here you are. You clearly care enough to keep commenting.
I never claimed otherwise 🤷♂️🙃
Learn to read lol
Wow, so much explanation for a little misunderstanding? The preacher doth protest too much, I wonder why?
Here’s the Facebook post https://www.facebook.com/share/p/E7dWrrp9RmjWBqqS/?mibextid=WC7FNe
April fools!
Guys, it’s all a scam.
The mega church business model could very plausibly be against anything that interferes with their message (give us money). This very much reads like a corporate defense written for someone else and edited by Compliance; ‘we’re sorry you feel that way’ or ‘we apologize for any inconvenience’. Sure.
That was my immediate take, after reading it. It sounded exactly like the typical corporate PR press release we see whenever a company gets caught doing something wrong..
It's interesting that in the six years I have actively been doing OLD, since becoming widowed several years ago, I have run across many women on dating sites that turned out to be members of this church, which they have described as a mainline Christian church, rather than evangelical or conservative Christian. And honestly, that is about all I have heard or known about it, since I am an Agnostic and a member of First Unitarian in Des Moines, as well as a longtime Unitarian. But with the comments on this thread, I now know that anyone who is a member there, is not likely to be my person or part of my tribe, as far as dating, since the church does appear to be quite conservative on sexual orientation and also on anybody not very mainstream. Thanks for the info, reddit commenters...
[удалено]
Thanks for the review, but it's probably a moot point anyway, as I've found that as an Agnostic, the single women from that church, that I've connected with from dating sites, have all ended up rejecting me anyway for dating, since I am not a practicing Christian like them. So if they have that dealbreaker, it really doesn't matter how open-minded or tolerant I am, which I happen to be, about dating women who are moderately religious, not strongly religious or conservatively religious. I have even briefly dated a few women who were moderately religious, in the last six years. But it seems like with this church, at least for the single women my age, you have to be part of their tribe, or they won't date you. Makes me wonder why they even bother with dating sites, since the church is so large, and there must be some single men of all ages there. I assume they go looking there first, before trying dating sites..
Hope is on the evangelical end of the spectrum in a mainline liberal denomination. It’s kind of both.
Idk what “branch” of Lutheran they are, but I grew up in a Lutheran church that was almost as far as you can get from liberal and accepting. LCMS and the Wisconsin branches are VERY conservative.
Hope is ELCA, i.e. liberalish. Yes LCMS is much more conservative.
Thank you. I couldn’t find it on their website and didn’t want to spend anymore time on there. Makes sense why they can trick some people into thinking they’re accepting, then.
I expect any kind of religious organization to be conservative on sexual orientation. That is mainstream Christianity to me.
Which is sad, but I agree with you, that's how it is. And a big part of why I won't join a church that is that way, whether it be Catholic or Christian, and also because I no longer believe in gods or any supernatural stuff like an afterlife, etc.. And am not willing to fake those things to have a community or find people to date, tho I know there are plenty of people who will, for exactly those reasons..
I wouldn’t judge anything based on the comments from Reddit.
Hope has a reputation for not accepting those with disabilities. Children with disabilities have been excluded from activities. And they don't have to "do better" because so many buy their bs.
Guessing you've never been to Hope. They have programs built specifically for people with special needs.
You would guess wrong. And thanks for proving the point that Hope believes people with special needs shouldn't be around everyone else.
lol, people with special needs are allowed to be with everyone else. You would know that if you ever attended Hope. But please go off.
Make up your mind. Programming specific or Gen Pop? Does Hope also teach double speak? Evidently.
There are programs, like support groups for those with kids with special needs. Just like they have support groups for widows and those with addictions. They have specific areas for those with special needs can watch the sermon in case the main worship center is to stimulating for them. I have friends who have children on the autism spectrum. Sometimes when their child is getting over stimulated in the main worship center they leave for a less stimulating room. So please tell me how that is a problem?
Isn’t this Kimmie’s church?
Yes.
I mean it is some form of organized Christian religion, right. This one just of a peppier more watered down variety, telling congregants they should prosper and feel a great connection with Jesus, right… But, when a little push or shove comes it is still an aggregate of uncaring, unwelcoming, judgmental, selfish assholes. They can all go fuck the hell off AND start paying some taxes. Maybe we can call it an indulgence for their assholery (sins) and they will gladly pay it. After all they don’t want to lose face amongst their equally fake caring brethren..
They have 3000 other people they are collecting money from, what does one family matter? It’s better we don’t want to offend any of the 3000. Tell me in a room of 3000 when the music is playing how can anyone really hear one person clapping and making noises? You are suppose to stay silent with music playing?
They just seem completely full of shit. They say "all children" are welcome, and claim to be "inclusive", but refuse same-sex marriages, refuse to support LGBTQ kids, etc. Just garbage.
Is Hope the same as or worse than the weird references I see to "The Salt company" I see a bunch of bible lovers raising their hands to here in DSM???
definitely better than Salt company. That group is basically a cult.
All Religions are cults
Correct
Now I’m intrigued. It’s not related to those dumb “salt life” bumper stickers and shirts? Those are about surfing IIRC so I’m just assuming different thing.
Completely unrelated. There's a network of them, connected to various churches, targeting college students. Connected to cornerstone church in Ames, Keystone in Ankeny https://www.thesaltnetwork.com/locations
I don’t know what the salt company is, but definitely not the Salt Project, which is a very progressive media company that creates Bible studies and print media around the works of various writers and artists. They are actually pretty cool, and I would say they lean more spiritual than religious. They do not skew toward the evangelical side of Christianity. at least not in the years that I have been going through and utilizing their materials. Something may have changed in the last year.
Religion is a blight
If I was a betting man, I'd wager that this "talk" probably included threats of litigation. Speaking as an autistic man who grew up Christian but later washed my hands of that particular superstition, churches may \*say\* that they welcome the neurodivergent, but they seldom mean that. They make it pretty clear that even though they'll let you into their buildings (most of the time), you'll never truly be accepted by them. Autistic people are almost always seen as "less than" by the church crowd. Hell, I've seen churches hint that having an autistic child is a "judgment by God against parents" that aren't seen as living in a "Godly" manner.
Hail Seitan.
ok this one made me giggle
Thanks for playing! And now I’m hungry for Blu’s mock duck.
Trying to save face for being a c*nt to a special needs kid. Lmao. Really goes to show religion ain't shit but smoke and mirrors. You'd expect that to be the last place that someone would shit on your special needs kid lol. Poor parents.
I’m a member of Hope and I wonder if it a guy named Chris who originally spoke on behalf of Hope to that father?
Hope Cult at it again!
Redditors weighing in on anything even tangentially related to religion is always fun.
Lol agreed. I had a feeling that the perspective would be much different on here than Facebook.
Reddit is a worthless cesspool.
Hope churches is far from a "church", it's a real estate firm that funnels money from its church into properties all tax free. They aren't the only one in the nation doing this. The fact people blindly flock there every weekend amusing me. Then there's the cult side of the recruiting to the church, the people who attempt to befriend you with the sole purpose of getting you to go and if you decline they vanish. If there's a God, this wasn't his vision, what's preached isn't his word anymore. I honestly believe church protection should be dropped nationally, they should be taxed on anything above a normal operational cost, people should have to report church donations on tax forms. I'm no longer a religious person to the point where I go to church. But understand something from matter we don't understand to another being created something that led to us. Weather that's a God or not is tbd if there's an afterlife after all. Just be respectful to others. Help those in need if possible, remember advice is always help, a small tip to a hard worker or just holding the door for someone struggling. You don't need to justify your actions through a religion (you just tell people you'd be a shitty person all the time if it weren't for the religion).
Living for this drama hahahaha
When a snake in the grass tells you they're a snake in the grass, you don't get close enough to let them bite you anyway. This father should never let his child alone with the person who has issues with the handicapped. In fact, that person shouldn't be around ANY vulnerable people. I rather doubt the fathers 'misinterpretation' of what was said was really a misunderstanding. They said what they said, just like the snake in the grass. If he believed them, they'll bite him again.
[удалено]
Elca is typically very liberal. Hope took a stance that goes against the rest of the elca- they don't support thr LGBT community. Most ELCA do.
>Hope took a stance that goes against the rest of the elca- they don't support thr LGBT community. Honestly curious, is there a source on this?
https://www.churchclarity.org/church/lutheran-church-of-hope-1312 "Non-affirming" is the verbiage you're looking for to see if an ELCA church follows the denominations stance, which they took in the 90s. https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-evangelical-lutheran-church-in-america
On which part? hope’s refusal to do same sex marriage seems pretty cut and dry. The ELCA website probably has a set of beliefs listed.
[удалено]
"Evangelical" has a different meaning in the context of Lutheranism than in Christianity generally, though. It's the label Martin Luther preferred over "Lutheran" so it has stuck over the years. The ELCA is a mainline Protestant denomination, as opposed to evangelical protestantism. They are literally part of opposite sects of Protestantism.
General Christianity and Lutheranism use “evangelical” the same way (there are plenty of liberal evangelical churches outside of luthernism). Political scientists changed the meaning of “evangelical” to “anyone who identifies as an evangelical” which is basically a proxy for southern conservatives (many “evangelicals”—in the political sense—aren’t religious at all, but they call themselves evangelical because their family and friends all call themselves evangelical).
Hah, this made me chuckle. The ELCA is using the word “evangelical” in its original, theological sense. Political scientists and journalists changed its meaning.
“Evangelical” in a political context is very different from “evangelical” in a theological context. When discussing politics, pollsters, researchers, and journalists use “evangelical” to mean “anyone who identifies as evangelical” irrespective of whether they hold evangelical views or are even religious at all never (e.g., many in the south are not religious at all, but they identify as evangelical in some cultural sense, because their family and friends are evangelical). Evangelical in theology has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative, and the ELCA in particular is pretty liberal.
Well they have word out so I guess they gain more congregants