Many churches condone discrimination against LGBTQ people in practice, but there’s a church in Washington D.C. that’s doing it as a matter of policy.
Capital View Baptist Church adopted a revised church constitution last year, and it states that “shaming and shunning are acceptable Christian responses” to “homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, incest, transgender,” and more.
This information came from documents released in multiple (unrelated) lawsuits, according to the Washington Blade.
In a development that has raised eyebrows among some in the city’s faith community, the church submitted a copy of its recently revised constitution to the D.C. Superior Court as part of its response to separate lawsuits filed against the church by 15 former members and by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine…
The Washington Blade obtained a copy of the church’s constitution from the public court records after someone who saw it alerted the Blade to its provision on “shaming and shunning.”
The part of the church’s constitution about “shaming and shunning” of LGBTQ people apparently comes after a section saying, without irony, that every participant at church events “should be afforded compassion, love, kindness, respect, and dignity while on church premises.”
Outside of church premises? Not so much.
“Hateful, harassing, intimidating, mocking behavior or attitudes directed toward any individual or group of individuals at Church Events is to be repudiated and is not considered in accord with Scripture nor the Doctrines of the Church,” the article says.
“Yet, Shaming and Shunning are acceptable Christian responses to the outward practice of any form of ungodly behavior such as sexual immorality (adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bisexuality, bestiality, incest, transgender, or any attempt to change one’s sex, or disagreement with one’s biological sex, and/or engagement in any other such) described in the Bible as sinful, and are considered offensive to God and man,” the constitution’s article states.
Don’t harass or intimidate gay people… but shaming them and refusing to speak to your gay relative? Totally fine. The levels of cognitive dissonance the writers of this revised church constitution must have felt is pretty incredible.
They also took pains to promote the church’s view of “traditional” marriage.
The article concludes by declaring that the church believes “marriage to be a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a human being (homo sapien), husband or wife.”
It says marriages “outside these parameters” will not be performed by a minister affiliated with the church or on church property and any person who “knowingly participates in such a rite shall be dismissed forthwith.”
I’ve seen churches say marriage is between a man and a woman. I’ve seen churches say marriage is between one biological man and one biological woman. But this is the first time I’ve seen a church specify that a spouse had to be a homo sapien. As if that really needed clarification.
It’s not surprising that there’s an anti-gay church out there; they’re everywhere. But this one basically lists being antagonistic to LGBTQ people as a requirement for church members, and the only reason we know is because the information came out in court.
I don’t know if they’ll win their lawsuits, but this is one document they clearly didn’t want the public to see beforehand. You have to wonder: How many other churches hold similar views?
(Screenshot via Google Maps)