How do loving churches overcome bronze age admonitions against gays?

[Measure_for_Measure]

How do loving churches overcome bronze age admonitions against gays?

This is primarily a sociological question: we’ve discussed the theology of appropriate Christian treatment of homosexuals since the earliest days of this message board.

I’ll briefly recap the theology here. Love the sinner but hate the sin. The gospels don’t mention homosexuality, though they are pretty clear on the subject of being a sanctimonious prick. That’s a red letter topic. Saint Paul attacked the views of neighboring tribes with ad hominem mention of their homosexuality. Modern theologians note that they aren’t too thrilled with some of the exploitative sexual practices of the day either, and think that Paul was conflating cultural practice and sexual preference as a shorthand. The claim isn’t that Paul wasn’t a bigot: rather it was that he didn’t think too hard about the issue. He wasn’t obsessed with it. At any rate for loving Christians, Holy Scripture isn’t too difficult: Love God and His creation and love thy neighbor as thyself.

At the same time a lot of the Old Testament material, written over 200 years before Socrates, clearly condemns homosexuality. It is characterized as an abomination. Similar passages also prohibit multi-colored fabric, which you would think is a pretty easy rule to follow. But never mind. Now I’m not a fancy theologian, but it seems to me that God is about love, as opposed to fan wank or rules lawyering. Furthermore, I say that the Bible isn’t mostly about wild sex. But others disagree. And most congregations will have a mixture of temperaments and even beliefs.

So -sociologically- how do actual churches overcome bronze age admonitions against homosexuality thereby welcoming gay couples or even performing gay marriages? Give examples, not necessarily named ones.

As the OP, I think discussions of theology are permissible in this thread, but recognize that they are hijacks. I am really inquiring about internal church politics c. 2015, which of course will vary. How do steps towards treating gays with decency play out in practice? How do the elders respond when they get snippets of anti-gay scripture thrown at them without historical context or even at times multi-paragraph study?

A few past threads:

2015 discussion: A doper agrees to disagree with a conservative Christian:

The Bible, homosexuality, and my friend Keith

2013: How do I respond to this Facebook bigot?

Response to Anti Gay Marriage via Bible argument?

2012: Are all religions anti-homosexuality?
A: No.

Are all religions anti-homosexuality.

2009:

Homosexuality: Is It a Sin

2004, which digs into a little of the Greek:

Christianity and homosexuality - please explain

From a 1996-2011 essay at Religioustolerance.org: “How mainline &, liberal/progressive Christians develop their homosexual teachings and beliefs, from the Bible, church tradition, scientific studies, and personal experience”. It is not completely up to date.
BTV168 Slot : Main Slot Gacor Anti Rungkat Pake Bocoran Pola

[Stoneburg]

The Swedish church has actually been amazingly progressive on this issue and nowadays allows openly gay people to be priests. I remember when that was proposed and the headline in the news was “1/3 of priests do not want homosexual priests”, as if that was a negative thing. My own reaction was “Wtf… 2/3’s of priests want to allow homosexual priests?!”. I thought that was pretty amazingly progressive.

The key is that the Swedish church is not fundamentalist. It does not claim that every word in the bible is the literal truth, and it focuses on the message of love proclaimed by Jesus, rather than the old testaments rules and laws. Quite sympathetic really. And that’s the key. Don’t be fundamentalist. It’s easy.

In fact you could even go so far as to say that in some aspects, the church here has been ahead of the government. Officially homosexuality was considered a disease in Sweden up until 1979, but the church at the same time had a much better attitude. Once civil unions between same sex couples were legalized in 1995 the church had already prepared “ceremonies of blessing” for them, so the minute it became legal, you could also go to church and have something very akin to a formal wedding performed.

[astorian]

Better question: why would anyone feel a need to join a church that tells people to go ahead and do whatever the hell they want? People can do whatever the hell they want all by themselves, without tithes or Sunday meetings.

[Stoneburg]

@astorian

Better question: why would anyone feel a need to join a church that tells people to go ahead and do whatever the hell they want? People can do whatever the hell they want all by themselves, without tithes or Sunday meetings.

Actually I think that is LaVeyan Satanism, so that religion already exists.

[Chopsticks]

As it was explained to me by a Reform Jew, their (really really simplified) position, is that the Bible & Jewish law are wrong, or wrongly interpreted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Judaism#Reform_Judaism

[Wallaby]

@astorian

Better question: why would anyone feel a need to join a church that tells people to go ahead and do whatever the hell they want? People can do whatever the hell they want all by themselves, without tithes or Sunday meetings.

Exactly right. And if a religion doesn’t want you, why the #$&* do you care whether or not they change their laws to allow you in?

Go and invent a religion that says ‘Gays are the chosen ones’. Then demand to rule the world, influence domestic politics and control the school curriculum Hell, it makes as much sense as the current lot - in any country.

[bldysabba]

@Stoneburg

The Swedish church has actually been amazingly progressive on this issue and nowadays allows openly gay people to be priests. I remember when that was proposed and the headline in the news was “1/3 of priests do not want homosexual priests”, as if that was a negative thing. My own reaction was “Wtf… 2/3’s of priests want to allow homosexual priests?!”. I thought that was pretty amazingly progressive.

The key is that the Swedish church is not fundamentalist. It does not claim that every word in the bible is the literal truth, and it focuses on the message of love proclaimed by Jesus, rather than the old testaments rules and laws. Quite sympathetic really. And that’s the key. Don’t be fundamentalist. It’s easy.

In fact you could even go so far as to say that in some aspects, the church here has been ahead of the government. Officially homosexuality was considered a disease in Sweden up until 1979, but the church at the same time had a much better attitude. Once civil unions between same sex couples were legalized in 1995 the church had already prepared “ceremonies of blessing” for them, so the minute it became legal, you could also go to church and have something very akin to a formal wedding performed.

The less power it has, the more accommodating religion tries to be. From Wiki -

In a Eurobarometer Poll in 2010, just 18% of Swedish citizens responded that “they believe there is a god”, although a further 45% answered that “they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force”.[5] In a 2009 Gallup poll, 17% answered yes to the question “Is religion an important part of your daily life?”.[6] Less than 4% of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2% are regular attendees.[7]

[BigT]

I don’t see how you can answer the questions you ask without discussing the theology of those you are asking about. You are discussing how they deal with theological disputes. The solution to people throwing anti-gay scripture at you is to make a theological argument that it doesn’t actually mean that.

Specifically, I’ve seen many Episcopalian arguments that boil down to “Jesus didn’t preach it, and only Jesus is infallible.” Others say stuff about a loving God, or make arguments about how the modern understanding of homosexuality didn’t exist, so it therefore cannot be what these scriptures are talking about.

Then there’s the latest movement to say that the Greek words traditionally translated to mean homosexuality are not remotely the best words to convey that concept, and that there’s no real record of anyone else using them to mean that. So the translation may be wrong. Then you appeal to the other stuff to say that it makes no sense to adhere to the traditional interpretation.

Then, of course, they make a big deal of accepting openly gay people, making them priest or granting them membership and let those who disagree split off.

[dropzone]

The ELCA (#7 on the is Hit Parade of US religious bodies) is of the opinion that that was then, this is now, loving God, etc. Our congregation is larger and younger than it was before the new, more open, inviting, and affirming rules went into effect. I don’t know of anybody who quit because of it; I could find out who did if I cared more. Mostly they just die.

FTR: Nearly all of Judeo-Christian-Muslim history is solidly in the Iron Age or later.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Chopsticks

As it was explained to me by a Reform Jew, their (really really simplified) position, is that the Bible & Jewish law are wrong, or wrongly interpreted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Judaism#Reform_Judaism

I went to a bar mitzvah in a Reform synagogue. The young man read a passage from Torah in Hebrew. Then he read it in English–and then he interpreted it. The rules laid down so long ago no longer apply–but there are modern lessons to learn. The text had footnotes from various rabbis of the past, explaining the ancient text.

Many Christian denominations do not take every word in the Bible literally. Roman Catholics, of course. And many Protestant churches also point out that the Bible (the Old Testament especially) is a combination of history, legend, symbolism, poetry & moral lessons. No, God did not literally create everything in 6 days–and then rest. In the New Testament, might the Gospels (containing the words of Jesus) count more than the letters from creepy Paul? (Jesus said *nothing *about homosexuality.) And who thought adding that kooky last book was a good idea?

Biblical Inerrancy, at the basis of Fundamentalist belief, teaches that every word in the Bible is literally true. Even the Fundamentalists usually ignore bits they find inconvenient & embrace the parts that feed their prejudices…

[kanicbird]

In short I don’t believe they can stand on both premises at the same time. There will be some logic gap in how they justify both simultaneously. That gap is something they just accepted because they were told it is true by a authority figure and never went into questioning it.

@astorian

Better question: why would anyone feel a need to join a church that tells people to go ahead and do whatever the hell they want? People can do whatever the hell they want all by themselves, without tithes or Sunday meetings.

People sometimes feel the need to know that God is OK with them doing what they want.

[Stoneburg]

@bldysabba

The less power it has, the more accommodating religion tries to be. From Wiki -

Your hypothesis is easily falsified. At the time when the Swedish church started expressing progressive views about homosexuals (1950’s) it had a monopoly on religion in Sweden and every swedish citizen was born with a membership to it. Not all religious people are bigots, and in the case of the Swedish church they have a history of being both progressive and morally in the right. Even while I was a member on the atheist/humanist secular society I had to admit that they were pretty damn good on the issues, even though I thought they were wrong about the whole God thing.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@BigT

I don’t see how you can answer the questions you ask without discussing the theology of those you are asking about. You are discussing how they deal with theological disputes. The solution to people throwing anti-gay scripture at you is to make a theological argument that it doesn’t actually mean that.

Specifically, I’ve seen many Episcopalian arguments that boil down to “Jesus didn’t preach it, and only Jesus is infallible.” Others say stuff about a loving God, or make arguments about how the modern understanding of homosexuality didn’t exist, so it therefore cannot be what these scriptures are talking about.

There is a bright line distinction between these two questions:

a) What is the best interpretation of Christianity? That’s a theological question.

b) And here’s the sociological one. How do churches that embrace decency towards gays handle objections from a portion of their followers? Yes, this touches on theology. But theology isn’t the central question, because I’m asking about empirical religious practice, not doctrine. Contrast Stoneburg’s topical comments to astorian’s nontopical ones. The latter is easily refuted, but that discussion doesn’t really address the OP.

I have a better handle on Judaism I think. The Talmud -commentary on the Torah- has covered bookshelves as I understand it. So the concept of interpretation goes back centuries.[sup]1[/sup] Both Reform and Conservative Judaism have become more gay friendly and this isn’t surprising. Nor is it a theological crisis in any way - religious commentary is so wrapped up in Judaism that honestly these folks are working entirely in their tradition. Generally speaking, static biblical literalism is far more modern and, well, fake. But that doesn’t tell us about the specifics of how religious practice evolves, church by church, congregation by congregation, pew by pew. It is 2015 and we’ve passed the inflection point. So this is a good time for historical review. Before and after memories are fairly fresh.
[sup]1[/sup]Oops, I meant millennia.

[Malthus]

@Measure_for_Measure

There is a bright line distinction between these two questions:

a) What is the best interpretation of Christianity? That’s a theological question.

b) And here’s the sociological one. How do churches that embrace decency towards gays handle objections from a portion of their followers? Yes, this touches on theology. But theology isn’t the central question, because I’m asking about empirical religious practice, not doctrine. Contrast Stoneburg’s topical comments to astorian’s nontopical ones. The latter is easily refuted, but that discussion doesn’t really address the OP.

I have a better handle on Judaism I think. The Talmud -commentary on the Torah- has covered bookshelves as I understand it. So the concept of interpretation goes back centuries.[sup]1[/sup] Both Reform and Conservative Judaism have become more gay friendly and this isn’t surprising. Nor is it a theological crisis in any way - religious commentary is so wrapped up in Judaism that honestly these folks are working entirely in their tradition. Generally speaking, static biblical literalism is far more modern and, well, fake. But that doesn’t tell us about the specifics of how religious practice evolves, church by church, congregation by congregation, pew by pew. It is 2015 and we’ve passed the inflection point. So this is a good time for historical review. Before and after memories are fairly fresh.
[sup]1[/sup]Oops, I meant millennia.

Another factor is the degree to which the religion is centralized.

The issue of acceptance of homosexuality is, as I understand it, hugely contentious in Anglicanism because the attempt to craft a consensus position threatens to tear the Church in two, between liberal and conservative Bishops.

In Judaism, it isn’t as significant a concern, because even within Jewish denominations centralization is weak - so one congregation (or set thereof) can hold a considerably different position from others without too much trouble: those who hold more conservative views simply switch to a more conservative congregation.

In any event, Reform Judaism was ‘officially’ ahead of the curve, agitating for decriminalization and normalization of homosexuality and legalization of gay marriage somewhat ahead of mainstream secular society.

[ISiddiqui]

@Measure_for_Measure

b) And here’s the sociological one. How do churches that embrace decency towards gays handle objections from a portion of their followers? Yes, this touches on theology. But theology isn’t the central question, because I’m asking about empirical religious practice, not doctrine. Contrast Stoneburg’s topical comments to astorian’s nontopical ones. The latter is easily refuted, but that discussion doesn’t really address the OP.

Generally speaking, the ELCA, which is an affirming denomination, handles objections by indicating that Lutherans have never read the Bible in a fundamentalist manner, and then goes beyond and says that the God of the Bible is a God of love and that sometimes the writers had their own viewpoints or biases or era-specific contexts that got swept into Scripture, but that isn’t the essential idea and that we’ve evolved in our interpretation of Scripture. So those that object to that idea of reading the Bible are told that’s our tradition and we are sorry, but that’s what the ELCA, as a denomination, has decided in terms of our interpretation of homosexuality.

[Gedd]

@Measure_for_Measure

b) And here’s the sociological one. How do churches that embrace decency towards gays handle objections from a portion of their followers? Yes, this touches on theology. But theology isn’t the central question, because I’m asking about empirical religious practice, not doctrine. Contrast Stoneburg’s topical comments to astorian’s nontopical ones. The latter is easily refuted, but that discussion doesn’t really address the OP.

(Snipped)

I can address this from the Methodist POV. The United Methodist Church in the 2012 Book of Resolution reaffirmed that “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” (in their opinion) and takes the “love the sinner, hate the sin” position. They accept homosexuals as member but ministers can’t perform homosexual marriages and homosexuals can’t be ministers.

However, the Church also believes: “Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.” So the Church doesn’t support acts of violence against homosexuals or anything, and there have been attempts to change the previous mentioned ban. They aren’t kicked from heaven or anything either :rolleyes:

The biggest hurdle (as I understand it) is that only about 60% of the UMC’s members are in the US. Membership has increased more in Africa and Asia where the attitude towards homosexuality isn’t as progressive.

Sorry to wander of topic.

[PatriotGrrrl]

@astorian

Better question: why would anyone feel a need to join a church that tells people to go ahead and do whatever the hell they want? People can do whatever the hell they want all by themselves, without tithes or Sunday meetings.

That’s so sad, that your only perception of religion is as something that tells you what not to do.

[astorian]

@PatriotGrrrl

That’s so sad, that your only perception of religion is as something that tells you what not to do.

Nonsense. If “do as you please” is a church’s operating philosophy, that church is unnecessary. People can do as they please without a church.

If a church never makes unpleasant demands of its followers, again, it’s unnecessary.

If the core teachings of a religion are true, it makes no difference that they’re ancient. And if they’re not true, what difference should their age make?

The same Jesus told us to love each other AND that marriage is insoluble. You can dismiss Jesus as an old fossil but you can’t argue that we can safely pick and choose which of the son of God’s commandments to follow.

[Miller]

@astorian

Nonsense. If “do as you please” is a church’s operating philosophy, that church is unnecessary. People can do as they please without a church.

So, the only thing you get out of religion is a list of prohibitions? There’s literally no other benefit in it for you?

[Trinopus]

@astorian

. . . The same Jesus told us to love each other AND that marriage is insoluble. You can dismiss Jesus as an old fossil but you can’t argue that we can safely pick and choose which of the son of God’s commandments to follow.

Well, sure we can. We do. Lots of Christians get divorces. It’s that easy.