Is Christianity's stance on gay marriage costing churches followers?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

An interesting piece over at Salon.com poses the question: Is Christianity's anti-gay stance backfiring?

From the article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Her statements are dumb…it’s better to have a half-filled church teaching salvation, rather than a full church teaching deceit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amen.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

compare...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...with...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In both passages, is not Paul saying that for those who reject truth, God himself gives these same people over to deception so that they will believe the lie and be condemned?

And in one of those passages (2Thes ch2), he relates this deception to the Great Falling Away - a time when many Christians will reject truth and become apostates, because God himself will no longer restrain their self-imposed insanity.  

We are witnessing the Great Falling Away that was prophesied had to take place before the Second Coming.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The writer over at Salon seems to be missing the point of being a church.  Not that a church shouldn't examine its doctrines from time to time to make certain that it still holds them (after all, the Southern Baptists no longer hold that slavery is good), but a church that alters its doctrines for the reason of getting its seats filled isn't much of a church.  Just as a politician who alters his views for the sake of getting votes isn't much of a politician.

[politicus]

Short answer is yes and since there is no solid NT evidence that Jesus (not Paul) disliked gays in any way, it would be sensible to abandon the anti-gay elements in church doctrine ASAP.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Her statements are dumb…it’s better to have a half-filled church teaching salvation, rather than a full church teaching deceit

Hopefully in 50 years the church in question will be completely empty.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Short answer is yes and since there is no solid NT evidence that Jesus (not Paul) disliked gays in any way, it would be sensible to abandon the anti-gay elements in church doctrine ASAP.

there is also no evidence Jesus disliked bestiality and witchcraft...would it be sensible to abandon the anti-bestiality and anti-witchcraft elements in church doctrine ASAP?

in fact, bestiality isn't mentioned at all in the NT.

[useful idiot]

Not making a theological statement, but when examining the growth and decline of various denominations and forms of churches over the last 60 years, it's clear that abandoning some kind of Scriptural fidelity (real or perceived) almost never results in a higher number of attenders. I say real or perceived because the fastest growing churches tend to be those that claim to hold a high view of Scripture, but (in my opinion) in practice do not.

It isn't exactly a mystery as to why that's the case, either. If the people sitting in the pew think that their church is being unfaithful to the Biblical witness on sexual ethics in some regard, then its teaching in other areas becomes suspect. As much as some decry the bundling up of these issues and slippery slope arguments, that's just how the world works, like it or not; the evidence is there for everyone to see. Doctrinal shifts aren't good for church attendance, but often times practical shifts are. Divorce is a perfect example: most evangelical churches and denominations haven't shifted their doctrinal stance on the issue, but it's rarely discussed and most people won't think twice at having a thrice-divorced woman or man serving in the church (although probably not as head pastor/minister/priest).

As for the article, the person who wrote that piece is an imbecile making ridiculous generalizations. The perception of evangelicalism's response to the gay issue has been horribly overblown, and denominations and individual churches have taken vastly different approaches to it. John Q. Churchgoer cloaking his bigotry in an affiliation with Christianity doesn't reflect how evangelical scholars and church leaders have handled homosexuality, and 50 leaders don't reflect on how another 50 might be handling it. This is especially so in an era where large non-denominational megachurches have essentially become denominations unto themselves, connecting with other churches through networks rather than bureaucracies. Visit ten different churches and more often than not you're going to get ten different cultures with 5 or 6 different approaches.

As for BARNA, it's a joke organization, don't take what it says seriously. George Barna manipulates data to make it agree with whatever latest hobby horse issue he's pushing. He misses the forest for the trees in trying to pick out one particular practice or another to account for declines in church attendance. One day it might be age integration, another day it might be contemporary worship, another it could be age segregated Sunday School and traditional worship. The truth is, people don't come to church because they don't believe the truth-claims of Christianity. In a society where church doesn't function as the primary outlet for social interaction in a community, non-believers don't feel they need it. I personally don't think that's a bad thing. If people want to listen to Barna and try to bend over backwards to make sure unbelievers feel as comfortable as possible in the pews, that's their prerogative. I think it's a waste of time...

[The Mikado]

Short answer is yes and since there is no solid NT evidence that Jesus (not Paul) disliked gays in any way, it would be sensible to abandon the anti-gay elements in church doctrine ASAP.

I just don't see how that position is tenable considering Paul has regular inspiration from Jesus starting from Jesus' visitation to Paul that caused his conversion.  Discounting Paul is basically saying "Only stuff Jesus said in the flesh counts, not stuff he said after his Resurrection."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Short answer is yes and since there is no solid NT evidence that Jesus (not Paul) disliked gays in any way, it would be sensible to abandon the anti-gay elements in church doctrine ASAP.

I just don't see how that position is tenable considering Paul has regular inspiration from Jesus starting from Jesus' visitation to Paul that caused his conversion.  Discounting Paul is basically saying "Only stuff Jesus said in the flesh counts, not stuff he said after his Resurrection."

Does he? I never perceived Paul as laying claim to most of his interpretations being direct revelation, more like he was the only one who could possibly be right because he had been privileged with that conversion vision (and, importantly, commission) from Christ. I could of course be off-base on this interpretation of how revelation worked for him.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Short answer is yes and since there is no solid NT evidence that Jesus (not Paul) disliked gays in any way, it would be sensible to abandon the anti-gay elements in church doctrine ASAP.

I just don't see how that position is tenable considering Paul has regular inspiration from Jesus starting from Jesus' visitation to Paul that caused his conversion.  Discounting Paul is basically saying "Only stuff Jesus said in the flesh counts, not stuff he said after his Resurrection."

Does he? I never perceived Paul as laying claim to most of his interpretations being direct revelation, more like he was the only one who could possibly be right because he had been privileged with that conversion vision (and, importantly, commission) from Christ. I could of course be off-base on this interpretation of how revelation worked for him.

  Have you not read Paul's opening remarks in Galatians?!

Gal 1:11 "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My assumption is that 'the Gospel I preach' is referring to the general set, there, rather than anything specific to Paul, but you're right that that's certainly not as clear as I'd thought. I hadn't considered that interpretation before. Thank you.

Anyway, Mikado's right that even though there can certainly be different types or levels of reading or interpretation deployed for different things we can't just write off Paul for the crime of not actually being Jesus. Saying 'it's Paul, it doesn't count' is intellectually lazy. There are any number of much more nuanced and interesting attitudes to take to the Epistles.

[patrick1]

Not making a theological statement, but when examining the growth and decline of various denominations and forms of churches over the last 60 years, it's clear that abandoning some kind of Scriptural fidelity (real or perceived) almost never results in a higher number of attenders. I say real or perceived because the fastest growing churches tend to be those that claim to hold a high view of Scripture, but (in my opinion) in practice do not.

Agreed, the pews have continued to empty since the C of E started ordaining women after Lambeth 1978. Fracturing has occurred over homosexuality and I don't think that any doctrinal changes will cause any increases in attendance.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not making a theological statement, but when examining the growth and decline of various denominations and forms of churches over the last 60 years, it's clear that abandoning some kind of Scriptural fidelity (real or perceived) almost never results in a higher number of attenders. I say real or perceived because the fastest growing churches tend to be those that claim to hold a high view of Scripture, but (in my opinion) in practice do not.

Agreed, the pews have continued to empty since the C of E started ordaining women after Lambeth 1978. Fracturing has occurred over homosexuality and I don't think that any doctrinal changes will cause any increases in attendance.

Before that too. There were changes in the culture and positioning of mainline churches in the 1950s or thereabouts that made them start to be less attractive options for people who want a certain type of surety to their church polity.

[patrick1]

Not making a theological statement, but when examining the growth and decline of various denominations and forms of churches over the last 60 years, it's clear that abandoning some kind of Scriptural fidelity (real or perceived) almost never results in a higher number of attenders. I say real or perceived because the fastest growing churches tend to be those that claim to hold a high view of Scripture, but (in my opinion) in practice do not.

Agreed, the pews have continued to empty since the C of E started ordaining women after Lambeth 1978. Fracturing has occurred over homosexuality and I don't think that any doctrinal changes will cause any increases in attendance.

Before that too. There were changes in the culture and positioning of mainline churches in the 1950s or thereabouts that made them start to be less attractive options for people who want a certain type of surety to their church polity.

Yep, you can go back to the Oxford movement when future Cardinals Newman, Manning and many others bounced.

I think there kinda is a finite # of consistent church goers. You will alienate some and lure others from a different church but I don't really think you are going to start luring people away from video games, the mall or football because of a doctrinal change.

Personally I very rarely go to church and I disagree with the  RCC's stance on several issues. Now say the Magisterium decides Humanae Vitae is in error all of a sudden, Im still not going to peel myself off the couch.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't entirely agree with that bit since I'm quite familiar with churches that attract people that are not stereotypical church goers (I mean I sure as hell am not), and I know a lot were raised Catholic...but I doubt any of them would still be Catholic even if the church reversed on birth control and wasn't so aggressively anti-gay marriage. Which kind of proves the point.

[memphis]

There are pros and cons to anything. Yes, Christianity is losing out on liberal people. However, it is strengthening its position amongst those who get off on feeling superior to others. They are a key constituency of any religion and would otherwise not participate. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

[All Along The Watchtower]

There are pros and cons to anything. Yes, Christianity is losing out on liberal people. However, it is strengthening its position amongst those who get off on feeling superior to others. They are a key constituency of any religion and would otherwise not participate. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

You can say the same thing about the Republican Party.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

The writer over at Salon seems to be missing the point of being a church.  Not that a church shouldn't examine its doctrines from time to time to make certain that it still holds them (after all, the Southern Baptists no longer hold that slavery is good), but a church that alters its doctrines for the reason of getting its seats filled isn't much of a church.  Just as a politician who alters his views for the sake of getting votes isn't much of a politician.

Uh...I think politicians who change their views to gain voters are as "politician" as they get. Otherwise I completely agree.


Anyway, those individuals who leave the church because it isn't gay-friendly aren't really Christian in the first place, if they allow their morality to dictate their religion rather than the other way around.

In addition, I'd say that the gay marriage question really doesn't matter at all (in terms of church attendance). Let's say Christians do "fix" their gay marriage position. People will continue to leave the church.

Those who would leave the church over the latter's anti-homosexuality would end up leaving anyway. Those who do oppose gay marriage would probably start leaving as well. Finally, capitulating would lead to a worse view (of the church) everywhere, without regard to the gay marriage question. In any serious religion, the congregation is influenced by the church. No true church would allow itself to be influenced by its members. You cannot say (or, rather, no church can say) "[sinful act] is no longer sinful because X, Y and Z don't think so".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Finally, I have to agree with useful idiot.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Uh...I think politicians who change their views to gain voters are as "politician" as they get. Otherwise I completely agree.

So that's why Romney had such an easy time getting the nomination?

I'll admit that doing so does fit the stereotype of "politician". but they generally don't succeed in the long run.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, those individuals who leave the church because it isn't gay-friendly aren't really Christian in the first place, if they allow their morality to dictate their religion rather than the other way around.

But that's partially the issue. The relationship between 'religion' and 'morality' should not be a dictatorship, in either direction. If there's a perceived disconnect between these two things then something's gone wrong with one or the other or both (often, I think, both).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...what?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyway, those individuals who leave the church because it isn't gay-friendly aren't really Christian in the first place, if they allow their morality to dictate their religion rather than the other way around.

And what of the other way around, people raised in a more liberal denomination to a less gay friendly more conservative denomination? I know there are people that seem to disapprove of any type of religious conversion at all (I've got the impression that my lifelong Lutheran grandmother doesn't think highly of ex-Catholics, even those turned Lutheran, and seemed to disapprove when I mentioned one of my church's pastors is from a Buddhist family. On the other hand she wanted to attend my baptism and was rather disappointed she couldn't because she couldn't get a ride and isn't comfortable driving in that area, so it's kind of idiosyncratic. For the record I find it a pretty inexplicable position.) but I doubt officepark is consistent here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...what?

officepark is Catholic.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...what?

officepark is Catholic.

Are Popes and bishops and consistories suddenly not 'members' of the Catholic Church. They're a different, exalted class of members, but they're still members, unless officepark has an excessively literal definition of 'Vicar of Christ'.

Another reason to love Anglicanism. All the pageantry and hieratic states that having bishops brings, with the added benefit that they're allowed to be and be treated as human.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...what?

officepark is Catholic.

Are Popes and bishops and consistories suddenly not 'members' of the Catholic Church. They're a different, exalted class of members, but they're still members, unless officepark has an excessively literal definition of 'Vicar of Christ'.

Another reason to love Anglicanism. All the pageantry and hieratic states that having bishops brings, with the added benefit that they're allowed to be and be treated as human.

Like that's a good thing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...what?

officepark is Catholic.

Are Popes and bishops and consistories suddenly not 'members' of the Catholic Church. They're a different, exalted class of members, but they're still members, unless officepark has an excessively literal definition of 'Vicar of Christ'.

Another reason to love Anglicanism. All the pageantry and hieratic states that having bishops brings, with the added benefit that they're allowed to be and be treated as human.

Like that's a good thing.

In the context of religion, it is.