I disagree. The columnist appears to have largely reported her words correctly. She's upset that her "private" words were made public, but it's not a reporter's job to help people keep their opinions hidden, or to clean up the mess that results when people talk trash about others behind their backs and get caught.
Second, even if we account for the certainty that Ms. Assam is putting the best possible face on her side of the story, it seems quite clear that something really did happen at New Life, related to her role at the church and her homosexuality.
I don't remember anybody EVER arguing differently here. Your statement is not equivalent to her charge that she was "clearly asked to leave" (although as she notes "not wirh words"). I think we all agree that she left the church because of her sinful actions, and I presume because her church refused to accept her sinful actions as proper. My church would accept a thief, but wouldn't allow them to think stealing money from the offering was appropriate behavior. And I guess if a thief was continually chastised for trying to walk off with the offering, they would probably feel like they weren't wanted. It's how sin separates us from God, and from our brethren.
I believe her claim that she was deeply hurt by the episode.
I agree with you; she clearly thinks her actions are OK, and is upset that people she cares about won't change their views and stop calling her actions sinful. I've known a lot of sinners who decide, rather than repentance, that what they are doing is NOT sin, and that the fault is with the church for thinking otherwise. They usually leave the church, and usually blame the church for "driving them off".
And finally, if we believe that even some of Assam's story is true, Pastor Boyd's quoted response looks less than forthright.
Again, I disagree. I believe some of her story is true; I believe most of her story is true, and even think she believes ALL of her story is true. And yet I see nothing in that story that in any way contradicts what the Pastor said. A church can welcome a sinner with open arms; but if they preach that the sinner's actions are sinful, no matter how much they show God's love, that sinner will feel driven away. It's the sin that does it, but the sinner, refusing to accept the idea of sin, blames others.
She never tells us what she wanted the church to do with her. Did she want to be allowed to teach Sunday School? I certainly wouldn't let her near children with her defiant attitude toward God and his commandments.
Here is a quote of what Boyd said:
"We welcome everyone at New Life," he told The Gazette. "We would never tell someone to leave because of their sexual orientation. Jeanne will always be a hero at New Life."Assam agrees that they never told her to leave: "Assam agreed Boyd and others never used the exact words that she was unwelcome." Instead, she insists they "made it clear". Nothing Boyd said is inconsistent with the church teaching that her ACTIONS of giving in to her lesbian feelings are sinful, and denying her certain privileges of the church because she is actively living in rebellion to God's word. (My church would deny her communion, not sure if New Life would do that or not).
So, to summarize, I don't see her words in any way backing up your assertions that the columnist is at fault, or that Boyd must be less the "forthright".
Assam says that the events happened in July 2009. Noreen didn't even bother to report that fact. Mr. Noreen is not a passive reporter in this story; he's shaping the narrative for reasons of his own. We should always take into account the reporter's slant for stories like this.
I don't remember anybody EVER arguing differently here. Your statement is not equivalent to her charge that she was "clearly asked to leave" (although as she notes "not wirh words").
Which brings us back to Mr. Noreen, who appears to be the one who introduced "asked her to leave" into the story. See what I mean? As it happens, though, there were plenty of folks who called her a liar, and one (you) who called her "evil." There's no need to quibble about the words Mr. Noreen seems to have added, when you're convinced that she's evil.
I think we all agree that she left the church because of her sinful actions, and I presume because her church refused to accept her sinful actions as proper.
Well, that's just simplistic to the point of priggishness. If people were made of Legos, I suppose you could build a nice story like that. Real life is a lot messier.
And yet I see nothing in that story that in any way contradicts what the Pastor said.
Except that he left out a few details about the events in question, didn't he? (In Mr. Noreen's telling, at any rate -- see? He's still important here.) Boyd makes it seem like Ms. Assam is lying -- her story is "absolutely untrue." No suggestion that anything actually might have caused her to leave, no indication that something went on between them.... Just the flat statement that she's not telling the truth. Which is just a little dishonest, don't you think?
I don't give Ms. Assam a free pass on this; I think she stretched the truth. But she's not the only one whose story needs to be taken with a grain of salt. New Life's pastor, Barry Noreen, and a bunch of stone-throwers on this thread need to be called out as well.