Do churches generate a lot of revenue from the LGBT community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

At my house of worship, it is more like the next fight in a series of civil rights movements. In the 1800’s it was bondage. Then came sufferage. Then, the civil rights movements in the 50’s and 60’s and women ‘s rights in the 60’s and 70’s. Then gay rights and AIDS awareness in the 1980’s. It seems there is always some group getting the shaft for just existing.

Who do you worship in your house of worship?

Why does it matter? I answered the OP’s question.

I'm curious. Who do you worship in your house of Worship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

At my house of worship, it is more like the next fight in a series of civil rights movements. In the 1800’s it was bondage. Then came sufferage. Then, the civil rights movements in the 50’s and 60’s and women ‘s rights in the 60’s and 70’s. Then gay rights and AIDS awareness in the 1980’s. It seems there is always some group getting the shaft for just existing.

Who do you worship in your house of worship?

Why does it matter? I answered the OP’s question.

I'm curious. Who do you worship in your house of Worship?

Poor choice of words, I should have said ‘Congregation’.

[Anonymous]

OP churches generate revenue for the leaders of the church that is historically correct.

LGBT Q has nothing to do with it

MeGA churches have huge Revenue yet none of that money goes to help people

From the Mormon church to the Catholic Church to evangelical to Orthodox Jews all religious orgs exist to grift from their subjects

Look up Jerry Falwell and how he changed the way churches behaved. Profit that’s the goak. Nothing more nothing less indoctrination of the masses so the few become wealthy. Keep them ignorant and churches grow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

Eating shellfish is not a sin. It's a dietary prohibition for Jewish people per the Torah.

Okay cool. The point of the forest was missed for this one tree, but the examples were meant to highlight that there are many behaviors that are sinful in the eyes of God that we are called to confess and repent from…and sexual immorality is one of those. Instead, the LGBTQ + community and churches that hang out the flag as an affirming signal are proclaiming that this area of people’s lives is untouchable by God and instead of being called to repent from any acts of sexual immorality (aka any sexual relations outside of the covenant of marriage as defined as union between one man and one woman by God) it must be pridefully celebrated.

Do you think that being attracted to someone of the same sex is something someone chooses? Or do you believe they don't "choose" it, but should refrain from any relationships of the same sex if they are gay? so they should just be alone? I'm curious what someone like you really thinks about this...not the just the church and bible talking points.

This area of questioning is a dangerous way to condone acting upon feelings, PP. Do you think a pedophile chooses to be attracted to children, for example? If I answer “no” does that mean we must accept that this is his identity as a person and so therefore his behaviors that follow are to be condoned?
And yes I know what’s next…”but that’s a matter of exploitation since a child cannot consent!”—but careful there too, because the “T” part of the LGBT community is very much pushing for society to accept that children know what they want and who they are and should be able to consent to anything they express that affirms this.
These lines being blurred is not accidental. And caution is prudent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's not a fair question because no mainstream Christian church forbids sacraments based on race, or forbids sacraments to adults based on age, or forbids attendance at services (vs. ordination) based on sex. So there is no need for a flag out front letting these groups know they are welcome to come in.

But many mainstream churches are actively hostile to LGBT people, to the point that you can assume a church is unwelcoming unless they say they do welcome LGBT people. That's the reason for flags.

Objectively, this is because what used to be universally recognized by the church and its members as a sinful desire and behavior (LGB) is now celebrated by the same church as immutable characteristic. (Except for the fact that TQ+ falls into that same family of categories now and is fluid and easily changeable, which complicates the “born this way” rhetoric that shifted acceptance on the desire/behavior stance in the early 2000s.)
LGBTQ has become its own untouchable god. And the members of the community have successfully redefined a desire and behavior as an identity.

You shouldn't use the word objective, because you are not objective.

Just because my opinion is not objective doesn’t mean the truth of the reason for the flags is not objectively evident based on church history. Maybe it would be clearer to replace “objectively” with “observably” so that you can separate my opinion with which you don’t agree with what is easy to observe by knowing church history and historical doctrine of mainline Protestant churches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP churches generate revenue for the leaders of the church that is historically correct.

LGBT Q has nothing to do with it

MeGA churches have huge Revenue yet none of that money goes to help people

From the Mormon church to the Catholic Church to evangelical to Orthodox Jews all religious orgs exist to grift from their subjects

Look up Jerry Falwell and how he changed the way churches behaved. Profit that’s the goak. Nothing more nothing less indoctrination of the masses so the few become wealthy. Keep them ignorant and churches grow

I guess you don’t know that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable force in the world. Google it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can be cynical and think it’s about money, but it’s actually a message explicitly welcoming a group that other religious sects repudiate.

I disagree with both of these.
It’s mostly a signal to those who value their liberal political ideology above their spiritual edification so that they know this church is mark “safe” from any discussion that calls anyone to repent from this particular sin.

What makes this sin worse than other sins? We are all sinners. Why should this one be called out as such?

Moreover, a gay person who abstains from sex is not committing any sins.

Yes I agree with this point about all of us being sinnners.
And the point is not that this one sin is any worse or better. It’s that the flag is explicitly called a “pride flag” and signals that the church accepts this as an identity that cannot be touched by God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can be cynical and think it’s about money, but it’s actually a message explicitly welcoming a group that other religious sects repudiate.

I disagree with both of these.
It’s mostly a signal to those who value their liberal political ideology above their spiritual edification so that they know this church is mark “safe” from any discussion that calls anyone to repent from this particular sin.

What makes this sin worse than other sins? We are all sinners. Why should this one be called out as such?

Moreover, a gay person who abstains from sex is not committing any sins.

Yes I agree with this point about all of us being sinnners.
And the point is not that this one sin is any worse or better. It’s that the flag is explicitly called a “pride flag” and signals that the church accepts this as an identity that cannot be touched by God.

Or perhaps, it is a reflection of god’s creation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

Eating shellfish is not a sin. It's a dietary prohibition for Jewish people per the Torah.

Okay cool. The point of the forest was missed for this one tree, but the examples were meant to highlight that there are many behaviors that are sinful in the eyes of God that we are called to confess and repent from…and sexual immorality is one of those. Instead, the LGBTQ + community and churches that hang out the flag as an affirming signal are proclaiming that this area of people’s lives is untouchable by God and instead of being called to repent from any acts of sexual immorality (aka any sexual relations outside of the covenant of marriage as defined as union between one man and one woman by God) it must be pridefully celebrated.

Do you think that being attracted to someone of the same sex is something someone chooses? Or do you believe they don't "choose" it, but should refrain from any relationships of the same sex if they are gay? so they should just be alone? I'm curious what someone like you really thinks about this...not the just the church and bible talking points.

This area of questioning is a dangerous way to condone acting upon feelings, PP. Do you think a pedophile chooses to be attracted to children, for example? If I answer “no” does that mean we must accept that this is his identity as a person and so therefore his behaviors that follow are to be condoned?
And yes I know what’s next…”but that’s a matter of exploitation since a child cannot consent!”—but careful there too, because the “T” part of the LGBT community is very much pushing for society to accept that children know what they want and who they are and should be able to consent to anything they express that affirms this.
These lines being blurred is not accidental. And caution is prudent.

The lines are not blurred at all. The fact you are equating a pedophile and 2 consenting adults is troubling. They are not in any way the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

At my house of worship, it is more like the next fight in a series of civil rights movements. In the 1800’s it was bondage. Then came sufferage. Then, the civil rights movements in the 50’s and 60’s and women ‘s rights in the 60’s and 70’s. Then gay rights and AIDS awareness in the 1980’s. It seems there is always some group getting the shaft for just existing.

Who do you worship in your house of worship?

Why does it matter? I answered the OP’s question.

I'm curious. Who do you worship in your house of Worship?

Poor choice of words, I should have said ‘Congregation’.

OK, Who do you worship in your congregation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can be cynical and think it’s about money, but it’s actually a message explicitly welcoming a group that other religious sects repudiate.

I disagree with both of these.
It’s mostly a signal to those who value their liberal political ideology above their spiritual edification so that they know this church is mark “safe” from any discussion that calls anyone to repent from this particular sin.

What makes this sin worse than other sins? We are all sinners. Why should this one be called out as such?

Moreover, a gay person who abstains from sex is not committing any sins.

Yes I agree with this point about all of us being sinnners.
And the point is not that this one sin is any worse or better. It’s that the flag is explicitly called a “pride flag” and signals that the church accepts this as an identity that cannot be touched by God.

Or perhaps, it is a reflection of god’s creation.

Yes, that's it. God created everything, after all, for those who believe in Him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can be cynical and think it’s about money, but it’s actually a message explicitly welcoming a group that other religious sects repudiate.

I disagree with both of these.
It’s mostly a signal to those who value their liberal political ideology above their spiritual edification so that they know this church is mark “safe” from any discussion that calls anyone to repent from this particular sin.

What makes this sin worse than other sins? We are all sinners. Why should this one be called out as such?

Moreover, a gay person who abstains from sex is not committing any sins.

Yes I agree with this point about all of us being sinnners.
And the point is not that this one sin is any worse or better. It’s that the flag is explicitly called a “pride flag” and signals that the church accepts this as an identity that cannot be touched by God.

Who are you to judge? We certainly are all sinners. I’ll take my chances being a sinner who errs on the side of accepting my fellow humans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always assumed it’s because most LGBT people reasonably assume churches are homophobic until proven otherwise. A rainbow flag communicates immediately that this group seriously marginalized by many Christians is welcome and will be affirmed.

+1 it's also a message to people who are not LGBTQ+ that the church is welcoming to all. There are a lot of straight people who don't want to be part of a church that shuns any group of people.

My Methodist church went through a process with the congregation to formally becoming a "reconciling congregation", https://rmnetwork.org/
part of a group of Methodist churches that explicitly welcome LGBTQ. We lost members over it. This was before the break up of the United Methodist church over this issue.

Agree with this. Especially straight people who have LGBTQ+ family members.

Which is basically everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

At my house of worship, it is more like the next fight in a series of civil rights movements. In the 1800’s it was bondage. Then came sufferage. Then, the civil rights movements in the 50’s and 60’s and women ‘s rights in the 60’s and 70’s. Then gay rights and AIDS awareness in the 1980’s. It seems there is always some group getting the shaft for just existing.

Who do you worship in your house of worship?

Why does it matter? I answered the OP’s question.

I'm curious. Who do you worship in your house of Worship?

Poor choice of words, I should have said ‘Congregation’.

OK, Who do you worship in your congregation?

we do not have a deity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, I am an atheist. Admittedly, I have a cynical view of religion. Also, my vantage point is Bethesda.

I can't help but notice that pretty much every church I see has a flag, placard, or message out front targeting a single demographic: the LGBT community. Not asians, not hispanics, not men, not women, not young, not old - LGBT.

Churches exist for one reason: to propagate themselves. That requires money and customers. So, it must be that singularly advertising to LGBT is a smart business move. Its just a surprising one, given the % of population and, I would think, I general dis-inclination toward religion.

So what is the deal? Smart business move? Meaningless signaling? Something else?

Those aren't real churches

Folks, here is the poster who thinks that Protestant denominations that have been mainstays of religious life in the US since the nation’s founding aren’t “real churches.”

Draw your own conclusions.

Objectively, it isn’t that.
It’s that there is literally a “guidebook” that identifies what God considers sinful behavior. It’s called the Bible. And engaging in homosexual acts is specifically called out as a sin in the word of God—several times. So are many many other sins. And each of us sin on a daily basis. Yet we are all welcome and in fact called by by God to worship Him and to confess our sin, repent of that sin (whatever it may be), and accept that on the cross, Christ took the punishment for OUR sins…all of them…paying the price for us and allowing us to live forever with God in heaven.
One would think that the churches that put out the LGBTQ+ flag are signaling “yes—you are welcome here, too. ALL are welcome to come and worship the Lord and repent of whatever sin is keeping hold of you. Jesus is the answer to setting you free from whatever sin is defining you, including sexual sin and sins of lust or idolatry, regardless of orientation.”
But instead, the message from these churches that put out the LGBT flag seems to be “we promise we will value your self-identification as part of the LGBT community above any Biblical teaching. If you come to this church, we will affirm your desire to keep this area of your life off limits to God and you can hang onto this particular sin because you really really like it and society has decided it’s who you are.”

These are “real” churches, but they have been ideologically captured at the seminary level by folks who are more interested in pleasing society than obeying and submitting to God.

The church also welcomes those who are divorced or having premarital sex or who eat shellfish or who tell lies or who have dishonored their parents, etc. The difference is that they do not celebrate those sins as being who you are. Instead they recognize that we are all sinners worthy of love from God and are invited and called to repent.

This is an excellent post.

I would add —

Sexuality is one area where for 2,000 years — from Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount until very recently — all three major parts of Christianity — the RCC, mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals — agreed that sex was to be between a man and a woman in the covenant relationship of a marriage, period. This was one area where there was basically no daylight amongst Christians.

And then in the last 40 years or so — so a very small period of time across the broad spectrum of world history — mainline Protestant churches have attempted to redefine this core part of Christianity because of societal pressure. Nevermind that aspects of Christianity have ALWAYS been offensive in every culture and age. Back in the days of the Romans, people could not understand why these silly Christians opposed rape, all kinds of other horrific misgony, and literally throwing babies into trash cans when you didn’t like that a girl popped out. Christians believed these very counter-cultural things at the time because that’s what the Bible says.

But these mainline Protestant churches have unilaterally decided on very flimsy theological grounds that it’s OK to ignore certain teachings now because they aren’t fashionable. They don’t want Christianity that is true to the Bible and counter-cultural — they want a Christianity that fits into their larger political view.

I absolutely believe that this is part of the reason why these churches are on the decline while evangelical churches everywhere and even RCC churches in some places continue to grow.

If it makes you happy to believe these congregations are in decline, that's fine. It's not my experience, given the growth at my church, but I also don't care that you think that and maybe it bears put natuonally, I don't know.
It is, however, a little silly to believe that LGBT and ally members are a big constituency that chuches want to attract, yet also the reason for severe membership decline.

To the contrary, being hostile towards LGBTQ+ is contributing to membership decline, because GenX and younger are much more accepting and are turned off by the hierarchy's homophobia. Lack of ordained women's roles in the Church is another issue causing young people to abandon the faith.