No, I Won’t Leave My Church. Neither Should Barack Obama

Here are some of the questions I have about placing this insert in the bulletin, having a table with the petition in the lobby, and calling for folks to sign it on their way out (at least, second service…)

* The Barna Group published a study (which I’m sure you’ve seen) looking at perceptions of evangelical Christians by young people, age 16 to 29, which had some startling and unsettling conclusions. Among them:

Even among young Christians, many of the negative images generated significant traction. Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.

and this:

Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a “bigger sin” than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

(I added the bold)

In light of this study, is a bulletin insert that includes the following phrases: “homosexual indoctrination”, “outrageous assault on our values” a wise thing to include?

* Our published purpose says this: “We value those outside God’s family because they matter to Him.” How do we reconcile a call to sign a petition where the sole explanation of what people are signing includes phrases like those I quoted above, along with inaccurate and hysterical portrayals of what “might be” rather than what is?
* Would a gay or lesbian visitor have been comfortable with the insert and the petition? Would the parent of a gay or lesbian have felt comfortable? The friend? The brother? The sister?
* The Barna study also says this:

David Kinnaman, who is a 12-year-veteran of the Barna team, pointed out some of the unexpected findings of the research. “Going into this three-year project, I assumed that people’s perceptions were generally soft, based on misinformation, and would gradually morph into more traditional views. But then, as we probed why young people had come to such conclusions, I was surprised how much their perceptions were rooted in specific stories and personal interactions with Christians and in churches. When they labeled Christians as judgmental this was not merely spiritual defensiveness. It was frequently the result of truly ‘unChristian’ experiences. We discovered that the descriptions that young people offered of Christianity were more thoughtful, nuanced, and experiential than expected.”

My questions: Would a person visiting our church view the insert and petition as Christian, or unChristian? Is their perception important to us? Would they describe that insert and the petition drive as a Christian or unChristian act? Does it invite the seeker in this demographic to return, or did we just give them one of those “specific stories” to add to the arsenal?

* With regard to “family values” and inclusion, doesn’t the phrase “outrageous assault on our values” create an artificial “them” versus “us” barrier?

The very first thing I did after laying the issue of tax-exemptness aside was to see who SaveOurKids actually IS. It bothered me a lot that their website didn’t have a clear “about us” page that let me know who the people were behind the petition. However, reading it a bit further led me to the Capitol Resource Institute, an advocacy organization which is largely comprised of and advised by politicians and former politicians. It is not bi-partisan, nor does it have to be. It is clearly a group formed to push forward a specific political agenda and they are wholly within their right to do so.

The problem comes when you bring that political agenda into the church. For example, I may agree that SB777 is a bad law, but I still won’t align myself with the names on the Capitol Resource Institute in any way, shape or form, because in my political life, I am not a Republican today, yesterday or tomorrow. I reject that party’s politics and tactics completely with every fiber in my body. When I’m sitting in church, my politics shouldn’t matter. But as soon as there’s a petition in the lobby and an insert in the bulletin which is written by an organization that is clearly political, my party affiliation, my politics, my personal beliefs about the state of politics in this country and the rest of it are now affiliated by association with this group. On a personal level, I object to that. Deeply object. Ironically, the insert demonstrated the exact reason that the law passed in the first place, because anyone who is GLBT, knows someone who is GLBT, or is related to someone who is GLBT could not help but smell the bias against them. It’s not the best place to start an approach toward winning people to Christ. Again, the Barna Report says,

“Some Christians fear the changing reputation of Christianity and it certainly represents an uncomfortable future. Yet, rather than being defensive or dismissive, we should learn from critics, especially those young Christians who are expressing consternation about the state of faith in America. Jesus told us to expect hostility and negative reactions. That is certainly nothing new. But the issue is what we do with it. Is it a chance to defend yourself and demand your rights? Or is it an opportunity to show people grace and truth? Common ground is becoming more difficult to find between Christians and those outside the faith. When the Apostle Paul advises believers to ‘live wisely among those who are not Christians’ and to ‘let your conversation be gracious and effective,’ (Colossians 4:5-6, NLT) he could be writing no better advice to committed Christians in America.”

If you were playing the banjo on the corner of [location removed to protect his privacy] with a big “Sign this petition” sign behind you, I’d wave and say “Go for it”. But when you bring that same petition into the church home and family that I call my own, I object. Strongly. The difference? When you’re playing the banjo on the corner you’re exercising your right to free speech as any other citizen is permitted in this country and you’re entitled to do so, to call for signatures on a petition, and to hand out flyers that explain the petition worded as strongly as you want. But when you’re standing in the “pulpit” (for lack of a more seeker-friendly term), you are speaking with more authority than one individual, and that authority falls on each of us. Is it ironic or intentional that the title of your message Sunday included the word “obedience”? Was the insert and the petition “gracious and effective” conversation?

Thanks for listening,