By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger. Be sure to read the comments below from 2015. Others can be added now (2022)
Ocean Grove United foolishly bowed out of the ceremonies in Auditorium Square Park today. The event was to thank everyone who participated in the Together Campaign. The word Together in the title was chosen for a reason—–all components of the Ocean Grove community joined together to work towards a complete Sandy recovery, and that included the OGU membership and leadership.
Now, because one man said certain things in a religious service seven days ago, this group was willing to cast aside a relationship that has been three years in the making. Why is that a good idea? Do you OGU members really want to divorce yourselves from your town over this? Do you really believe that Ocean Grove is a place that is anti-gay? Is that your message to a town that has embraced the gay community?
I know more gay people in this town than I ever knew in my entire life. I have learned so much about that community and I am happy to be in a place that is exemplary in its tolerance.
OGU members: How about finding a different way to deal with the current situation, one that will continue to bring everyone together and to focus on what’s right and good in this very special town.
CHRIS MARTIN (Coldplay) “Us Against the World.”
“The tightrope that I’m walking just sways and ties
The devil as he’s talking with those angel’s eyes
And I just want to be there when the lightning strikes
And the saints go marching in..”
In looking back over the 2015 comments I see now that most of the debate was about the choice of speaker because that speaker said some obnoxious things in his sermon.
But allowing all those comments regarding that speaker is not what my editorial was about.
The subject was simply whether or not OGU might have chosen a different way to show their displeasure .
But since the subject was raised, I am a strong advocate of free speech. To argue that the speaker should not have been invited, is to ask that the CMA censor its speakers. They should choose their speakers, and no one is forced to attend.
I found that the OGU was capable of trying to close down discussion, and that is not the American way. If you want to know about that subject, just click on this link from August, 2015.:
https://wp.me/pqmj2-sIt
And the reason for re-posting this piece again now (2022) is to show the amazing quality of our participants in that discussion. I am very proud of that. Also, it is important for new-comers to the Grove to learn about this important situation from the past. Things have happily quieted down in recent years, and that is a good thing.
I hope to post more of these “recent history” articles.
Paul
Paul Goldfinger Editor Blogfinger.net May 2, 2022.
In another thread I wrote that the CMA should issue a some sort of statement whether they do or do not endorse the views expressed in parts of the sermon. I’ve now come to the personal revelation that there is no need to that. Their position is actually quite clear. The featured speakers for the last 3 annual Camp Meetings have been Cameron, Huckabee and now Cahn. Their views and opinions are well known.
Whether they spoke to those topics or not doesn’t change the fact that they hold those beliefs. By calling them to preach, the CMA demonstrates they hold those beliefs as well. There have been a few other speakers who have invoked ‘Christian Marriage’ and ‘immoral lifestyles’ in messages as well over the past few years. I’ve heard them in person and walked out as other’s have done.
Doubting Thomas:
I am not sure why you think I demanded that the CMA clarify their position, I am pretty sure that “should clarify” is more of a request. As to why they would allow themselves to be put on the defensive, i am not sure I understand, if, as you say they are proud of this choice, then why not come out and say so. Can you really be so sure that the CMA has never presented a speaker that in hind-site they were not so proud of? I would like to know what they think about all of this, doesn’t seem to me to be an unreasonable request.
JCo is right. This is not a “free speech” issue. There is no government action or censorship involved here, so the Constitution is not in play.
What is in play is people in OG reacting to the OGCMA’s speech with their own speech. And as many have pointed out, that reaction should have been expected, not just from those whom Cahn was directly condemning, but also from those who those who are tarred by association with this speaker.
That includes the regular church-going people of this town, those who support the OGCMA, as well as the Jewish residents of the town who have to deal with the intentional mis-impression that Cahn and his message are in any way Jewish (he can call himself a Rabbi all he wants, but he is an apocalyptic Christian preacher).
Doubting Thomas is correct that the OGCMA need not clarify its position. Its position is quite clear. And it has reaped what it has sown.
Al
The right thing for many was not to placate, but to stand and recognize that the speaker’s words were painful
to hear and divisive. Consequences be what they are!!
Respectfully,
Lee
Bob. Why should the CMA allow themselves to be put on the defensive? They chose the speaker and proudly presented him at their Sunday service. That speaks for itself.
Who are you to demand that they “clarify their position?”
The comment below is a reply to one from Blogfinger dated 8/2/15 at 10:29 pm. To read that, either scroll down or click on “in reply to Blogfinger.”
“The last paragraph is difficult to reconcile. While the editor is looking for peace and harmony by asserting that a different decision would have been much better, it is clear that OGU is of a different opinion as to what is better. Using the word “better” is a comparative and implies a judgement which Blogfinger clearly states he is not doing.
“Perhaps more thought into the “speaker committee” would be in order as some have stated. One post spoke of showing class and moving on. It needs to work both ways. Let our humanity show through, and officially recognize the oversight. That might go a long way.”
Editor’s note: Lee: you seem determined to paint me as a hypocrite. But of course my opinion is judgmental. That is why I clearly labeled this post as an “editorial.” —Paul @Blogfinger
Nobody is asking the CMA to not hold to their religious beliefs. Seriously there are many speakers who can bring a positive message to the Great Auditorium, including those who do not support gay marriage. Why would they go out of their way to invite speakers who clearly will offend a large number of the community? This is no longer a one off event (remember “Kirk”).
There are some lines that should be honored by the CMA that go beyond religious beliefs. This speaker was a bad choice for OG.
OGTS:
Just because there is no “specific” question in a letter, does not mean that it does not require a response. The CMA should clarify their position ; are they standing by their choice of speaker, or not? At least we would know where they stand. I for one would like to know before I drop that next contribution into the collection basket.
The Camp Meeting Association is in a tough spot. The New Testament is full of warnings to the Christian faithful not to deny their beliefs. Would avoiding certain topics in services and pretending that certain beliefs don’t exist get the Camp Meeting Association in trouble with their ultimate authority?
I am a long time resident of Ocean Grove. Both sides of my family have been part of the fabric of OG for well over 100 years. The episode that OGCMA was party to in the Auditorium last Sunday showed total disregard to the efforts of our entire community to promote “togetherness.”
OGCMA invited a radical speaker to preach on that Sunday morning. The message contained separation and doom. Any fabric of “togetherness” in Ocean Grove was torn to threads. What will the OGCMA do to sow seeds of togetherness, love, respect and acceptance of all in Ocean Grove?
This has been a fascinating string to read. What is hard to understand is why anyone is surprised that this (or other) speakers support what is, for most Christians (and Jews before them), a core belief about the definition of marriage.
Last time I checked, the OGCMA is a traditional Christian organization and church. Should the practitioners of a religion (any religion) be required to edit their discussion of beliefs in their own services? Seems like a pretty unreasonable position to take. I say OGCMA services, and the speakers they invite, should be free to discuss any Christian teaching they want in their own services.
Theresa:
So when someone states their view on what marriage is or speaks against a behavior that they believe to be wrong or speak any differing view from someone else in a public setting that becomes disrespectful? If that’s the case both sides are equally disrespectful because both have publicly stated opposing views of the other.
Question for OGU:
Is it OGU’s position that if anything is said at a CMA event that is not in line with OGU’s beliefs you will refuse to have any togetherness at all? It can’t be that healthy to allow anger over an opposing view to so effect you that you withdraw from all togetherness.
Bob:
To what is the CMA expected to respond to? The OGU letter is a statement without any questions. The general view of both sides on marriage is pretty clear. I think it’s safe to say that there are differing views on various things within the CMA and that the CMA as an organization doesn’t hold the same view on every issue as that of any speaker.
Some may take seeing OGU marching in the Independence Day parade as a deep personal affront, yet the CMA allows them to participate in their parade.
House:
Good comment. Obviously there would be no speakers if the CMA would vet speakers so that no one is offended.
I think that in this discussion (and in the related Cameron discussion) two things are getting conflated. There is the concept of “free speech”, which Kirk Cameron and this speaker certainly have, in the sense that they are not being squelched, which is what the First Amendment protects them from.
The other concept is whether the CMA, as a private actor that invites incendiary speakers to speak in its private church, should be somehow insulated from protest in the name of “Togetherness.”
It seems that the CMA isn’t so interested in placating those who don’t agree with it, given who it invites to speak, so to then complain when communities who are predictably offended act like they’re offended, makes no sense. The result was entirely predictable.
In light of that, to me it is not the OGU that is being divisive. It is the CMA, which decided to invite speakers who (very obviously to anyone who researched them) would say things that would very likely offend OGU members.
Reply to House:
What if it actually is a deep personal affront?
This is not just a lively discussion on ideas.
First, thanks for your coverage of this situation. I also appreciate the discussion that is permitted to evolve here in this forum. It’s good for our small community, which mirrors the struggles across our country, to share opinions.
As I watched the park being prepared Sunday morning for the dedication, I commented to my husband that I would not be surprised if the event drew a boisterous protest. The OGU’s decision to abstain from the ceremony was both powerful and gracious. Just like the worshipers who left during the sermon to express their distaste with the message, the OGU communicated clearly. Removing oneself (or similarly, refusing to be present) is a silent,simple protest.
I agree with the previous post that vetting guest speakers is the responsible way to create a lineup that is actively promoted by the OGCMA. And with the ease of researching public figures online, such vetting should be quite simple.
I support the OGU’s decision to publish their letter this past week and to refrain from joining the Together dedication. There’s very little togetherness when one member of a team shows public disrespect for the other member.
Paul,
(To follow up on Lee’s comment)
1. It would be nice to know what if any response the CMA gave to OGU.
2. It would be nice to know CMAs position (in hind-sight) on this speaker (for all we know they might be planning on inviting him back).
Not sure if any of the above is known?
Bob
Editor’s note: I have no information on those questions. —Paul @Blogfinger
Is it OGCMA’s job to vet speakers so as to assure no single person in the audience might be offended? I heard broad applause at numerous points during the sermon. I often don’t agree with everything a speaker says in a sermon — but that’s fine. If someone is easily offended by the ideas of others, then stay inside and don’t go out.
Theology is really nothing but ideas. We should be able to trade ideas and not have it be taken as a deep personal affront. Isn’t life more interesting if, occasionally, you are exposed to ideas that are different?
I also attended the July 26 1030 service in the GA. I walked out when he tied 9/11 to America’s lax religious standards. I was still able to hear him when he went on his anti-gay tirade. My husband and friend, as well as several choir members, left at this point.
Unfortunately if you look at the bios of the speakers for the rest of the summer, more than half have You Tube videos denouncing gay marriage.
I have drafted a letter to the OGCMA board of trustees, finance committee and worship committee objecting to inviting (& paying) such a person to the GA. I have also noted, I plan to withhold any financial support to the CMA, including donations at services or any other fundraising activity of the CMA.
I hope this will be a wake up call to the Board of Trustees that they need to reverse their push to the agenda that they started a few years ago.
I attended the “sermon.”
Fact: There were several anti-gay references.
Fact: The speaker blamed America for the bombing of the World Trade Center towers because he said, America has ignored God’s way.
Fact: The speaker is not an officially ordained Jewish rabbi.
Fact: The speaker spoke frenetically, without pause for the audience to think—-a technique often used to used to incite an audience.
Fact: Speakers come to Ocean Grove at the invitation of Camp Meeting.
It was embarrassing for many of us straight, ground-rental-paying Ocean Grove Americans that Camp Meeting would invite such vehement intolerance. If the speaker were vetted and Camp Meeting knew his views, we can only conclude Camp Meeting condones his views. If he were not vetted, Camp Meeting operates with a serious lack of basic research.
Lee. On July 31, the OGU issued a statement entitled, “Why OGU is not attending the Together Campaign dedication event.” They explained their motivation for that decision, and it totally has to do with the Great Auditorium sermon presented on Sunday, July 26, so there does not seem to be any motive other than what OGU itself proclaimed. You can probably find that statement on their web site.
As far as whether their decision was “the right thing to do,” their written decision makes it clear that they are doing what they think is right.
In our editorial we do not judge their belief that they are doing the right thing, but we do express the opinion that a different decision would have been much better.
—Paul
Amen!
It is curious that 2 minutes of a sermon held at a church service could generate this kind of anti-town, anti-free speech sentiment. Please stop the madness. Reacting so vigorously is counterproductive to the LGBT cause, in my view. The gay community is an important part of OG and it is respected for its many contributions. I agree with Paul and am as dumbfounded as anyone.
As my Grandmother always said to me ” be the bigger person”. While I agree that the CMA was wrong, I also agree with moving on. The point was made, now show your class, which we know you have!
Thank you Paul for your sanity.
Paul,
i wouldn’t want someone to attribute motivation to my actions. Have you spoken to OGU? It is possible that their not joining the dedication was the right thing to do?!
Lee