Okay, Renob, open another thread in which you explain the Bible passages which “clearly condemn homosexuality,” how this justifies a Christian violating the primary commands of Jesus to condemn homosexuals, in what way honoring Jesus’s commands is “not taking the Bible seriously,” and why a church which has historically attempted to avoid schism should schism over this issue.
Miller, I don’t see it as bigotry; I see it as unwillingness to take seriously one’s obligations under Christ’s commands, taking refuge in someone else’s interpretations of Scripture to evade thinking through what Jesus says to do and honoring His commands no matter what it costs.
My broader faith has come from the relationship I have developed with God. My leap of faith is in a God I cannot see or touch except through the people in my life. I believe the bible but I also regocnize that it is a book with many authors, audiences, versions, translations and interpretations. Lots of people can read the words but not all can see the meaning. I’ve been told that I’m going to hell if I don’t believe the world was created in 144 hours six thousand years ago because of what the bible says. My faith tells me I will not be closer to God by believing that. Every week I see gay and lesbian couples take communion as my wife and I do. After our wedding some of our friends told us they wished they could celebrate their own union as we had done. I don’t believe I could be following Christ’s commandments if I took part in denying them that.
What now of the growing unification ideas of ELCA and ECUSA? If they were to make a joint resolution on gay and lesbian clergy, would that tip the scales towards such?
As for the elephant in the middle of the room, I would hope that those who do oppose gay marriage have examined the issue carefully, weighed Jesus’ commandments to love, and have ascertained that their position is based on love and not bigotry. (Whether that is possible, of course, is yet another debate…)
I’ve found that a disturbing number of Christians interpret “Love one another” only in the context of where the soul is going after death. In that interpretation, “love” means forcing homosexuals to remain celibate because otherwise they’re going to Hell.
In much the same way that it’s easier to worship Christ than to emulate him (which is something early Christians figured out quick and capitalized on), it’s easier to love someone’s soul (and therefore be more concerned about their afterlife than their present life) than to love the person him or herself (and therefore have to enter the messy world we actually live in with its imperfections and gray areas and actual human beings acting like human beings rather than clinging to the promised world we’re supposed to live in after death).
I’m not convinced that that’s an either/or situation (love one’s soul or love the person) rather than a both/and situation (love the soul and the person).
(knocking Padeye upside the head) I meant in the 16th century, silly boy! I grew up outside either tradition and don’t know enough about the Reformation beyond what the nuns told me (“It was real bad!”) to understand why the Lutherans and the Anglicans didn’t hook up from the first against their common enemies, the Calvinists.
