"Liberal Christian" is an oxymoron!

[Storm]

Oh, I can sympathize. Remember, for most of my adult life I belonged to a church that doesn't even ordain straight women, much less gay people, and the conflict between my convictions and my religion was very troubling. It took me a long time to decide that I was actually going to have to follow my convictions.

I'm just saying, I think they deserve credit for doing both. You seem to disagree, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Smoke]

I'm just saying, I think they deserve credit for doing both. You seem to disagree, correct me if I'm wrong.

It may be that they're following their convictions, but if so, those convictions don't seem to include full equality for gay people. They welcome gay people, but what they're welcoming them to is a second-class membership, while they themselves continue to enjoy the first-class membership. Again, I understand that they have good intentions, and I sympathize with them, but I really can't agree that an insulting invitation is better than no invitation at all.

 

[Storm]

I just don't think that's strategic, Smoke.

 

[Smoke]

I just don't think that's strategic, Smoke.

Maybe not. What strategy are we talking about? What end is served by asking gay people to accept second-class memberships in a voluntary association? If the idea is to gradually wear down the denominational leadership over a period of decades or generations, can you reasonably expect gay people to be enthusiastic about that? As a gay person, wouldn't it make much more sense to go somewhere you're really welcome, like the UUA?

I realize, of course, that there are gay people who desperately want to be Methodists or Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses, and are willing to put up with far worse than second-class membership. But I think they need to locate their self-respect.

 

[Storm]

Maybe not. What strategy are we talking about? What end is served by asking gay people to accept second-class memberships in a voluntary association?

Whoa, back up there! I'm not asking anyone to do any such thing.

If the idea is to gradually wear down the denominational leadership over a period of decades or generations, can you reasonably expect gay people to be enthusiastic about that?

Again, I just think that those who do so deserve our respect. That's quite different from placing an expectation on people.

As a gay person, wouldn't it make much more sense to go somewhere you're really welcome, like the UUA?

If we turn our backs on systemic bias, how can we change it? I think people should follow their own paths. Mine is UU, but that's not a political decision.

I realize, of course, that there are gay people who desperately want to be Methodists or Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses, and are willing to put up with far worse than second-class membership. But I think they need to locate their self-respect.

I think you do them a disservice. They've taken on a vital battle in the fight for equlity.

There are surely some who meekly accept the discrimination, but I see no reason to paint them all with that brush.

 

[keithnurse]

Where did you get that? I have been to many Church services with many different preachers and I would say virtually none of them said such a thing.

I have. An example would be Roman Catholic bishops telling politicians who are Catholic that they should not receive communion if they are pro choice on abortion. My cousin left the RC church after the priest said Catholics who vote for a "pro choice" candidate should not receive the sacraments.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

To give an extreme example: If you personally believe in full equality for black people, but you belong to the Klan because your whole family belongs to the Klan, or because you like the sense of being part of a movement, or because you enjoy the fellowship or the barbecue, are you still responsible for supporting the racist goals of the Klan? I think you are.

I don't consider that to be an extreme example.

Well, it is extreme in that probably no one attends Klan functions for the barbecue ...

... but your example is a pretty good analogy.

 

[keithnurse]

I would say that Christianity can be called very liberal in some senses- We are taught to "clothe the naked and feed the hungry": translate- Social programs to help single parents- according to my husband (who is very conservative), those social programs are liberal.

We are taught to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, not to wait for government to do it. So this teaching fits in with either liberal or conservative. Ezekiel 16:49 says: "This was the sin of your sister Sodom: that she lived in prosperous ease and did not take care of the poor". Could this mean that people who are idifferent to the poor are Sodomites?

 

[sojourner]

Funk and Spong attempt to do away with the rich tradition of Christianity and see truth as limited to the first century life of Jesus. Contemporary Christianity doesn't exist in a vacuum, it carries with it all 2000 years of Christian history, theology, ritual, life, etc.

Allan

They see fact as limited to what we know about the historical Jesus.
Xy has never existed in a vaccuum -- least of all in ancient Xy. If Xy has been "Immortalized" and put in a museum, then surely contemporary Xy is more to blame.

What peole like Funk and Spong aspire to do is (I think) two-fold: First of all, they strive to debunk the myths about Jesus and the religion that have festered into "fact." Secondly, they strive to make a 2000 year-old, ancient religion relevent to 21st-century, post-modern realities. For example, for the first time, we live in a world that we can destroy. How does that (or should that) shape the model that we use for God? For example, I (and others) submit that an imperial model is no longer useful if the empire is capable of the eradication of life. The "rich tradition of Xy has given us the entitlement to do what we want with the earth, with those we don't like, etc. That's a dangerous thing and bears a slap in the face with a cold fish, as these gentlemen have attempted to give us.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, we can't change that to suit the day and age.

No it doesn't. We can change, we have changed, and we must continue to change to suit the day and the age. Otherwise, it's all meaningless. That's what Jesus did that got him killed.

 

[sojourner]

The reason Christian churches find it so easy to be flexible about straight relationships and so inflexible about gay relationships has nothing to do with obedience to the scriptures, and everything to do with the ingrained homophobia of Christianity and Christians.

It's nothing more than an invocation of outmoded purity laws.

 

[sojourner]

But almost every Christian church would at least want to witness to homosexuals so they could have the gospel.

Most of the homosexuals I know "have the gospel," live the gospel, believe the gospel, and embody the gospel. What in the world are you talking about? Where is the embrace of the teaching to make "us" out of "them," as Matthew teaches? Where is the embrace of "blessed are the merciful?"

This is what is the oxymoron to Xy -- not liberalism.

 

[sojourner]

Would you say that those moderate Christians who sympathize with gay people yet still financially and philosophically support churches that do actively seek to withhold the rights of gays and rank them something less than a full citizen in our society are a part of the problem?

Do those moderates get a off the hook when the blame for marginalizing people for their sexuality gets passed around?

If so...why?

I think a lot of them do. But there are also a lot of us who are "with you," but not "of you," who do speak out loudly within their churches for reform.:yes:

 

[Father Heathen]

The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, we can't change that to suit the day and age. But I don't think there would be any church that wouldn't let someone attend because of homosexuality. The doors are open for those ready to walk through.

The Bible also says that working on the sabbath, rotating crops, eating pork and shrimp, speaking to menstruating women, and wearing mixed fabrics are sins, and the bible also condones slavery, but we changed all of those to suit the day and age, now didn't we?

 

[idea]

The Bible also says that working on the sabbath, rotating crops, eating pork and shrimp, speaking to menstruating women, and wearing mixed fabrics are sins, and the bible also condones slavery, but we changed all of those to suit the day and age, now didn't we?

Please, old law vs. new law. The old law is fullfilled.

 

[sojourner]

Please, old law vs. new law. The old law is fullfilled.

Which should apply to homosexuality, as well as wearing blended fabrics.

 

[idea]

Which should apply to homosexuality, as well as wearing blended fabrics.

is the blended fabs thing in the NT?

This is in the NT:
Men burned in their lust one toward another, Rom. 1:27. Abusers of themselves with mankind will not inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6:9–10. The law is not made for a righteous man, but for them that defile themselves with mankind, 1 Tim. 1:9–10
(Guide to the Scriptures | H Homosexuality.:Entry)

 

[keithnurse]

is the blended fabs thing in the NT?

This is in the NT:
Men burned in their lust one toward another, Rom. 1:27. Abusers of themselves with mankind will not inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 6:9–10. The law is not made for a righteous man, but for them that defile themselves with mankind, 1 Tim. 1:9–10
(Guide to the Scriptures | HHomosexuality.:Entry)

No, the blended fabrics thing is not in the NT.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Please, old law vs. new law. The old law is fullfilled.

... and conveniently so.

Lest we have to adhere to the actual writings in your sacred text.

 

[idea]

Lest we have to adhere to the actual writings in your sacred text.

No one has to adhere to anything. We all have free agency, we choose what we do/do not do. We cannot however choose the consequences for our actions.