Christianity and Homosexuality

[Young Conservative]

Temptation and thoughts are certainly not an inherent sin, but the consensus remains among most church bodies that being openly homosexual and engaging in the actions is a sin and by refusing to repent you repeatedly deny God. The catholic and evangelical churches continue to support traditional beliefs, while mainline protestant churches support it. Interestingly enough, evangelical churches are growing and mainline churches are shrinking. 
Two Questions:
1. Can you be a "gay" christian?
2. Are mainline churches' progressive stances turning away members?

[NeverAgain]

1. I think that to be a true Christian you must be inclusive of all people and suit to the times. I don't think that shrimp-eaters should be banned from Christianity because the bible states that eating seafood is a sin. I am not a Christian so I cannot speak for myself, but this is really my main beef with religion of taking text so seriously that you cannot adapt to the times.

2. I don't seem to see that evangelical churches are growing, more stagnating. I think the reason that mainline church popularity is decreasing is that the mainliners are just leaving or not caring due to the radical extremes within Christianity, and so the more "moderates" are getting sick an leaving. I think that if all churches were to ban or condemn being gay or other social issues they may just push more and more people away and just continue to lose popularity

[TJ in Oregon]

1. I think that to be a true Christian you must be inclusive of all people and suit to the times. I don't think that shrimp-eaters should be banned from Christianity because the bible states that eating seafood is a sin. I am not a Christian so I cannot speak for myself, but this is really my main beef with religion of taking text so seriously that you cannot adapt to the times.

Ah, the ol' shrimp/shellfish/clothing from mixed fibers argument. Despite getting used shockingly often, the New Testament actually says what aspects of the Mosaic Law should be followed universally and which are simply practices meant for Jews, or at least clear enough to say without hesitation that it's okay for Christians to eat shrimp and that "unlawful marriage" (according to Acts and the Council of Jerusalem) should not be practiced by Christians.

[afleitch]

Same sex attraction isn't a 'thought' or 'temptation'. As for the Christian 'position' on such matters you'd be hard pressed to find any denomination give it much thought as a seperation 'vice' until the 1950s. The Catholic Church didn't formulate a full position on the matter until 1986.

[°Leprechaun]

I am not a Christian, not in the traditional sense. Jesus didn't have much to say on the subject.
Homosexuality is not mentioned in the core of the Judeo-tradition, the Ten Commandments.
The ethics of Christianity is Matthew 25:31-46.
Sin is, of course, bad. The less one sins the better and the more likely that person is to be a good person.
Christianity is mostly about the message of the four gospels.
The Bible was never meant to be taken literally obviously.
Can you find one passage in the Bible that says that it should all be taken literally?

[°Leprechaun]

If you believe the Bible is the innerant Word of God and must be obeyed (although I am not saying that I necessarily do, that is not the point), SSM is God's law.

Clearly Romans 13:1-2 teaches that a Christian must obey the rule of law.
SSM is the law of the land and therefore God's law.
Why do literalists feel free to cherry pick?

[°Leprechaun]

One final thought for now. The liberal Christian view is that God is still speaking. This is in line with true Christianity, with common sense, with logic, with all that is good. If you limit God's word to a finite collection of books which logically is what the Bible is, God isn't very smart.
John 21:25 clearly demonstrates that the infinite truth can't be limited to just the Bible.
Therefore, if you believe in the Christian version of God, then God is still speaking.

[Young Conservative]

1. I think that to be a true Christian you must be inclusive of all people and suit to the times. I don't think that shrimp-eaters should be banned from Christianity because the bible states that eating seafood is a sin. I am not a Christian so I cannot speak for myself, but this is really my main beef with religion of taking text so seriously that you cannot adapt to the times.

2. I don't seem to see that evangelical churches are growing, more stagnating. I think the reason that mainline church popularity is decreasing is that the mainliners are just leaving or not caring due to the radical extremes within Christianity, and so the more "moderates" are getting sick an leaving. I think that if all churches were to ban or condemn being gay or other social issues they may just push more and more people away and just continue to lose popularity

Please understand though that God cleans all foods in acts. Also, evangelical protestant sects of methodist and presbyterian church's grew while the mainline declined (PCUSA, UMC)

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I have heard of Christians who take a very convoluted position by believing the church should be open to gay members as part of the community, and that while nothing is wrong with homosexuality, civil marriage is allowed but church marriage is strictly for opposite sex couples.

Cognitive dissonance probaby plays a role in positions like these, where on one hand they sincerely believe in equality but are also strong believers in church teachings.

Anywho, to answer your questions:

1. I'd say yes. The Bible (and most religious texts, for that matter) is very unclear about homosexuality in itself. You can use it to argue against same-sex marriages in the church, but it's much harder to do so with homosexuality itself.

2. I would echo NeverAgain's post above for this. Religious attendance is dropping across the board, but evangelical churches seems to doing a better job of holding on to some members and attracting some disaffected non-evangelicals, usually the most hardcore members anyways.

[Young Conservative]

I have heard of Christians who take a very convoluted position by believing the church should be open to gay members as part of the community, and that while nothing is wrong with homosexuality, civil marriage is allowed but church marriage is strictly for opposite sex couples.

Cognitive dissonance probaby plays a role in positions like these, where on one hand they sincerely believe in equality but are also strong believers in church teachings.

Anywho, to answer your questions:

1. I'd say yes. The Bible (and most religious texts, for that matter) is very unclear about homosexuality in itself. You can use it to argue against same-sex marriages in the church, but it's much harder to do so with homosexuality itself.

2. I would echo NeverAgain's post above for this. Religious attendance is dropping across the board, but evangelical churches seems to doing a better job of holding on to some members and attracting some disaffected non-evangelicals, usually the most hardcore members anyways.

It is fairly clear on the issue in the old testament though.. and remember that globally evangelical churches grow rapidly  (due to their evangelical nature lol)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd argue that the reason for the relatively greater decline of the mainline churches compared to the fundamentalist churches isn't the specific doctrinal positions taken, but the means by which they've taken them. The mainline protestant churches have generally taken an approach to scripture that at a minimum involves textual criticism and at the extreme involves a considerable analysis of the validity of various passages.  That's well within the enlightenment tradition, but it places a premium upon individual opinion and hence individual thought.  That individuality leads towards a lesser emphasis placed upon being strongly committed to a church.

(My own multiple church going has more to do with other reasons, yet if I did feel more strongly I might well limit myself to just the one.)

[Young Conservative]

I'd argue that the reason for the relatively greater decline of the mainline churches compared to the fundamentalist churches isn't the specific doctrinal positions taken, but the means by which they've taken them. The mainline protestant churches have generally taken an approach to scripture that at a minimum involves textual criticism and at the extreme involves a considerable analysis of the validity of various passages.  That's well within the enlightenment tradition, but it places a premium upon individual opinion and hence individual thought.  That individuality leads towards a lesser emphasis placed upon being strongly committed to a church.

(My own multiple church going has more to do with other reasons, yet if I did feel more strongly I might well limit myself to just the one.)

As someone who was raised in a liberal Protestant tradition but now attends a much more fundamentalist church, I can affirm this.  I've heard "I'm not sure" or "This is what I think this passage" means many times growing up.  At the church I now attend, I hear a lot more statements like, "This is what God said about the subject," "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or "This is God's word, period....I don't care what your opinion is about the subject, if it's against the word of God, it's wrong."  I don't relish in uncertainty; I'd rather have a strong, certain faith than one that is lukewarm and unsure.

THIS>>>>>>

[afleitch]

I'd argue that the reason for the relatively greater decline of the mainline churches compared to the fundamentalist churches isn't the specific doctrinal positions taken, but the means by which they've taken them. The mainline protestant churches have generally taken an approach to scripture that at a minimum involves textual criticism and at the extreme involves a considerable analysis of the validity of various passages.  That's well within the enlightenment tradition, but it places a premium upon individual opinion and hence individual thought.  That individuality leads towards a lesser emphasis placed upon being strongly committed to a church.

(My own multiple church going has more to do with other reasons, yet if I did feel more strongly I might well limit myself to just the one.)

As someone who was raised in a liberal Protestant tradition but now attends a much more fundamentalist church, I can affirm this.  I've heard "I'm not sure" or "This is what I think this passage is saying" means many times growing up.  At the church I now attend, I hear a lot more statements like, "This is what God said about the subject," "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," or "This is God's word, period....I don't care what your opinion is about the subject, if it's against the word of God, it's wrong."  I don't relish in uncertainty; I'd rather have a strong, certain faith than one that is lukewarm and unsure.

So your new position on this subject is now..?

[DC Al Fine]

Please understand though that God cleans all foods in acts. Also, evangelical protestant sects of methodist and presbyterian church's grew while the mainline declined (PCUSA, UMC)

That's true, but it had very little to do with homosexuality. I'm most familiar with Presbyterianism. As the PCUSA changed it's attitudes towards homosexuality, there has been a trickle of congregations into more conservative Presbyterian churches, perhaps two to three hundred, but far more left in the 1970's and 80's over failure to enforce the Westminster Confession, and the ordination of pastors who denied the resurrection. A lot of the growth in Evangelicalism, is better described as a realignment. Mainline Protestantism used to have a substantial conservative wing which more or less departed for Evangelicalism in the past 40 years or so.

I'd argue that the reason for the relatively greater decline of the mainline churches compared to the fundamentalist churches isn't the specific doctrinal positions taken, but the means by which they've taken them. The mainline protestant churches have generally taken an approach to scripture that at a minimum involves textual criticism and at the extreme involves a considerable analysis of the validity of various passages.  That's well within the enlightenment tradition, but it places a premium upon individual opinion and hence individual thought.  That individuality leads towards a lesser emphasis placed upon being strongly committed to a church.

Ross Douthat posted an argument that relates to this about Catholicism. Douthat suggested, that liberal Catholics, have opened up far more problematic issues in their reform debates. For example, he cited a liberal theologian who said while arguing for the RCC to allow divorce and remarriage (paraphrasing), "Jesus was caught up in the apocalypticism of the day and expected the world to end soon. Of course its easy stay married if the world's going to end next year. If Jesus had known better, he would have allowed for divorce"

In arguing for divorce and remarriage, this liberal fellow suggested that Jesus wasn't the son of God. Of course if that's true, the church's position on divorce is a non-issue compared to the problems Jesus' non-divinity would raise, namely "Why are we doing all this religion stuff if it isn't true?"

With this in mind, I think you are being to charitable to the Mainlines. What you call individuality, I would call apostasy. That is, the Mainlines weren't just say, examining how Genesis should be interpreted in the light of modern science. Rather, they were throwing out the foundation of the faith.

This in turn was a major factor in the decline of the Mainlines as,
a) Conservatives left for other churches
b) They left little impetus for liberals and centrists to go to church. One can get warmed over humanism in other places and sleep in on Sunday morning.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ross Douthat posted an argument that relates to this about Catholicism. Douthat suggested, that liberal Catholics, have opened up far more problematic issues in their reform debates. For example, he cited a liberal theologian who said while arguing for the RCC to allow divorce and remarriage (paraphrasing), "Jesus was caught up in the apocalypticism of the day and expected the world to end soon. Of course its easy stay married if the world's going to end next year. If Jesus had known better, he would have allowed for divorce"

In arguing for divorce and remarriage, this liberal fellow suggested that Jesus wasn't the son of God. Of course if that's true, the church's position on divorce is a non-issue compared to the problems Jesus' non-divinity would raise, namely "Why are we doing all this religion stuff if it isn't true?"

Suggesting Jesus was not omniscient during the time of his ministry is not the same as suggesting he wasn't the son of God. Indeed, beyond the textual evidence in the Bible that at times he was not, there's also the fact that if he were omniscient, it renders the whole crucifixion and resurrection into a farce rather than a triumph. That's one of the reasons I'm an Adoptionist when in comes to my understanding of Christ's incarnation. That said, there are far better Bible-based arguments in favor of showing leniency to the remarried than speculation as to what Jesus knew.

[DC Al Fine]

Ross Douthat posted an argument that relates to this about Catholicism. Douthat suggested, that liberal Catholics, have opened up far more problematic issues in their reform debates. For example, he cited a liberal theologian who said while arguing for the RCC to allow divorce and remarriage (paraphrasing), "Jesus was caught up in the apocalypticism of the day and expected the world to end soon. Of course its easy stay married if the world's going to end next year. If Jesus had known better, he would have allowed for divorce"

In arguing for divorce and remarriage, this liberal fellow suggested that Jesus wasn't the son of God. Of course if that's true, the church's position on divorce is a non-issue compared to the problems Jesus' non-divinity would raise, namely "Why are we doing all this religion stuff if it isn't true?"

Suggesting Jesus was not omniscient during the time of his ministry is not the same as suggesting he wasn't the son of God. Indeed, beyond the textual evidence in the Bible that at times he was not, there's also the fact that if he were omniscient, it renders the whole crucifixion and resurrection into a farce rather than a triumph. That's one of the reasons I'm an Adoptionist when in comes to my understanding of Christ's incarnation. That said, there are far better Bible-based arguments in favor of showing leniency to the remarried than speculation as to what Jesus knew.

I don't want to derail the thread on the question of omniscience. but I realise that I left Douthat's argument incomplete. He also pointed out that if Jesus got divorce wrong based on his non-omniscience/limits of his human nature, it raises the question of what else he may have gotten wrong.

Getting back to my larger point, it doesn't really matter what the specific merits of that particular argument are. What's more important is that the general line of argumentation leads to larger questions about the Christian faith that make gay marriage or women's ordination small beer.

[DC Al Fine]

The Bible was never meant to be taken literally obviously.
Can you find one passage in the Bible that says that it should all be taken literally?

That's not really addressing the debate. Even the most hardcore fundamentalist thinks that some bit of the Bible is non-literal (e.g. Jesus probably wasn't talking about actual events in some of his parables). The relevant question is what passages are literal and which ones are not.

If you believe the Bible is the innerant Word of God and must be obeyed (although I am not saying that I necessarily do, that is not the point), SSM is God's law.

Clearly Romans 13:1-2 teaches that a Christian must obey the rule of law.
SSM is the law of the land and therefore God's law.
Why do literalists feel free to cherry pick?

That's an... unusual interpretation of Romans 13 to put it charitably. You seem to be proof-texting a short two verses, when it is more relevant to read the entire Pauline argument. Paul also says in the same text that this why we have to pay taxes, and also commands us to do good. This raises the question of what do we do when the civil law and "good" come into conflict.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are all held up to us as positive examples in part because of their civil disobedience. Furthermore the church from it's earliest days has affirmed examples of disobedience. The early Christians were not supposed to offer incense to pagan deities or eat meat sacrificed to idols for example, despite cases of the civil magistrate compelling it.

But even taking our argument at face value. Where on earth does the law say Christian marriages are to perform gay marriages? Or what happens with different laws and locations? Is the Roman Catholic Church to affirm gay marriage in the West and put homosexuals to death in Uganda?

One final thought for now. The liberal Christian view is that God is still speaking. This is in line with true Christianity, with common sense, with logic, with all that is good. If you limit God's word to a finite collection of books which logically is what the Bible is, God isn't very smart.
John 21:25 clearly demonstrates that the infinite truth can't be limited to just the Bible.
Therefore, if you believe in the Christian version of God, then God is still speaking.

The bolded doesn't logically follow. Human beings are finite and have finite reasoning. Why wouldn't we receive a finite message? Furthermore I don't really get why people are so confident in this sort of argument. Its ridiculous for human beings to argue that an infinite being has to act a particular way. Unless you think you have some sort of message from God whether through scripture or infallible tradition or a vision direct from God, such speculation is ridiculous.

Secondly, even if God is still speaking today, how are we to know what constitutes divine revelation. "Common sense, logic, all that is good" change with the times. In 1925 you could reasonably argue that eugenics is God ordained according to your criteria. Personally, when God's "continuing revelation" happens to line up exactly with the speaker's contemporary secular liberalism, I raise my eyebrows.

[Figueira]

The fact that "Is homosexuality a sin?" is still a topic of serious discussion by serious people is incredibly sad.

[afleitch]

Personally, when God's "continuing revelation" happens to line up exactly with the speaker's contemporary secular liberalism, I raise my eyebrows.

What about when it lines up with a speakers contemporary social conservatism. Are eyebrows raised then? Surely it should be as often taking a position of theological conservatism is reactionary.

[DC Al Fine]

Personally, when God's "continuing revelation" happens to line up exactly with the speaker's contemporary secular liberalism, I raise my eyebrows.

What about when it lines up with a speakers contemporary social conservatism. Are eyebrows raised then? Surely it should be as often taking a position of theological conservatism is reactionary.

Sure, but I deal prog Christians way more often than I do Mormons or certain kinds of Pentecostal, and even then their "revelation" usually has more to do with bigger issues like the Trinity.

[afleitch]

The fact that "Is homosexuality a sin?" is still a topic of serious discussion by serious people is incredibly sad.

Of course. It's essentially asking 'is shared love and intimacy a sin'? Being obsessed with the physical object (two men or two women) and not the strength or worth of 'spiritual' or emotional bond. Which is heartbreakingly sad and one of modern Christianity's biggest failures.

[Figueira]

Anyway, to answer the questions in the OP, (1) yes, you can be a gay Christian (I'm not a Christian, but I'm pretty sure heterosexuality is not considered a prerequisite to being one), and (2) you're making the assumption that people are leaving the liberal churches because they're liberal. I think this is a very bad assumption to make. I could be wrong, but I suspect most people are leaving liberal churches because they're either dying, or leaving religion altogether.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Please understand though that God cleans all foods in acts. Also, evangelical protestant sects of methodist and presbyterian church's grew while the mainline declined (PCUSA, UMC)

Of course, my church the SDAs, would insist that Peter's vision was referring to Gentiles rather than to clean vs. unclean food.  My question then, is why would he use that specific symbolism to make the point to Peter?

Nonetheless, I would contend that Jesus cleaned all food in Mark 7:19.  The manuscripts that were used for the KJV didn't include this, but earlier manuscripts have been found that mention that "Jesus made all foods clean."  Of course, the SDA church pioneers based almost their entire doctrine on the KJV (even when it badly translated verses), which is why conservative SDAs like Doug Batchelor are adamantly opposed to any translations except the KJV or NKJV.  And because they know that this verse undermines the entire "don't eat pork or shellfish" belief that the conservative Adventists believe, they omit that section entirely from the Clear Word.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The textual issue in Mark 7:19 literally rests on a single letter which determines the gender of a participle, thereby determining whether it is Jesus or the stomach that is doing the cleaning/purging. At the very least, if Jesus were meant, it clearly is the case that his apostles didn't grasp that he meant that it was alright to eat whatever thou wilt. More importantly, the subject of Mark 7 is not kashrut but ritual hand washing, so I can't see using the verse to prooftext such a limited point.

In any case, regardless of how important the SDA diet may be for one's spiritual health, there is no disputing that it very helpful in promoting physical health.

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

I think it's important to note that until relatively recently it was both theologically and socially acceptable for a denomination or an individual theologian to make distinctions between:

1. Attraction to someone of the same sex
2. 'Spiritual friendship' or 'Boston marriage' or whatever with someone of the same sex (which was historically often used as a cover for 5., obviously, but not always)
3. 'Redefining marriage'
4. Coming up with some sort of non-marital covenantal or quasi-sacramental arrangement to avoid potential theological problems with 3. (John Milbank is or used to be a proponent of this)
5. Actually beginning the beguine with someone of the same sex.

In their haste to express their distaste for 3. and 5., conservative Protestant churches and to an extent the Catholic Church made themselves look ridiculous on 1., 2., and 4. when they really didn't have to.

The reason why evangelical churches are growing and other churches are shrinking is less because of this or any other particular issue and more because evangelicalism is, as I think afleitch once said, the grey goo of religions.