The Cathedral of Hope — an LGBTQ±affirming United Church of Christ in Dallas, Texas — has made a concerted effort to defend the queer community from “persecution,” as the state government targets drag queens and transgender people.
The church recently held a service where they blessed drag queens and pledged to “stand for justice, proclaim love, and protect the rights of all people.”
While about three dozen protestors stood outside of the church hurling slurs and threats, approximately 850 people attended the service.
“Anyone check the weather today?!” one protester screamed. “’Cause it might rain fire and brimstone on this church and burn every homo inside!”
But for the ugliness on display outside, the congregation filled the building with love and “radical inclusivity.”
“We recognize that all people are made in the loving image of God, no matter who they are, how they dress, express themselves, or who they love,” the pastor intoned during the service. “We celebrate this divine diversity and commit to lifting up the voices of the LGBTQ+ community and creating spaces where everyone can thrive.”
As one worship leader noted as the pastor gave communion, “Drag queens are often targets of hate and violence.” The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, in particular, were singled out for particular honor due to their lifesaving work during the AIDS epidemic.
“These Sisters were at the bedsides of men dying of AIDS,” Rev. Dr. Neil G. Thomas said. “They bring humor, they bring activism, they provide and bring a level of spirituality that many of us have had taken away from us. Despite the humor, they take their spiritual work very seriously.”
The service was a response to recently passed legislation meant to make a drag a crime. The law, passed by Republicans, has been challenged in court by civil rights groups and blocked repeatedly by federal courts.
The law punishes drag performers and venues with a $10,000 fine if they allow a minor to see a “sexually explicit” performance. Such a performance is defined as one in which “a male performer [is] exhibiting as a female, or a female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience.”
Lawyers from the Texas Attorney General’s office argued that because the law didn’t specifically mention drag, it wasn’t discriminatory to drag performances. However, in June, Gov. Greg Abbott ® shared a story about the law’s passage that contained the headline, “Texas Governor Signs Law Banning Drag Performances in Public,” and added the comment, “That’s right.” Many state politicians who supported the law also publicly stated that it was meant to target drag, specifically.
But would the law apply to churches? That’s unclear.
“My kid was here,” the lead pastor said. “I don’t have the right to choose to bring my kid to church when there are drag queens?”
I feel like you’re contradicting yourself there, you’re saying the affirming Christians are hypocrites and hateful?
How is that contradictory? I didn’t say all Christians are hypocrites, just the ones that pick and choose what verses are convenient for them. Westboro Baptist seems to adhere pretty closely.
Christianity itself is a hateful ideology. Many people pick some of those hateful things when they walk past on the buffett line. Those people are both hateful and hypocritical.
I’m saying to either do it the way it says you have to do it, or stop wasting your time.
After all, God did say not to be lukewarm Christians, and if you are, he will “spew you from his mouth”
I mostly agree, with the exception of thinking that Christianity is hateful (though some of course try their best to show otherwise), but if you’re saying it’s hypocritical to interpret the bible as not being against homosexuality I think you’re drastically oversimplifying. That part was the only thing I was looking to discuss.
Leviticus 20:13 is very clear. What makes you think you can just ignore that part?
Affirming Christians don’t ignore it, but they also don’t need to treat it as a commandment as you seem to. If you read the start of the chapter, it’s talking about practices done by neighbouring communities as they worship their own gods. The instruction here is essentially to the Israelites to make themselves separate from that. It’s relevant to the time and their geography and it is not a code of sexual ethics. Furthermore, even though it’s easy to call it very clear, the verse you cite is not even talking about regular gay sex, and certainly not gay sex in a loving relationship. It’s referring to likely abusive gay sex with teenage boys.
Believing what I’ve just said is not an act of hypocracy, at worst it’s a well meaning misinterpretation. If someone were to pick and choose as you say, and be fine with tattoos (also covered in this section) but use this verse to be against homosexuality then that is hypocracy.
I’m well aware of the apologetics. Whatever mental gymnastics you have to do, friend. Maybe one day you’ll be free of the constant cognitive dissonance. It’s a huge relief.
It’s ironic who turned out to be the hateful one here. I’m sorry your church upbringing sucked. Mine did too.
What was hateful about what I said?
We’ve got Christians on the verge of genocide in the name of your God, but I’m “hateful” for pointing out that they’re just following their holy book?
So then why would it call for the abused boys’ death?