1st Sunday pt3

After the talk, which I have since remembered was called the 'Fool Monty' for some reason, we were sent off to talk in groups. After a fair bit of arm-clinging on my part, it was decided that I would go with my friend and her Discipler rather than separating and speaking with someone else.

This was when I properly began investigating. After all, what is touted as the "ideal" in an organisation or philosophy cannot always be followed, and how the followers react to contradictions, things that don't make sense and things too difficult to put into practise in everyday life can give an onlooker a great deal of insight into where a group fits on an ABCDEF-like frame.

As an aside, the immigrant and political Muslims in this country seem to be having that trouble now, and it'll be interesting to see the compromises that get made between them and the seemingly inintegrable everyday life that they must fit into.

First, the discipler inquired as to our opinions on the modesty issue - "Is it up to girls to dress modestly so not to inspire Lust in boys and men? Or should it be up to the men to look away and control themselves?" Personally, I lean heavily toward the latter option. Why the hell should I have to "protect; people from themselves? (Particularly in hot weather.) A religion that does not teach personal responsibility (or at least eventual personal responsibility; the population of a youth group bridges the gap between a childhood of little responsibility and an adulthood with plenty) is doing the world a great disservice.

The general consensus among the group (four girls, female discipler, disciper-in-training) seemed to be a bit of both options - "men shouldn't stare at our cleavage if they don't want to sin, but let us, as Good Christian Girls, make it easier for them by covering up." Hmm. I shan't comment further, but I should like to hear what you all think in the comments.

Then came some topics that I neither care about nor remember, and I woke up again ([/hyperbole]) for the "God will find a husband for you when it is the right time" topic.

It brings my mind to the "Gay Rights" issue in the States - it must be much easier for the Evangelicals over there to order each other to suppress desire for the same sex when they're used to giving the order to suppress all desire.

I came out gradually: first with "Need it be a 'Mr.Right'? Why not a 'Miss.'?" Apparently that was too subtle, as the Discipler didn't seem to to understand. As I am absolutely terrible at explaining things which seem obvious to me, my friend rescued me and explained after confirming that that was what I actually meant. The Discipler then referred to her Bible and said how it was a difficult situation, my friend started saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin" over and over again, and the discipler-in-training looked at her Bible and said, a little unsurely, that it was quite clear that it, um, homosexuality, wasn't a good thing. The Discipler read a section (that I couldn't find the reference for, sorry) with a list of groups that "shall not recieve the Kingdom of Heaven"; a list that included "homosexual offenders". Ambiguous phrase, I think - the "homosexual" part is obvious, but coupled with "offenders" could mean anything.

Thinking that they looked to be taking it as "people far, far away who we will never meet or have any contact with" rather than as something they might have to deal with, I said: "It's just that, when I came out as Bi, last year, [insert friend's name] was all 'grr!' about it. That gave me a bad impression of Christianity, but since then I've met a lesbian who is going into the Ministry (hello, lizzypaul!) and started to look back into it." It was a bit of a lie, as I have no intention of converting, but all for a good cause. Probably.

To that explaination, the trainee-discipler repeated herself and the disciper pursed her lips and said, again, that it was a difficult problem. Someone said that "it's like normal love but with an extra bit" to which someone else said: ∧ it's the extra bit that's the problem!"

Hm. My view should be clear on the subject matter, but it isn't my focus now. Looking at how the question was handled is, as data will need to be collected to make any conclusions about what really makes these people tick. The dogma we know; the people we don't.

I made some comment about the translation, then (possibly about the "homosexual offenders" line), and got into a little chat with the discipler-in-training about the Apocrypha (books left out of the canonical bible, such as the Book of Enoch, Gospel of Thomas, or the recently-publicised Gospel of Judas) and selection for canon. It turns out that both the Discipler and the trainee-Discipler are doing Theology courses at University.

Unfortunately, the only exposure to "Secret Gospels" that any of the others had had was through the Da Vinci Code, and so they turned the conversation toward that crap and its controversy and its fanthings. Sad.

As I left with my friend (or rather, left my friend there), the trainee-discipler thanked me for being brave and sharing. I assume she meant about my queerness, but as I have no concept of closeting (I'm one of those people whose lives and identities are plastered all over the social-conciousness, oft-times in an out-of-date manner) it didn't occur to me that most folk don't "share" such things the first time they meet people. Oops.