Readers Write: How faith interacts with inclusion, politics and nationalism

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Thanks to Lily Dunk for her Oct. 20 commentary “Does your church discriminate against LGBTQ people? Are you sure?” (Strib Voices). I was very surprised by her tally that 80% of churches in the city do not support same-sex marriage or LGBTQ people serving as church leaders, but I trust that when people do this type of detailed research, they are probably correct (sadly).

I am happy to report that my church went through a difficult (for that time — the mid-1990s) process of deciding to welcome all sexual orientations and has since had several LGBTQ ministers. I am saddened to hear that we are apparently the exception to the rule, especially if some churches claim to be welcoming but, in fact, are not. I guess change takes longer than I thought.

Douglas Meisner, Minneapolis

The writer is a member of Lynnhurst Congregational United Church of Christ.

•••

It seems we are increasingly a society of “me-ism” whereby each individual thinks personal authority trumps all other. Dunk bemoans that churches present themselves favorable to LGBTQ people but aren’t really because their written policy doesn’t allow them leadership roles. This is considered disingenuous. However, let’s change the sin (yes, many evangelicals, including me, consider homosexuality a sin) and instead use pedophilia. Would a same-sex couple — or straight one for that matter — want a man on the sex offender registry changing their child’s diapers in the church nursery? But wouldn’t these couples still desire the man’s attendance at church?

Why is it thought that if I indulge in a practice not in keeping with the corporate standards of an organization that it’s the organization that’s wrong? Now, of course, the church wants all sinners to come to hear the Word and hopefully be convicted of sins and live according to the Word. But according to my reading of the New Testament, moral standards are set for leaders. If I don’t like this, maybe I should reevaluate the privilege I give to my authority.

David Wheeler, Coon Rapids

•••

I was saddened to read about Dunk’s experience as an LGBTQ person in local area churches. Unfortunately, this has been the experience of far too many LGBTQ Christians. Utilizing biblical scholarship, many churches realize and affirm the beauty and holiness of all of God’s people. The national United Church of Christ has affirmed marriage equality since 2005 and ordained the first openly gay Christian minister in 1972. Although this may not be true in greater Minnesota, all UCC churches in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area are open and affirming for people across the gay, lesbian, nonbinary and transgender spectrum. The church I serve, Robbinsdale Parkway United Church of Christ, has been open and affirming since the 1990s. We performed gay marriages well before they were recognized by state law and our LGBTQ members serve in every area of leadership.

Jesus encouraged everyone to share their light, and we are grateful for the examples of our LGBTQ, cisgender and heterosexual siblings.

The Rev. Kathy Itzin, Robbinsdale

The writer is senior pastor at Robbinsdale Parkway United Church of Christ.

I read Angela Denker’s recent column (“Believe what they do, not what they say,” Strib Voices, Oct. 20) with great interest. She argues that most megachurches tend to be personality-driven, Biblically conservative, inclusive in word but not deed, beholden to big givers and reluctant to confront the “rot” within. Though a whiff of personal bitterness permeates her reflections, Denker’s arguments merit careful examination.

My own experience is that large, popular evangelical churches often use the Bible as an instruction book for toeing the line rather than as an invitation to love one’s neighbor. Jesus is all too often seen as the gatekeeper who prevents “bad people” from entering rather than as the good shepherd whose arms are open to all. Congregants are frequently spoon-fed black-and-white answers to complex issues rather than being encouraged to live thoughtfully and faithfully in a world that’s often gray. Above all, the critical objective is “getting into heaven” — whatever the cost — rather than caring for the Earth and its people.

It’s no wonder, then, that such churches are often the spawning ground for Christian nationalism and a natural echo chamber for former President Donald Trump’s brand of politics. Despite their pious and enthusiastic bluster, their message is predominantly one of fear and condemnation, not one of love and acceptance. It’s all about who’s in and who’s out.

The Rev. Alan Bray, St. Peter, Minn.

The writer is a retired pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

In Sunday’s front-page article on political advocacy by churches in the current election (“In divisive times, faith leaders are wary of politics”), there is a useful discussion of the role that the Johnson Amendment plays in deterring churches from endorsing candidates. This does not infringe upon the ability of religious leaders to advocate for and to educate about their religion’s position on questions that arise in current political contests. It does discourage attempts by election campaigns to shield campaign finances from scrutiny and tax liability.

Members’ donations to their churches are tax-exempt. Political candidates would obviously love to run their campaigns through the churches so that their expenses could be paid in tax-free dollars. The Johnson Amendment applies not only to churches but to all secular charitable nonprofit organizations.

I presume that the leaders of most churches would refuse any donations that are conditioned upon endorsing political candidates, because that would divide their congregations politically. Nevertheless, money is the source of temptation, even for people who value virtue. The political restrictions imposed by the Johnson Amendment are healthy for churches and should be welcomed.

George Kane, St. Paul

I thank the paper for publishing a piece on Christian nationalism (“It’s time to stand up and speak up,” Oct. 13), a movement that came briefly to national attention with the Jan. 6 attack on the capital. As a Christian, I am appalled at what I have subsequently learned in my reading about the goals of this movement, its alignment and funding from hostile foreign powers, the deeply anti-democratic aspects, as well as what I personally find to be a fundamental misrepresentation of Christian faith and tradition. A Donald Trump presidency would bring its supporters’ vision much closer to reality and too close for comfort for me. That vision ushered in autocracy in Hungary; it has wrought disaster in Russia. It’s yet another reason to let Trump face his grievances and legal troubles as a private citizen, and why I’ll be voting Kamala Harris for president.

Joel Nigg, Bloomington

•••

I read Karen Tolkkinen’s penetrating column in the Sunday Star Tribune with keen interest, along with a sense of dread (“It’s time to stand up and speak up”).

The United States is not a Christian nation, nor was established as one by the founding fathers when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787. The First Amendment specifies that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... .” Which in layman’s terms means in the practice of religion and freedom from religion there would be no interference from the government.

The United States is a nation made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, plus religious and nonreligious groups. No religion takes precedence over the other. Christian nationalists fail to emphasize what denomination of Christianity should be followed (there are many), or whose Bible is to be adhered to.

The United States is not a theocracy where religion dominates every facet of one’s life, be that socially or politically. The Constitution affords Americans guidelines to live a more law-filled life with freedoms and rights. The Bible affords Americans guidelines to live a more moral life. There are consequences to both if violated. The two entities are separate from one another and should remain so.

Kathleen Castrovinci, Eden Prairie