I’m seeing what you are seeing but through a different lens.

It isn’t often that money drives theology (outside of televangelism). Generally a successful pastor thinks he’s on the right track.

But your comments about not being political are probable quite relevant. Willow Creek’s decision to dump Exodus is probably consistent with their overall goal of leaving the divisive stuff to the politicians and focus on the commonly shared beliefs. And, as gay people have now become part of the social atmosphere even for theologically conservative Christians, reorientation may have finally become something that is divisive.

White megachurches here in the Chicago area are a rarity and have little history. WC is unique in that respect, but it’s influence is minimal, as its members tend not to be political – again because it would negatively impact the church’s ability to gather tithes.

I believe that those who teach that homosexuality, in and of itself, is sinful are in error as well as those who teach that homosexual behavior in all instances and contexts is incompatible with Christian faith.

And I believe that teaching that homosexual people are sinning can do emotional harm to gays and can influence culture in negative ways. And I believe that protestations of “love for the homosexual” need to be evidenced by I Corinthians 13.

HOWEVER – It is much much (much) better than preaching that gay people are minions of Satan who seek to destroy Western Society out of the degenerate perversity and that 1) the removal from the DSM was political correctness, 2) Lawrence v. Texas was a slap in the face of God, and 3) it is a Christian’s duty to oppose anything that makes a gay person’s life in any way better and support anything and everything that harms gay people and the Kingdom of Satan that they represent (unless they become heterosexual through the healing power of Jesus Christ, which anyone can do if they really want to).

So when a church says, “Ya know, we don’t want to have anything to do with the nastiness and hatefulness and impossible goals and crazy political vengeance anymore so we’re dropping anyone who is seen as representing that approach”, we can say:

1. Well that’s progress, or
2. But you still think I’m a sinner

Both are true. But there may be some advantage to differentiating between those who think I’m a sinner and those who spew lies about dying 20 years younger. And perhaps responding to positive change with encouragement will lead to more positive change.

I’m always happy when someone stops treating me badly, even if they still think I’m a sinner. In fact, sometimes just getting them to stop annoying me is enough and I don’t have to care what they think.

Is it just me, or is this amazingly whiny and weak?

Being hypocritical is unpopular. Passing off abuse, stereotypes and unfair treatment as love or necessary is unpopular. And so is being selective in how you apply those ‘Biblical truths’ and forcing others to live by them.
THAT is what’s unpopular and should be.
The Bible itself is hardly unpopular. But in the hands of assholes, that can certainly be turned around.

Feel me?

As an aside, another friend lives about 1/4 of a mile from WC’s main campus. Her 82 year old mother refers to it as “Disneychurch.”

I can’t think of another oppressed minority in the world who, to such a great extent, promotes, defends, finances, props up and pacifies their mortal enemies, and willingly and passionately participates in their own persecution, the way gay people do.

I’m really surprised that any church is in the slightest concerned with how anti-gay it looks. There will always be a gay in the pew willing to do PR for them.

Sorry if I sound cynical, but maybe that should read “it doesn’t work on a PR level.”

I suspect that cultural warfare has not only lost its luster, but the tacky parts are showing and people and organizations more sensitive to their public image across a wider spectrum of the populace are less willing to be allied with those on the fringes.

At least, openly.

There is also more than a little to the consideration that Exodus has developed something of a reputation for lying in public, as opposed to lying in private. If one wishes to do the latter, there is something of a need to avoid association with those who do the former. One might understand Willow Creek’s stance, as it works to build up its Non-Denomination/brand, in that light.