Embury Methodist Church
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
Before I got otherwise engaged with holiday happenin's, I wanted to point out an interesting study begun over on Michael's blog on the topic of gays and Christianity.
As those of you who've been visiting here long at all probably know, I and my church (where Michael also attends) disagree with the notion that homosexuality is wrong. That is, we are fully supportive of gay marriage and healthy gay relationships, just as we are of healthy straight relationships and that we don't think the Bible disagrees.
It's not that we have gay friends and therefore we're wanting to set aside "what the Bible plainly says," but rather that we disagree with the notion that the Bible plainly says anything about loving gay relationships. We're not embracing sin, we're disagreeing with the church tradition that says homosexuality in and of itself is a sin.
While I've talked about it before here and made my case, Michael is infinitely more the biblical scholar than I am and will surely be able to defend our position better.
Be sure to check it out if you are so inclined.
15 comments:
Whaaaat?? Dan, how can you and Michael take such a stance??! This is going too far.
What about those traditional marriage vows? They come directly out of the Bible, I can't recall the chapter and verse off the top of my head, but that's a direct quote from the Bible.
Well, all I can say is that with the likes of you and your church out there, it's a good thing so many states are adopting the gay marriage ban amendments to their constitutions. Well, not really a ban against gays, not directly, that would be unChristianly hostile. Rather it is a definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman ... just like it was through the whole Bible .... a union between one man and one woman for life.
I'm sure your more conservative readers will join me in saying that the Biblical model for marriage is one man and one woman for life. All other arrangements are equally an abomination to God.
And of course those readers of yours who earn their living preaching the word would not compromise God's stand on marriage by teaching that people of the same sex can marry ... and likewise they would not teach that you can ever be married in the eyes of God except to the first person with whom you joined, even if that was a teenage indiscretion. Even if doing so cleared out the pews and left them with no one to support them financially. Because the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman ......... for life.
Now not being one to ever belabor a point (heh, heh) none the less let emphasize here that the for life aspect of marriage isn't a little niceness added on the end, it's a deal breaker right up there on par with homosexual marriages. It's either God's way or it's not. No shuffling of the feet and saying that divorce then remarrying is not the best, not a very good idea. No sir. It's exactly the same thing as a homosexual relationship. If you are living with anyone other than the first person with whom you joined, you are an adulterer.
Do I get an Amen on that?
I'll let my church's statement speak for itself:
http://www.mayflowerucc.org/who/covenant.html
Well yes, Brother E, amen and amen, it's a blessing to my heart to finally find a man who's willing to stand on the Holy Writ right down to the last jot and tittle.
And of course, for those of us who don't want to be deacons or bishops or whathaveyou, there's always the polygyny option. One man and several women. For Life. Stamp, stamp, no erasies. Biblical as all get out.
Merry Christmas Dan!
Madcap:"And of course, for those of us who don't want to be deacons or bishops"
Did I happen to mention that I am not a deacon nor bishop?
Did I happen to mention that I am not a deacon nor bishop?
No, and of course I naturally assumed you were, so I'm glad you came clean.
Merry Christmas to you too! Why don't you pull a Padre Pio and come join us for a drink? Bring the harem!
Joyeux Noel Dan!
In the words of Arte Johnson (former comedian on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In): "Verrrry interesting ideas...
And a Merry Christmas to you all, too.
Eleutheros, are marriages for life to hateful, destructive, violent, degrading, dangerous, abusive, sadistic partners also an abomination before God? Or is it your Christian duty to be bound to such a hellish contract?
Naturally, this is not a hypothetical question so allow me a bit of context. Someone close to me stayed in such a marriage through the births of a dozen children - even after her husband sexually assaulted her eldest daughter - because a priest told her she was going to Hell if she left the man whom she vowed before God to marry for life. Never mind his atrocious, unchristian, sinful behavior. The duty fell to her, the beasten spouse who was unable to protect her family by divorce.
Forgive me if I find this, and not a loving, long-term relationship between consenting adults of whatever gender, to be the true abomination.
You probably know this, Tim, and were just throwing the question out there, but Eleutheros was speaking a bit tongue in cheekishly. Or at least, I'd suppose he was.
Tim, you are going to lose me a dinner! I've got a bet going that no one would fail to see the obvious spoof.
But here's my take on your question and it is one that Dan will allow to be expressed here but will not in any wise approve of.
We used to have what was called "families". They are a rare thing now of days. But in the dim and distant past families had a bond and obligation to each other for life. In those times if a woman was being abused by a man (or vice versa), the woman's kin would approach him privily and warn him that his life was in the balance. If sexual abuse of one's own daughter were proven, the man's life would be forfeit.
The woman would then be free to remarry because she would be a widow.
No I'm not kidding or spoofing this time.
But we don't have families any more do we? We are scattered like dust and so many of my contemporaries impatiently watch the calendar for the split second their children turn eighteen and they can shuffle them off somewhere.
My point is that the Bible is thumped with righteous indignation at how homosexuality is undermining the family. Oh, really? I happen to know a good number of homosexuals and if anything they are more monogamous then the heterosexuals I know. I don't know (personally) of one case where one partner has beaten the other or abused the other's children. Alas, I can't say that of the heterosexuals I know.
What undermines families is divorce. The attitude that if things don't work out, what the heck! The idea that when your friends and family and his friends and family warn you that he is a selfish inconsiderate bastard, you can ignore all the danger signals because, after all, there's always the option of divorce.
So my call is for those who seek God's model for family and marriage to FIRST take care of the lazy attitude toward divorce before they begin to shake with indignation at homosexuality, or any other type of arrangement that they don't approve of.
Half of the church's or community's obligation toward that woman was to remind her of her lifetime vows. The other half would have been to take the miscreant husband aside and put the fear of God into him even if that was only the threat of involving the civil authorities.
Having half a community is worse than none at all.
Guess what? I heard that the first legally married gay couple had got a divorce. Also, I know of a couple that although not legally, had marriage ceremony and then split. Christian heterosexual couples are the only ones getting divorces, just the ones that get the criticism.
Gotcha. Late at night and not reading clearly. Glad the tongue was in cheek. I should, perhaps, take a page from one of my guilty pleasures, P.J. O'Rourke, who quips; "Earnestness is just stupidity sent to college."
Pax vobiscum, then.
And I hope you take whoever won your bet to a family restaurant.
:-)
Greemman:"Pax vobiscum, then."
Et tibi pax.
Eace-pay, y'all.
Post a Comment