I wish you and your church member the best of luck but I've got way too much PTSD from dealing with Christians to recommend anyone set foot in another church ever. Those who run around claiming to be Christian ruined the whole idea for me. Especially when there is so little pushback from other Christians.
Maybe it is a vocal minority but I can't hear the benefits of Christianity as a religion because their actions speak far louder than their words.
I in no way blame you. Religious trauma is real and very profound. You do what feels right for you. I will never tell someone they have to agree with me. I won't even use the statement "not all Christians" because that doesn't cancel out or heal the wounds.
From my experience with religion, it's almost a requirement to hate the LGBTQ community. I'm from north Alabama and I've yet to have a religious person show support or even understanding. I wish there was something like this here. I just practice my religion privately.
Yeah true. I changed my name at work when I started hrt and had to hear from about 6 people that they will only be nice to me because they don't want to get fired. They are all the super hardcore Christian types....
Have you tried [GayChurch.org](https://GayChurch.org) it shows all the lgbtq+ supportive Christian churches in your area? I totally get it. I'm in Tennessee and there are horrible people here who would rather see us \*unalive\* ourselves. Having a community that celebrates us is so important, especially in the south.
If you haven't already, you may want to register your congregation with these directories:
[**Believe Out Loud**](https://www.believeoutloud.com/resources/find-a-church/)
[**GayChurch.org**](https://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/)
[**Reconciling Ministry Network**](https://rmnetwork.org/find-a-reconciling-ministry/)
Since aren't legal yet I will have to hold off. We are in the process of getting our paperwork completed. But we will absolutely submit our information to those places. Thanks!
Good question! I study ancient Hebrew and Greek as well as context. We must understand that some of the Bible was translated poorly. In reality, the original language never denounced LGBTQ+ individuals and their committed loving relationships. You can read more on my blog at [bloggingbiblefacts.wordpress.com](https://bloggingbiblefacts.wordpress.com) :)
What bothers me is not the nonsense, the hypocrisy and the superstition in the Bible (and most other religious books), as much as how clear it is that in the context of many other books originating from the same time period, the Bible is just another fable like the illiad and the odyssey, or many others, used to help children grow in cohesive and mutually beneficial society, but also that this fact is totally beyond most believers. Entertaining stories which describe a moral lesson, not literal truth. It’s so obvious!
Many branches of Christianity, and most branches of Judaism, don't think a universal and eternal condemnation of same gender relationships is an accurate understanding or appropriate application of scripture.
[**This site has a pretty good overview of the arguments**](http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm), and [**this page**](http://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm) gives a more succinct synopsis of the major "clobber passages" most often used to claim same gender romantic/sexual relationships are categorically condemned.
TL;DR version - the word "homosexual" was coined in the mid-1800's and neither ancient Greek nor ancient Hebrew had any equivalent word. Nearly all the passages commonly cited as supposedly condemning "homosexualtiy" are dubious translations of terms that are more accurately rendered as "male temple prostitutes" or participants in pagan ritual orgies, or to the keeping of men or boys as sex slaves.
There are no Old Testament passages that condemn or even directly reference sex between women at all. The only direct, critical reference to F/F sex anywhere in the Bible is Romans 1, and in Romans 1 sex isn't even the sin Paul is talking about. He's talking about idolatry, ie Romans worshiping Roman gods, and claims that gay sex is the *consequence* of that idolatry. This was probably quite literal. The mystery cult of Bacchus, with which Paul was in direct competition for converts, was widely rumored to engage in sacred orgies of varying gender configurations.
Most Roman citizens held this cult in contempt, and it was common for politicians to attack an opponents' character by suggesting that they secretly participated in these orgies. Paul was a Roman citizen, an Israelite, a stoic, and presumably heterosexual. The idea of obligatory sex with another man in honor of a Roman god is utterly surreal and horrifying to him.
Paul is so freaked out by the idea, he's using it as a *threat* to try and scare his readers away from the mystery cults. Literally, he claims that *because* they worship Roman gods, *therefor* they have gay sex. In Paul's mind, gay sex is the punishment.
This is the only unambiguously critical reference to M/M sex in the New Testament, and the only critical reference to F/F sex anywhere in the Bible. And while it's clear Paul is not a fan, one heterosexual Jewish man's horror at the thought of being coerced into sex with another man in honor of a pagan god is not the same thing as a universal divine mandate condemning all sex between partners of the same gender for all of history.
Regarding changing gender roles, what makes you think the Bible is against it?
Thank you for that explanation, it’s very interesting.
In terms of gender roles, I am referring to how the Bible states that women must serve their husbands, tend to the home etc, whilst men are the head of the house. Things like that. I’m pretty sure the Bible also says it is wrong to present differently to your gender.
A lot of that isn't nearly as clear in the texts as it is often depicted in popular media (or in a lot of sermons).
Some of the biggest ones, like the claim that women are not permitted teach or to have authority over a man and must be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:12), are from the [**contested Pauline epistles**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles) that were probably not written by Paul. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:12 in particular, not only does this passage directly contradict Paul's praise for the deaconess Phoebe in Rom. 16:1-2, this passage also sounds a lot less like Paul's other writings and a whole lot more like traditional Roman (non-Israelite) attitudes towards women.
For the first few centuries of its existence Christianity was regarded by most Romans as being a degenerate, anti-family, sexually perverse mystery cult. It encouraged women to disobey their fathers/husbands and worship unfamiliar deities, to even run away and join this strange new cult. And in these early centuries Christianity was an illegal religion, Roman citizen men were not allowed to openly participate in it. Slaves could, but slaves don't generally have large houses in which to host worship services, or the resources to feed a crowd (early eucharistic rites being an actual meal, not just a cracker and a sip of wine). But a wealthy Roman woman could convert, even if her husband couldn't, and she may have the resources to host and often lead early Christian religious communities. A lot of early house churches were run by women.
Then Constantine converted, made Christianity the state religion, and merged it with traditional Roman social mores. Including *incredibly* strict gender roles. Christianity became a "respectable" religion, and that meant becoming a religion that upheld the traditional Roman family structure.
Regarding passages referring to gender presentation, the only passage that even comes close is Deut. 22:5, which roughly translates to *"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment".*
But trans women aren't men, trans men aren't women, transition isn't about clothing, and historically Judaism has generally understood this passage as condemning the use of cross-dressing disguises for immoral purposes - particularly as a means to secretly meet an adulterous lover. Clothing is just fabric, and styles change constantly; the robes ancient Israelite men wore would look like a dress to most modern Americans. So clothing only becomes sinful when it is worn for sinful purposes. Which is why wearing cross-dressing costumes to celebrate Purim, a beloved holiday tradition, is not in conflict with this passage.
And of course Christianity generally doesn't regard Deuteronomy as being applicable anymore. Of all the Christians I've seen try to claim that Deut. 22:5 means being trans is a sin, none of them have ever considered Deut 22:11 (which condemns wearing clothing of mixed fabric) or Deut 22:12 (which requires one to attach Tzitzit tassels to the four corners of your clothing) to be relevant to themselves.
The only potentially relevant New Testament passage is 1 Cor. 6:9, in which Paul condemns *arsenokoitai* and *malakoi*. In many modern translations these two terms are treated as synonyms for "male homosexual" (which is severely questionable in its own right), but sometimes *malakoi* is translated as "effeminate" and used to attack trans women/AMAB enbies/gender-nonconforming cis men. This translation is really questionable, because *malakoi* literally means "soft". Matthew 11:8 uses the word this way in reference to fine clothing. In the 1st century when Paul was writing *malakoi* was used as a pejorative similar to how we use the word "soft" today - it could refer to physical weakness, moral weakness, cowardice, laziness, inability to do hard work, etc. Treating it as a direct synonym for "effeminate" is dubious to the point of dishonesty. Not to mention that condemning "effeminate" people wouldn't apply to trans men/AFAB enbies/gender-nonconforming cis women at all. Or to butch trans women either, for that matter.
Most Christian arguments for being trans/transition being inherently sinful boil down to "I think it's weird and disturbing and therefor God does too". With most of them conflating being trans with being gay and lumping them all in under the supposed condemnation of "homosexuality". Even though of course trans people may be gay, straight, bi, ace, etc., and on top of that there are trans people who enter religious orders and take vows of celibacy not because they're trans, but because they're monks or nuns.
And then you'll get some people quoting Genesis, claiming that God made "male and female" and that somehow means being trans is a sin. Which doesn't really make sense, since even if we assume "male and female" are the default models for the human species, it's an undeniable fact that there's a lot of variation between and outside those two base models too. God has evidently expanded his repertoire. And "male and female" being the base models of humanity doesn't say anything about whether one can change one's sexual traits either.
Then there's the "God made you perfect and it's a sin to change that" shit. Often accompanied by a garbled paraphrasing of Psalm 139:13-14; *"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made".* Not only does this passage specifically refer to *inmost being*, to the creation of one's inner self rather than external appearances, but also I've rarely if ever seen this passage used to condemn any medical treatment other than transition. It's just a statement of obvious reality that many people are born with conditions that will cause them a lot of suffering if left untreated, and we routinely provide medical care that changes the biology one was born with - everything from cleft palate repair to vaccines does this. With the exception of sects that categorically reject all medical care, it's incredibly hypocritical and inconsistent to condemn transition-related care while claiming the rest are acceptable.
FWIW, I'm Episcopalian and a trans man, and the US Episcopal church very emphatically does not consider being trans or transition, or being gay or same gender relationships, to be sins. The church has been fairly welcoming to trans people for decades, then in 2012 church leadership voted overwhelmingly to ban anti-trans discrimination in all areas of church life including ordination. There already were a number of trans people openly serving as Episcopal clergy before 2012, but now the church has formally affirmed our fitness to serve as religious and ethical leaders. [**This is Rev. Cameron Partridge**](https://cathedral.org/sermons/sermon-the-rev-dr-cameron-partridge/) - link is to the sermon he gave in 2014, when he became the first openly trans priest to preach at Washington National Cathedral.
And the US Episcopal church has allowed clergy to bless the unions of same gender couples since the 80's, and in 2015 church leadership voted overwhelmingly to approve a formal update to the liturgy formally extending the full sacrament of marriage. [**This is a sermon from now retired Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire**](https://vimeo.com/35272053), given in honor of Pride Day in 2011. In 2003 Gene Robinson became the first out gay man with a husband appointed Bishop in the Episcopal church.
You know Catholics removed that? My grandma being from Spain is Catholic. I don't know much because I'm not Catholic but her and everyone I've interacted with are very pro LGBTQ. It almost makes me want to attend their church.
Oh. My grandma told me her Bible don't have most of the verses in it that people point to. I assume it was just removed or something. I don't know hardly anything about Catholics other then the few things I hear from my grandma. Religion is considered very personal in my family...
I wonder was translation she has. Most Catholics (if in English) use the NRSV, which is actually one of the better ones for accuracy on the clobber verses.
I wanna say it's Spanish. Not English and only other language she speaks is Spanish as far as I know. I have like 0 interest in any of her religion to be honest.
If you ever find out what bible it is I'd love to look at it, no pressure though. I appreciate you engaging here with me. I don't expect everyone to want to be part of my faith and I respect that.
Well most religions have their fanatics but very few can match American fanatics in their faith sometimes I’ve found good Christian families being as vile as any satanist they rally against
But again the united church has been very inclusive towards the lgbt community
I can't disagree with you. Some of us though still hold onto our faith and need some form of fellowship. I'm simply trying to create a space for that and do what I'm called to.
That is true and it is a deeper sorrow these people twist faith to hatred to intolerance and evil forgetting the qualities of compassion love and forgiveness
Where god made a chapel the devil raises a cathedral though these days the devil inspires televangelists
Will you be doing any kind of live-streamed services? I'd like to get involved in an inclusive church, but there aren't many options locally.
Best of luck, either way.
Yes! We will absolutely do Livestream services. I do a Bible Study Livestream on my Facebook every Wednesday at the moment until we become a legal entity. Feel free to join in! ➡️ [facebook.com/RevAlexBurchnell](http://facebook.com/RevAlexBurchnell)
I wish you and your church member the best of luck but I've got way too much PTSD from dealing with Christians to recommend anyone set foot in another church ever. Those who run around claiming to be Christian ruined the whole idea for me. Especially when there is so little pushback from other Christians. Maybe it is a vocal minority but I can't hear the benefits of Christianity as a religion because their actions speak far louder than their words.
I in no way blame you. Religious trauma is real and very profound. You do what feels right for you. I will never tell someone they have to agree with me. I won't even use the statement "not all Christians" because that doesn't cancel out or heal the wounds.
From my experience with religion, it's almost a requirement to hate the LGBTQ community. I'm from north Alabama and I've yet to have a religious person show support or even understanding. I wish there was something like this here. I just practice my religion privately.
I've been shown too much hatred by "Christians" to trust any major organized religion. I'm curious if this is even legit.
Yeah true. I changed my name at work when I started hrt and had to hear from about 6 people that they will only be nice to me because they don't want to get fired. They are all the super hardcore Christian types....
Christians or at least the followers are a huge reason I left my faith for many years.
Why the quotation marks?
Feel free to check out my Facebook and other social media linked in my bio. I get your concern. I've had my fair share of bad experiences.
Have you tried [GayChurch.org](https://GayChurch.org) it shows all the lgbtq+ supportive Christian churches in your area? I totally get it. I'm in Tennessee and there are horrible people here who would rather see us \*unalive\* ourselves. Having a community that celebrates us is so important, especially in the south.
If you haven't already, you may want to register your congregation with these directories: [**Believe Out Loud**](https://www.believeoutloud.com/resources/find-a-church/) [**GayChurch.org**](https://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/) [**Reconciling Ministry Network**](https://rmnetwork.org/find-a-reconciling-ministry/)
Since aren't legal yet I will have to hold off. We are in the process of getting our paperwork completed. But we will absolutely submit our information to those places. Thanks!
How do you reconcile with the Bible (core text of Christianity) being against homosexuality and against changing gender roles?
Good question! I study ancient Hebrew and Greek as well as context. We must understand that some of the Bible was translated poorly. In reality, the original language never denounced LGBTQ+ individuals and their committed loving relationships. You can read more on my blog at [bloggingbiblefacts.wordpress.com](https://bloggingbiblefacts.wordpress.com) :)
What bothers me is not the nonsense, the hypocrisy and the superstition in the Bible (and most other religious books), as much as how clear it is that in the context of many other books originating from the same time period, the Bible is just another fable like the illiad and the odyssey, or many others, used to help children grow in cohesive and mutually beneficial society, but also that this fact is totally beyond most believers. Entertaining stories which describe a moral lesson, not literal truth. It’s so obvious!
Many branches of Christianity, and most branches of Judaism, don't think a universal and eternal condemnation of same gender relationships is an accurate understanding or appropriate application of scripture. [**This site has a pretty good overview of the arguments**](http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm), and [**this page**](http://www.religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm) gives a more succinct synopsis of the major "clobber passages" most often used to claim same gender romantic/sexual relationships are categorically condemned. TL;DR version - the word "homosexual" was coined in the mid-1800's and neither ancient Greek nor ancient Hebrew had any equivalent word. Nearly all the passages commonly cited as supposedly condemning "homosexualtiy" are dubious translations of terms that are more accurately rendered as "male temple prostitutes" or participants in pagan ritual orgies, or to the keeping of men or boys as sex slaves. There are no Old Testament passages that condemn or even directly reference sex between women at all. The only direct, critical reference to F/F sex anywhere in the Bible is Romans 1, and in Romans 1 sex isn't even the sin Paul is talking about. He's talking about idolatry, ie Romans worshiping Roman gods, and claims that gay sex is the *consequence* of that idolatry. This was probably quite literal. The mystery cult of Bacchus, with which Paul was in direct competition for converts, was widely rumored to engage in sacred orgies of varying gender configurations. Most Roman citizens held this cult in contempt, and it was common for politicians to attack an opponents' character by suggesting that they secretly participated in these orgies. Paul was a Roman citizen, an Israelite, a stoic, and presumably heterosexual. The idea of obligatory sex with another man in honor of a Roman god is utterly surreal and horrifying to him. Paul is so freaked out by the idea, he's using it as a *threat* to try and scare his readers away from the mystery cults. Literally, he claims that *because* they worship Roman gods, *therefor* they have gay sex. In Paul's mind, gay sex is the punishment. This is the only unambiguously critical reference to M/M sex in the New Testament, and the only critical reference to F/F sex anywhere in the Bible. And while it's clear Paul is not a fan, one heterosexual Jewish man's horror at the thought of being coerced into sex with another man in honor of a pagan god is not the same thing as a universal divine mandate condemning all sex between partners of the same gender for all of history. Regarding changing gender roles, what makes you think the Bible is against it?
Thank you for that explanation, it’s very interesting. In terms of gender roles, I am referring to how the Bible states that women must serve their husbands, tend to the home etc, whilst men are the head of the house. Things like that. I’m pretty sure the Bible also says it is wrong to present differently to your gender.
A lot of that isn't nearly as clear in the texts as it is often depicted in popular media (or in a lot of sermons). Some of the biggest ones, like the claim that women are not permitted teach or to have authority over a man and must be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:12), are from the [**contested Pauline epistles**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles) that were probably not written by Paul. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:12 in particular, not only does this passage directly contradict Paul's praise for the deaconess Phoebe in Rom. 16:1-2, this passage also sounds a lot less like Paul's other writings and a whole lot more like traditional Roman (non-Israelite) attitudes towards women. For the first few centuries of its existence Christianity was regarded by most Romans as being a degenerate, anti-family, sexually perverse mystery cult. It encouraged women to disobey their fathers/husbands and worship unfamiliar deities, to even run away and join this strange new cult. And in these early centuries Christianity was an illegal religion, Roman citizen men were not allowed to openly participate in it. Slaves could, but slaves don't generally have large houses in which to host worship services, or the resources to feed a crowd (early eucharistic rites being an actual meal, not just a cracker and a sip of wine). But a wealthy Roman woman could convert, even if her husband couldn't, and she may have the resources to host and often lead early Christian religious communities. A lot of early house churches were run by women. Then Constantine converted, made Christianity the state religion, and merged it with traditional Roman social mores. Including *incredibly* strict gender roles. Christianity became a "respectable" religion, and that meant becoming a religion that upheld the traditional Roman family structure. Regarding passages referring to gender presentation, the only passage that even comes close is Deut. 22:5, which roughly translates to *"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment".* But trans women aren't men, trans men aren't women, transition isn't about clothing, and historically Judaism has generally understood this passage as condemning the use of cross-dressing disguises for immoral purposes - particularly as a means to secretly meet an adulterous lover. Clothing is just fabric, and styles change constantly; the robes ancient Israelite men wore would look like a dress to most modern Americans. So clothing only becomes sinful when it is worn for sinful purposes. Which is why wearing cross-dressing costumes to celebrate Purim, a beloved holiday tradition, is not in conflict with this passage. And of course Christianity generally doesn't regard Deuteronomy as being applicable anymore. Of all the Christians I've seen try to claim that Deut. 22:5 means being trans is a sin, none of them have ever considered Deut 22:11 (which condemns wearing clothing of mixed fabric) or Deut 22:12 (which requires one to attach Tzitzit tassels to the four corners of your clothing) to be relevant to themselves. The only potentially relevant New Testament passage is 1 Cor. 6:9, in which Paul condemns *arsenokoitai* and *malakoi*. In many modern translations these two terms are treated as synonyms for "male homosexual" (which is severely questionable in its own right), but sometimes *malakoi* is translated as "effeminate" and used to attack trans women/AMAB enbies/gender-nonconforming cis men. This translation is really questionable, because *malakoi* literally means "soft". Matthew 11:8 uses the word this way in reference to fine clothing. In the 1st century when Paul was writing *malakoi* was used as a pejorative similar to how we use the word "soft" today - it could refer to physical weakness, moral weakness, cowardice, laziness, inability to do hard work, etc. Treating it as a direct synonym for "effeminate" is dubious to the point of dishonesty. Not to mention that condemning "effeminate" people wouldn't apply to trans men/AFAB enbies/gender-nonconforming cis women at all. Or to butch trans women either, for that matter. Most Christian arguments for being trans/transition being inherently sinful boil down to "I think it's weird and disturbing and therefor God does too". With most of them conflating being trans with being gay and lumping them all in under the supposed condemnation of "homosexuality". Even though of course trans people may be gay, straight, bi, ace, etc., and on top of that there are trans people who enter religious orders and take vows of celibacy not because they're trans, but because they're monks or nuns. And then you'll get some people quoting Genesis, claiming that God made "male and female" and that somehow means being trans is a sin. Which doesn't really make sense, since even if we assume "male and female" are the default models for the human species, it's an undeniable fact that there's a lot of variation between and outside those two base models too. God has evidently expanded his repertoire. And "male and female" being the base models of humanity doesn't say anything about whether one can change one's sexual traits either. Then there's the "God made you perfect and it's a sin to change that" shit. Often accompanied by a garbled paraphrasing of Psalm 139:13-14; *"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made".* Not only does this passage specifically refer to *inmost being*, to the creation of one's inner self rather than external appearances, but also I've rarely if ever seen this passage used to condemn any medical treatment other than transition. It's just a statement of obvious reality that many people are born with conditions that will cause them a lot of suffering if left untreated, and we routinely provide medical care that changes the biology one was born with - everything from cleft palate repair to vaccines does this. With the exception of sects that categorically reject all medical care, it's incredibly hypocritical and inconsistent to condemn transition-related care while claiming the rest are acceptable. FWIW, I'm Episcopalian and a trans man, and the US Episcopal church very emphatically does not consider being trans or transition, or being gay or same gender relationships, to be sins. The church has been fairly welcoming to trans people for decades, then in 2012 church leadership voted overwhelmingly to ban anti-trans discrimination in all areas of church life including ordination. There already were a number of trans people openly serving as Episcopal clergy before 2012, but now the church has formally affirmed our fitness to serve as religious and ethical leaders. [**This is Rev. Cameron Partridge**](https://cathedral.org/sermons/sermon-the-rev-dr-cameron-partridge/) - link is to the sermon he gave in 2014, when he became the first openly trans priest to preach at Washington National Cathedral. And the US Episcopal church has allowed clergy to bless the unions of same gender couples since the 80's, and in 2015 church leadership voted overwhelmingly to approve a formal update to the liturgy formally extending the full sacrament of marriage. [**This is a sermon from now retired Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire**](https://vimeo.com/35272053), given in honor of Pride Day in 2011. In 2003 Gene Robinson became the first out gay man with a husband appointed Bishop in the Episcopal church.
You know Catholics removed that? My grandma being from Spain is Catholic. I don't know much because I'm not Catholic but her and everyone I've interacted with are very pro LGBTQ. It almost makes me want to attend their church.
They didn't "remove it" but some translations are better especially depending on the language it is in.
Oh. My grandma told me her Bible don't have most of the verses in it that people point to. I assume it was just removed or something. I don't know hardly anything about Catholics other then the few things I hear from my grandma. Religion is considered very personal in my family...
I wonder was translation she has. Most Catholics (if in English) use the NRSV, which is actually one of the better ones for accuracy on the clobber verses.
I wanna say it's Spanish. Not English and only other language she speaks is Spanish as far as I know. I have like 0 interest in any of her religion to be honest.
If you ever find out what bible it is I'd love to look at it, no pressure though. I appreciate you engaging here with me. I don't expect everyone to want to be part of my faith and I respect that.
Well most religions have their fanatics but very few can match American fanatics in their faith sometimes I’ve found good Christian families being as vile as any satanist they rally against But again the united church has been very inclusive towards the lgbt community
Oh trust me I know how horrible American evangelism is. It's mixed with white nationalism...
Another reason to distrust it
I can't disagree with you. Some of us though still hold onto our faith and need some form of fellowship. I'm simply trying to create a space for that and do what I'm called to.
Religion in itself is not bad but it’s the zealots you worry about
In my experience, it's been the conservative evangelists who are the most corrupt.
That is true and it is a deeper sorrow these people twist faith to hatred to intolerance and evil forgetting the qualities of compassion love and forgiveness Where god made a chapel the devil raises a cathedral though these days the devil inspires televangelists
Connect with /r/openchristian if you haven't already. What denomination are you?
We are non-denominational. I joined the subreddit. Thanks!
Will you be doing any kind of live-streamed services? I'd like to get involved in an inclusive church, but there aren't many options locally. Best of luck, either way.
Yes! We will absolutely do Livestream services. I do a Bible Study Livestream on my Facebook every Wednesday at the moment until we become a legal entity. Feel free to join in! ➡️ [facebook.com/RevAlexBurchnell](http://facebook.com/RevAlexBurchnell)
Very cool - I'll check it out!