I don’t want to be obtuse, but the interpretation of the Bible that declares homosexuality to be a sin is the sticking point which made the MCC schism necessary. Therefore, by that church’s interpretation, you can have sex on Saturday, and church on Sunday, and just hope the pews are comfortable.
It’s not as if that sort of cognitive dissonance isn’t built into other branches of Christianity; there are Christians out there that can reconcile the death penalty with “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.
I don’t believe that either of the definitions of antinomian apply to the doctrine of MCC; they are neither denying all external laws, or denying that the Old Testament still holds sway over Christians. Instead, they are denying that specific interpretations of Biblical passages condemn homosexuality. I don’t see what impact that has on their legitimacy as a denomination.
The diffeence is that in the OT the death penalty is prescribed for various offenses, whereas homosexuality in not condoned anywhere in the Bible. “Thou Shalt not Kill” is a prohibition of murder, not the death penalty.
Remember, Gobear, it’s only really been in the past 10-15 years in this country that society has started to say that homosexuality is ok/gay people should have rights. It wasn’t really a mainstream position until recently, and even now, that statement is a controversial one in American society. While Christian churches are sometimes ahead of the curve when it comes to social trends, they aren’t usually. The churches are reflecting public opinion more than leading it. Remember, though, in the 1830s, most churches said that the bible clearly says slavery is right. In the 1930s, most churches said that the bible clearly says segregation is right.
The problem, of course, is that the bible doesn’t really say anything. It just sits there, a collection of old, sometimes contradictory, texts people consider divinely inspired, and everyone who reads it interprets it a different way. To some, the bible seems to support the current social order, to others, it’s revolutionary. To some, the bible sets up a set of laws that need to be obeyed, to some, it’s about the elevation of humanity over laws. Everyone comes into their study of the bible with their own biases and their own experiences, and those experiences and biases influence what they understand the bible to mean.
I don’t neccesarily agree with everything Troy Perry, or Mel White, or Bruce Bawer have to say about the bible, but I don’t think their stances are any more self serving than Jerry Falwell’s, or Pat Robertson’s. All five of these people took the bible, filtered the text through their own experiences, their own biases, and came up with their answers to “This is what it means to be Christian”, and that’s no different than what Calvin did, or Luther, or Aquinas, or Augustine.
Well, probably not - just like I can’t engage in wife-swapping Saturday night, and take communion on Sunday, without a similar internal monkeywrenching.
gobear, you seem to be saying that the MCC is not just about reconciling homosexuality with Christianity, but about reconciling hedonistic homosexuality with Christianity. And if that’s what you’re saying, I agree with you.
But if you’re saying that Christians aren’t being true to their faith if they accept practicing gays as practicing Christians as well, here’s my response:
As others have pointed out, there is much in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that Christians no longer consider binding, so it shouldn’t surprise you if an increasing number of Christians find that to be true of the Levitical pronouncements about homosexual acts, despite their plain meaning.
The same is true of some NT strictures, as you probably are aware: the Pauline passages saying women in church should be seen and not heard comes to mind; I also believe there’s a NT verse somewhere prohibiting Christians from charging interest when loaning money. (Can anyone help me find this one, btw?) In the NT, Jesus Himself forbids divorce except when adultery is involved; that one’s pretty much bit the dust in the Protestant world, while the Catholics do a contorted end-run around it by liberal use of annulment. And even the fundies disregard Paul’s admonition against taking fellow Christians to court frequently enough to make the papers from time to time: earlier this year, various fundies involved with the Left Behind movie were suing one another.
Why should homosexuality have some special status? If one can be a divorced and remarried Christian - a condition that troubles few Christians these days - why can’t one be a practicing gay person and a Christian?
Jesus distilled the whole business down to two commandments: love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself. When I’m faced with that second great commandment, some other Biblical law, and a real-life situation, something’s frequently got to give; the only question is what. An answer that requires the sacrifice of ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ doesn’t work for me; whatever the other stricture is, in the end it’s what has to give, if time has shown no honest alternative.
So how is it then that MCC, who, IMHO, seem to wish to more accurately follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (as opposed to the Bible), aren’t consider either Christian nor a church?
I just wanted to compliment you on this brilliant, succinct summation of all the arguments I have ever tried to make against the Christian lack of acceptance of homosexuals. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it stated better.
There are times on this board where I read something, and recognize it as real wisdom. This is definitely one of those times. Thanks, RTFirefly.
First, I’d just like to bind myself in every respect to what RTFirefly had to say. I wish my blatherings across this board could have pictured the Truth as concisely as he did.
Second, gobear, your post of 2:52 yesterday (12/4) chagrins me. Not that you said anything wrong in it, but the entire tenor of it tells me that I have not been vocal enough; my parish (which agrees with me) has not been vocal enough; my fellow Christian posters (like RT, Lib., andygirl, Jodi) have not been vocal enough. And that I have failed in the task particularly laid on me, to be an agent of reconcialiation between Christianity and the gay community, because the hatemongers who call themselves Christian are drowning out my voice, and that of my church and my fellow men who believe in a God of love and a Christ who accepts all who turn to him, not selling a particular cultural orientation in a poke to them, but unconditionally.
I would humbly request your consent to cut-and-paste your post, less the initial paragraph-and-a-half complimenting me (undeservedly), onto the Pizza Parlor, along with a link to the story that incited this. Because I want the people over there to see what a decent respectable middle-aged gay person understands Christianity to be, and how they have failed him – you. Partly to try to redeem my given work, failed as it is, partly because I still care about you and my gay brothers and sisters, and partly because I care about them – and I at least have read the parable of the sheep and goats. “Inasmuch as you failed to do it unto one of the least of these…”
I agree with RT – whatever men have evolved as a moral law must conform to what Jesus Christ said was the key, or it’s nothing but a way to manipulate your fellow man. Sadly, Christianity as a whole seems bound and determined to strain gnats and swallow camels (as Jesus said of the Pharisees), with the occasional glowing exceptions. May I recommend to anyone who is trying to reconcile these issues two books: Stranger at the Gates, by the Rev. Mel White, and Living in Sin?, by the Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong. The first is the autobiography of a gay minister; the second, the examination of what our society says about sex as held up to the white light of Jesus’s teachings on love, by an Episcopal bishop.
Excellent post, RT. It has given me much to think about. Polycarp, of course, you may c&p my post to the Pizza Parlor if you like. Just one thing bothers me…
Middle-aged? I mean, yeah, I just turned 40, but I’ve got no gray hair, I lift weights like a madman, and I’m in great shape, I watch MTV, I read Maxim. I’m not old yet!
[sub]Middle-aged? Just sign me up for a rocker and slam my ass into a nursing home while you’re at it. Hey, you kids, get off my lawn. Damn whippersnappers…grumble…grumble[/sub]
I know plenty of christians who are happy to party Saturday night, then go to church Sunday, and they don’t suffer from a sprain of the conscience. I also know self-professed christians (is there any other way to ID them?) who live a hedonistic life and don’t go to church at all.
Now I certainly don’t agree with that philosophy, but then I’m not a christian either, so I don’t have that particular problem to worry about.
Seems to me if churches are willing to accept members that want to have uninhibited straight sex and the acceptance of God, I find it a hypocritical that they would exclude gays just because they’re gays.
If churches are willing to accept members that are, say, Mafia, then they really have little ground for excluding homosexuals. But that’s just my opinion.
Thanks, 'bear. On the “middle age” thing, me too. If-n-when I get up to Washington, I’ll buy you a beer (wine, Coke, cocktail, Sprite, milkshake, or whatever substituted as desired) and we can listen to Garth Brooks: “I’m much too young to feel this damn old!”
I opened a thread about an Oregon gay group passing out fake currency in Salvation Army buckets, and found this comment.
That’s what Christianity says to me. Sorry, RT and Poly, but you guys are a tiny minority in the Body of Christ. The quote above is the voice of Jesus I hear.
