Quaker 2.0

Baptists have generally been more pro-military than Quakers. Perhaps don’t-ask-don’t-tell resonated with them.

It seems to belong to the same notion of religion as my co-worker who listens to hip-hop music 6 days a week but not on Saturday (her Sabbath day). Again — a notion that escapes me.

it seems to me it’s the typical attitude that people have: “out of sight, out of mind.” Perhaps more commonly expressed in regard to this hot button issue, it’s “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It accommodates opposites, it tries to allow while not condoning.

It’s what people sometimes resort to when they are caught between two forces that exert an equal and opposite pressure on them. We don’t want grief from one or from the other–we want relief from the grief. So we try to placate both with not acknowleding to the one hand what our other is doing.

Sure we will embrace homosexuals (getting them–and perhaps our own conscience–off of our backs) but we will not make if official (thereby getting those who do not embrace homosexuals–and, again, perhpas our own conscience–off of our backs).

Perhaps this is an hypocrisy born of weakness and doubt. Perhaps it’s a transitional stance. Perhaps it’s–for better or worse–an attempt to be in a place where everyone can just get along. It is, it seems to me, a strategy that will fail to relieve the pressure but that, at best, will only send it away for a little while.

Timothy - you’ve hit the nail on the head, though I think the reason for the hypocrisy comes from a very natural response - fear of being labeled a “bigot” or a “liberal” - the conservative dirty word. I believe that many people who espouse an openess to homosexuality are in fact, when faced with the realities of it, disgusted by almost everything about homosexuality. But in a world where people are labeled “Nazis” and “Homophobes” and “Pinkos” - people want so very much to not be labeled with hyperbole that they will say or do anything to seem “normal.”

In all of the national discussions about homosexuality and the church, we don’t really see space for people to deal honestly with their experiences and emotions, just appeals to “justice” or “righteousness”. There’s something very wrong about that.

I attend PFB currently and heard much about this, but wasn’t able to vote in the measure as I was not yet an official member.

As I understand the move, it was to separate based on having openly gay pastors being ordained in the church. (Or perhaps, to insure that there was no language in the church’s self-definition that allowed for that to occur).

I believe the church as “dropped the ball” in many ways with the homosexual community, but it is also a part of our relativistic(sp?) age where everything should somehow be accepted and even celebrated by everybody. That’s why being a Christian is sometimes difficult because the bible DOES have some very specific commands concerning many different things.

I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a worse sin that adultery, or drunkenness, or slander. I believe, like any other struggle, it is a part of our fallen nature.

He who is without sin, start castin’ stones…

All that to say, I have a problem with churches that take a weak stand because they are afraid of the cultural backlash that may result because they are not “being tolerant”. In some areas we DESERVE the backlash for being such bigoted idiots (as a large group nationally–TBN anyone?). On the other hand many thoughtful Christians are also swept into this backlash undeservedly.

Ahh…I feel like such a welterweight. I just thought I should add my two cents.

Steve (sg) - I think you’re right about taking a stand. Having spent a good deal of time around that old B-I-B-L-E (yes, that’s the book for me), it’s pretty clear that sin is sin is sin and that the things we do that degrade the image of God that we’re all born into and with have to be treated as wrong, period. What’s more is the Bible is painfully obvious about it’s stance on sexual immorality, which includes homosexuality.

I think the part that people have a hard time with is the idea of homosexuality being genetic AND the Bible’s condemnation of it. The classic argument starts, “How could a loving god…” and then ends with a polemic on “MY god would never…” Obviously this is arbitrary logic and doesn’t really work for developing a coherent theology. But it does hit you in the gut. Why would God torment people? Is he just testing us? Is this all a game?

I think that’s the harder question for me and is what leads me to a position of humility before God and before those seeking forgiveness for ANY sinful act in their lives.

Maybe that’s part of the whole idea of “convergence” as opposed to “emergence” - it’s a coming together of people who have been estranged for years because of pride or unwillingness to be honest.

I agree. I think it comes down to forgiveness and love. Loving one another as God loved us.

There are many broken people that need a church that accepts them as they are. If I were gay I’m sure I would feel quite uncomfortable going to any Christian church only because of what I’d have seen in the news and on TV. Not necessarily a whole lot of love.

Ultimately the only person in this whole equation that I can speak for is myself.

This topic struck me because of a comment a my neighbor’s friend made…

In a culture trying to paint homosexuality as the next link in the civil rights chain, this has certainly become a difficult issue for believers.

Yet I’m encouraged by this discussion. Balanced and loving - yet not spineless.

I think the way believers deal with this issue will be a defining moment in church history. Can we build relationships without sacrificing truth?