Do other Christian denominations accept homosexuality for their own convenience?

[jas84173]

I drive by Methodist and Congregational churches a lot and see flags with rainbows saying “God accepts every person” or “God is still talking to us” etc.
I have no issue with their beliefs, but do they do this just to go with the political tide and try to gain more members? Or did they hold this same attitude even twenty years ago? I am just curious because it seems kind of strange that a church would change it’s beliefs just to go with the tide, actually a church doing that seems to me to lack any fundamental understanding of what it believes to begin with. That is my opinion anyways.

 

[drac16]

Definitely. They’ve felt the pressure that’s being put on them [by the world] to accept homosexuality, so they caved in to that pressure. One has to decide whether it’s the world they want to please or whether it’s God they want to please. It’s one or the other. You can’t do both because the world largely hates God and his laws.

 

[MaryT777]

Definitely. They’ve felt the pressure that’s being put on them [by the world] to accept homosexuality, so they caved in to that pressure. One has to decide whether it’s the world they want to please or whether it’s God they want to please. It’s one or the other. You can’t do both because the world largely hates God and his laws.

Well said.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Sadly, I think the answer is yes.

Methodists are a Anglican spinoff. And I know from experience how much the Anglicans want your $$$. They send you this pledge form in the mail wanting to know how much you intend to give to the Church for the year. And if you don’t return it they send more forms in the mail asking, subtly, why not.

But I don’t think it’s just money; they take votes now in some of these churches to determine truth. And when the moral Christians get voted down, they have a choice to make…stay in a congregation you know is wrong or find another Church home. I hate division, but in those cases i applaud them for leaving.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I don’t think this is the motivation because they also stand to lose members who disagree. I think they see people who need a church home and want to open the door to them.

 

[Cheiron]

I drive by Methodist and Congregational churches a lot and see flags with rainbows saying “God accepts every person” or “God is still talking to us” etc.
I have no issue with their beliefs, but do they do this just to go with the political tide and try to gain more members? Or did they hold this same attitude even twenty years ago? I am just curious because it seems kind of strange that a church would change it’s beliefs just to go with the tide, actually a church doing that seems to me to lack any fundamental understanding of what it believes to begin with. That is my opinion anyways.

Because LGBT people have started coming out since the 1960’s, everyone now knows a friend, family member or co-worker who is gay or lesbian. They can also see that LGBT people are generally good people, no different from heterosexual people.

So when a preacher proclaims how sinful or disordered homosexuality is, the people in the pews notice how detached the preacher is from reality. On top of that, the man in the pulpit smears a friendly co-worker, a good friend or a nice uncle. Would you go to a place where someone insults your family and friends? I wouldn’t. And if the pews become empty, the preacher will be out of a job very quickly.

But I also think we should give people the benefit of the doubt. Some Christian denominations probably do accept gay people because they genuinely think that’s theologically sound.

 

[Padres1969]

I don’t think this is the motivation because they also stand to lose members who disagree. I think they see people who need a church home and want to open the door to them.

You beat me to it. I don’t think acceptance of homosexuality has been at all convenient for many of the churches that accept it. It certainly hasn’t been for the Anglican Churches that have accepted it. In fact it’s been anything but convenient and has led to hard feelings, bitter disagreement and in many cases schism within the Church. It would have been much more convenient to simply ignore the issue rather than to take an affirmative stand on it.

 

[Tomdstone]

You beat me to it. I don’t think acceptance of homosexuality has been at all convenient for many of the churches that accept it. It certainly hasn’t been for the Anglican Churches that have accepted it. In fact it’s been anything but convenient and has led to hard feelings, bitter disagreement and in many cases schism within the Church. It would have been much more convenient to simply ignore the issue rather than to take an affirmative stand on it.

I read that the Episcopal Church allows its bishops and clergy to be married to a person of the same sex?

 

[Padres1969]

I read that the Episcopal Church allows its bishops and clergy to be married to a person of the same sex?

That’s correct. The first bishop so situated was the now former bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson. His joining the episcopate was one of the events that precipitated the Anglican Communion’s latest conundrum with regard to the issue, which as bringing it back to the OP’s question, been anything but convenient.

 

[jas84173]

I read that the Episcopal Church allows its bishops and clergy to be married to a person of the same sex?

The Episcopal Church is just the name for the Anglican Church in the United States, correct?

 

[on_the_hill]

I don’t think it’s to drive up membership…I think it’s simply easier.

Think of how much easier Catholicism would be if only. If only the Church were pro-choice. If only the Church ordained women. If only the Church embraced gay marriage. If only the Church allowed birth control. If only if only if only. Think of how many more members we’d have then.

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s correct. The first bishop so situated was the now former bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson. His joining the episcopate was one of the events that precipitated the Anglican Communion’s latest conundrum with regard to the issue, which as bringing it back to the OP’s question, been anything but convenient.

So in the Episcopal Church, homosexual activity is not a sin? Is it considered to be something good in SS marriage? How does that correlate with the Bible where it says it is an abomination?

 

[Padres1969]

The Episcopal Church is just the name for the Anglican Church in the United States, correct?

It’s the name of the Anglican Church that is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and part of the Anglican Communion in the United States. There is no larger “Anglican Church” in the manner I believe you were referring. There are other Anglican Churches in the US as well that are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury such as the Anglican Church in North America, Anglican Catholic Church, etc… Most of the other Anglican churches not in the Anglican communion or in communion with Canterbury broke away from the Episcopal Church at some point over the last 50 years or so due to various theological or moral disagreements such as the ordination of women, homosexuality issues, etc…

 

[Padres1969]

So in the Episcopal Church, homosexual activity is not a sin? Is it considered to be something good in SS marriage? How does that correlate with the Bible where it says it is an abomination?

Nope, not a sin if engaged in the proper context, for example a SS marriage. And SS Marriage is seen as just as valid as a heterosexual marriage. And the argument about the bible would be that the bible doesn’t refer to committed homosexual relationships as abominations.

 

[cradlecatholic5]

I don’t think this is the motivation because they also stand to lose members who disagree. I think they see people who need a church home and want to open the door to them

:grouphug:

 

[GKC]

It’s the name of the Anglican Church that is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and part of the Anglican Communion in the United States. There is no larger “Anglican Church” in the manner I believe you were referring. There are other Anglican Churches in the US as well that are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury such as the Anglican Church in North America, Anglican Catholic Church, etc… Most of the other Anglican churches not in the Anglican communion or in communion with Canterbury broke away from the Episcopal Church at some point over the last 50 years or so due to various theological or moral disagreements such as the ordination of women, homosexuality issues, etc…

Yep.

 

[JonNC]

Sadly, I think the answer is yes.

Methodists are a Anglican spinoff. And I know from experience how much the Anglicans want your $$$. They send you this pledge form in the mail wanting to know how much you intend to give to the Church for the year. And if you don’t return it they send more forms in the mail asking, subtly, why not.

But I don’t think it’s just money; they take votes now in some of these churches to determine truth. And when the moral Christians get voted down, they have a choice to make…stay in a congregation you know is wrong or find another Church home. I hate division, but in those cases i applaud them for leaving.

I know about this first-hand, though not over the SS marriage issue

Jon

 

[Tomdstone]

Nope, not a sin if engaged in the proper context, for example a SS marriage. And SS Marriage is seen as just as valid as a heterosexual marriage. And the argument about the bible would be that the bible doesn’t refer to committed homosexual relationships as abominations.

Not good, IMHO.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Definitely. They’ve felt the pressure that’s being put on them [by the world] to accept homosexuality, so they caved in to that pressure. One has to decide whether it’s the world they want to please or whether it’s God they want to please. It’s one or the other. You can’t do both because the world largely hates God and his laws.

Well stated. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but The Bible has a specific verse to address just this issue:

Matthew 6: 24
“No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

(mammon being a form of money, in case you were not aware.)

@Padre
Any and every time The Bible refers to homosexual acts, it is with condemnation. Unless there is some exception (which there is not), there is no rational reason to assume that the degree of stability of the relationship has any impact on its morality.

 

[Padres1969]

Well stated. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but The Bible has a specific verse to address just this issue:

Matthew 6: 24
“No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

(mammon being a form of money, in case you were not aware.)

@Padre
Any and every time The Bible refers to homosexual acts, it is with condemnation. Unless there is some exception (which there is not), there is no rational reason to assume that the degree of stability of the relationship has any impact on its morality.

There’s some question however as to whether the bible is speaking specifically of what we consider homosexual acts today.