Toxic Churches

[DZoolander]

I would never treat anyone as second class...I would not speak about them in a negative light with anyone...also I would and do honor them as being made in Gods image every bit as much as me...and hold my own sin in the same status as thier own...so your post holds no bearing on my actions or person

That's cool. . I was speaking generally - not so much about "you" as I've never seen your s/n prior to this post.

That being said, and since you brought it up (your individual attitudes) - do you support or oppose allowing gays to have equal liberty to marry by the state?

 

[rick357]

That's cool. . I was speaking generally - not so much about "you" as I've never seen your s/n prior to this post.

That being said, and since you brought it up (your individual attitudes) - do you support or oppose allowing gays to have equal liberty to marry by the state?

If two people wish to enter a legal contract that would be between them...if a law would force a pastor who could not in clear conscience perform that ceremony to do so anyway then I am against that law

 

[DZoolander]

Courthouse marriage, legally a marriage, called a marriage, is what I had in mind.

 

[rick357]

Courthouse marriage, legally a marriage, called a marriage, is what I had in mind.

As a matter of two cents...I am a pretty conservative guy...but I think it is hipocracy for an organization who has a divorce rate equal to the worlds with just as much adultry abuse and no fault( irreconcilable differences) sighted as cause to believe it is in a position to teach the sanctity of marriage....well soap box starting to creak....please continue

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I for one don't believe in making a secular law out of church doctrine. It is our place to live what we believe. It is not our place to make others live as we believe. That's between them and God.

 

[ValleyGal]

Excellent point, LBF.

And about toxic churches, it is not just about church leadership or the pastoral position. After all, a pastor is accountable to the board. So if a pastor is toxic, the board is partially responsible. Then it comes down to who is voting the board in, and who voted the pastor into the position. But even still, in spite of all that [mutual accountability], there is the whole idea that the people making up the church are toxic. There are issues such as control, gossip, cliques and divisive people that end up dividing a church, etc. There are other issues too, that have nothing to do with sin, such as the church grew so fast that no one could keep up with training small group leaders, etc. What about when there are disputes among members such as one suing another or whether they should accept a serious offender as a member after release from prison. There can be lack of communication between departments, and a whole host of other reasons a church could be toxic....even a false doctrine can make a church toxic.

 

[mkgal1]

I for one don't believe in making a secular law out of church doctrine. It is our place to live what we believe. It is not our place to make others live as we believe. That's between them and God.

 

[mkgal1]

Within the article in the OP is a whole other article about people that follow toxic leaders (and just like the Bible suggests that any of us can fall into deception---the same is true about who follows toxic leaders).

Something that has become clear to Lipman-Blumen and to me as well, is that when a leader’s influence and rises to the level of toxicity that is being discussed here, the issue that has to be addressed first and foremost is not “fixing” the leader, but rather addressing the followers who are in some form of relationship with that leader.

What Draws People to Toxic Leaders?

I’ll just mention these briefly here (these are summarized from the earlier article as well), and they will form a platform moving forward for other blog posts.

Followers of Toxic Leaders want to believe that they are a part of something bigger than themselves that gives life meaning.

Followers of Toxic Leaders want to feel special and have their needs met often by someone who becomes a authority figure and offers what they haven’t received in their past.

Followers of Toxic Leaders are drawn by the sense that in the organization they are safe from outside crisis and problems in their lives.

Followers of Toxic Leaders often have particular fears related to the outside world reflective of the particular place and time we live. (eg AIDS, War etc.)

Followers of Toxic Leaders often tie their participation in the organization to a sense of their being heroic in their life to overcoming their past and securing a bright future.

Followers of Toxic Leaders often find the world overwhelming and confusing and the organization gives them an anchor to “make sense of it all.”

 

[DZoolander]

As a matter of two cents...I am a pretty conservative guy...but I think it is hipocracy for an organization who has a divorce rate equal to the worlds with just as much adultry abuse and no fault( irreconcilable differences) sighted as cause to believe it is in a position to teach the sanctity of marriage....well soap box starting to creak....please continue

I was actually asking if you would be against a law that allowed gays to get married in civil/court ceremonies. I understand the thing about not compelling churches to perform them (I don't think anyone was trying). But would you also be opposed to them having access to a civil ceremony?

 

[Thunder Peel]

I'd argue that any church that doesn't preach the Word of God or waters down the Gospel in order to keep from offending anyone is the biggest danger.

 

[akmom]

"Liberty to marry" is kind of a vague concept. I mean, when you think of liberty, you're usually referring to your ability to live your life a certain way. Getting a special certificate from the government acknowledging your relationship as "official" isn't really a liberty issue. It's a ploy for validation from others.

The associated benefits of marriage can be obtained without marriage too. You can change your name, get joint checking accounts, make each other beneficiaries in your wills, etc. Unless you are talking about health insurance, in which case you are talking about an unfairness that transcends marriage issues. Any one who happens to be single (or for that matter, married to someone with no insurance or a crummy plan) is also discriminated against regarding healthcare. Making homosexual marriage legal isn't the solution.

 

[rick357]

I'd argue that any church that doesn't preach the Word of God or waters down the Gospel in order to keep from offending anyone is the biggest danger.

The church is for the edification and streangthening of believers which of course includes rebuke...but we are not judges of society....show in scripture where Paul says we are to tell those outside the church how to live...we have one topic with the world there is freedom from sin if you want it

 

[DZoolander]

"Liberty to marry" is kind of a vague concept. I mean, when you think of liberty, you're usually referring to your ability to live your life a certain way. Getting a special certificate from the government acknowledging your relationship as "official" isn't really a liberty issue. It's a ploy for validation from others.

The associated benefits of marriage can be obtained without marriage too. You can change your name, get joint checking accounts, make each other beneficiaries in your wills, etc. Unless you are talking about health insurance, in which case you are talking about an unfairness that transcends marriage issues. Any one who happens to be single (or for that matter, married to someone with no insurance or a crummy plan) is also discriminated against regarding healthcare. Making homosexual marriage legal isn't the solution.

So - it's your position that since every right that you automatically received, due to state recognition of your union, can also be achieved by the gays through separate individual legal procedures, that it's just not necessary?

That's what I mean by relegating them to second class status. Things that are enjoyed by one group are not enjoyed by another, for no reason other than your superstitions. You are content placing a great deal of extra burden on one group of people versus another, for nothing other than their sexual orientation.

(and to be clear - from the state's point of view - all religious beliefs whether they be Christian, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, whatever...it should all be seen as nothing but a bunch of superstitious hooey).

That's where people that make those arguments lose me. It would be one thing if you were saying "We don't want the state to force churches to marry gay people - because it goes against their beliefs". But when you extend that beyond the church - and say "I don['t even want them having the ability to marry in the courthouse" - ehhh - I think bounds are being overstepped.

Once you leave the church - the stance should be "If you don't like gay marriage - don't get gay married." (at least IMHO)

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

People, this is not a Mod Hat since I'm in the thread, but please let me point out, the topic is toxic churches, not gay marriage.

 

[akmom]

Sounds like a case for streamlining legal procedures. Gays are no more discriminated against than people in non-romantic relationships that wish to have these marital benefits, or people in polyamorous relationships that are forced by the state to choose only *one* (at a time) spouse for these purposes.

Not to mention, there *is* a practical difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples when you start adding kids to the mix (and the legal complications that can ensue).

 

[akmom]

You're right. I'll tie it back into "toxic churches" by suggesting that normally churches aren't that invested in gay marriage as a social issue. Rather, it appears that the gay community is demanding more of a voice, and part of that clamoring is drawing attention to opponents (namely, churches that believe homosexuality is immoral). I wouldn't say it's toxic churches initiating the discussion at all (except maybe Westboro).

What does happen is that those who oppose gay marriage for any other reason tend to get lumped in with that. There's also this odd portrayal that the lack of legally recognized gay marriage was some targeted attack on gays, rather than a tradition that simply and benignly evolved from the historic important (and prevalence) of the family unit.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

What about churches that preach politics from the pulpit? During Bill Clinton's first run for presidency, the one I was going to actually circulated pamphlets entitled, "A Vote For Bill Clinton Is a Sin Against God." Would anyone call that kind of thing toxic?

 

[akmom]

A blatant pamphlet like that might signal a toxic church. Simply advocating specific political opinions might not be, though. Especially if that church believes their position is supported by scripture. An example might be a Quaker church opposing a war, because such a position - although political - is a crucial part of their beliefs.

A congregation that opposes tax reform, on the other hand, is probably just expressing purely political opinions in the wrong place. Because church is about serving the Lord, not achieving political idealism. And it's a stretch to say that particular viewpoint has anything to do with serving the Lord. (In fact, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" is probably as clear as it gets in terms of not taking a position either way on taxes!)

Then again, a congregation might take a social issue like abortion and use it as a reason to support one party or candidate over another, and then the lines are blurred on whether it's about serving God or politics. Since many believe that restricting abortion is "defending the weak and the needy." I'm not saying that single-issue politics is wise or morally productive, but it's possible that a church could move in a political direction for a reason that is strictly, in their minds, religious.

I know my church engages in politics quite a bit more than I'm comfortable with, and takes positions I don't necessarily support. But who am I to tell people what they're allowed to talk about at church? It would only be toxic, I think, if attendance or membership or participation at church was contingent upon political agreement. Or a dominating topic in sermons or studies.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I think the issues surrounding same sex marriages would be a potential "toxin" to churches. That certainly is, or was, a big political topic. While some churches may focus more on the scriptural aspect of SSM, certainly others may focus on the political aspects such as supporting (or not) certain referendums or political candidates.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't think it's so much the topics (or stances) the churches take....but more the whole dynamic that's the problem.

What I mean is, when there's an overall dynamic of "don't rock the boat" or "don't question what you're being taught or else you're in violation of 1st Chronicles 16:22 and joining with our enemy". There has to be something that's keeping people there or else it'd be no different than your rogue "evangelist" that stands on street corners downtown and yells at passing cars.