Most Mainline Protestants Say Society Should Accept Homosexuality

[intheflow]

Just goes to prove, not all religious people want to control other people's sex lives.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=245

Members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, two mainline Protestant denominations, are considering whether to allow the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians as members of their clergy. The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life, finds that majorities of both denominations say that homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society. Among mainline Protestants overall, 56% say homosexuality should be accepted, compared with only about one-in-four evangelical Protestants and four-in-ten members of historically black Protestant churches.

[CatholicEdHead]

1. I agree

And give Mainline Catholicism another generation to catch up with this.

[Critters2]

3. I think most ordinary Catholics feel the same way.

It's the hierarchy that's the problem.

[intheflow]

5. Absolutely true!

I'd say it's as much a problem in the mainline protestant churches as the Catholic church. Same as this study: the members are just fine with homosexuality, but the people in power have to be dragged into the 21st Century.

[VaYallaDawg]

10. Totally agree!

I think you'd find even most RC priests agree (although you'd never get one to say so "on the record."

[Critters2]

2. I wish the Presbyterians and Methodists would stop giving

in to their hateful minorities on this. So, they threaten to leave...show 'em the door!

[intheflow]

6. I totally agree.

Instead, those denominations are losing good clergy instead of bigoted members. I attended a Methodist seminary with a large GLBT student population. When the Methodists voted down ordaining openly gay and lesbian clergy, a huge swath of them moved to either the United Church of Christ or progressive wing of the Espiscopalian church.

[Critters2]

8. I have a friend, actually a pastor who grew up in the church I'm serving,

who chairs his Association's Church and Ministry Committee. He says the biggest issue they're dealing with these days is convincing Methodists who want to become UCC that the UCC is really a Reformed church, that it takes more than being gay and pissed off at the UMC to qualify for ministry in the UCC. It's not quite as difficult with Presbys who want to become UCC, because they're a part of the Reformed tradition, sort of speak the language. But he truly wishes the UMC would start ordaining gays, so he could spend less time explaining to Methodist seminarians the theological differences between the UCC and the UMC. And there are some.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. The main difference is one of governance, isn't it?

The UMC is episcopal in nature, with a system of bishops; UCCs can be either presbyterian or congregationalist in governance. Are there any significant theological differences?

And sorry to highjack the thread. :hi:

[Critters2]

15. Yeah, there are significant theological differences.

The Reformed tradition, of the which the UCC is a part, believes that salvation is a free gift of God. We can't save ourselves in any way, shape or form. The most extreme form of this, and one not widely (if at all) found in the UCC, is Calvin's double predestination, which posits that God, for reasons only God knows, sends some to heaven and some to hell--that God is capricious. Most UCCs look more to the work of two other Reformers, Ursinus and Olevianus, who taught a "positive election", which isn't concerned with the idea of hell, but believes Christians should assume that their Christian faith is a sign of election, and should spend their lives in gratitude for the gift of grace. Most UCCs today are universalists, that is, believe all are saved (and we argue at great length as to what it means to be saved), but still that salvation is a free gift of God. So, for us, the sacraments are not means of grace, because nothing but God's love is a means of grace, but signs of grace. And good works are done as expressions of gratitude for grace, not in order to gain grace or affect salvation. Thus, we don't believe in "back sliding", as Methodists do. We in the Reformed faith also don't believe humans can become perfect, but we also don't believe God expects us to, nor punishes us for being imperfect. These traditions are really quite freeing. I don't have to "get anything right" in order to be saved.

Methodists, on the other hand, are Wesleyans. Wesley railed against the Reformed doctrine of election, and believed that human beings played a role in their salvation. Most notably, Wesley believed that a person can lose salvation, can fall out of grace, by actions of that person--or more accurately, by a lack of belief. Things which strengthen a person's faith, such as the sacraments, are means of grace, rather than signs of grace. But a person can lose faith, and thereby lose grace.

An example of how this plays out happened recently with me. A UMC pastor is currently president of our ministerial association. She took to beginning meetings by asking the question "What is the state of your soul?". She said this is common practice among Methodists. I'd been bothered by this for a couple of meetings, and finally said that the state of my soul does not change. Whether I'm living a life of gratitude, that comes and goes, but I rest assured that my soul is always in a state of grace. She was actually shocked by this, and later called me to have me clarify. She couldn't believe I think my salvation can't be lost, that I can't fall out of a state of grace.

I do a lot of thinking about what salvation is. I mean, if the Hebrews used words that translate as "salvation" before they believed in life after death, what were they getting saved from, saved to? I have some theories about this as well. But, whatever salvation is, I just know I've received it by the grace of God. My knowing it, my faith, is a sign of it.

This is a fundamental difference between the Reformed and Wesleyan traditions. The governance thing, that matters, too. Also, Methodism seems more closely tied to the culture than the UCC. As a Methodist colleague once said to me in Iowa, "Methodism really is the established order of Protestant America. The rest of you should just accept this." It was a moment of surprising candor, but I think there's something to it.

Of course, it's hard for me to be objective. I'm a cradle UCC.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Thanks!

:toast:

[bullwinkle428]

24. Thanks for this excellent explanation - I was raised in a home

where we practiced Reform Judaism, so I'm sadly ignorant when it comes to the philosophical differences amongst various Protestant faiths.

[bullwinkle428]

23. The Methodist minister at my girlfriend's church had to make a statement

to "reassure" the bigots in the congregation, that the church would not be allowing same-sex weddings to be performed in the church following the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

Apparently, he received a number of frantic e-mails wondering if the church would be legally forced to engage in such a deplorable practice... :sarcasm:

[RDANGELO]

4. An example of how the country has moved to the left culturally. nt

[Critters2]

16. Exactly. The Republican Party and Evangelical Churches

are both out of touch with where the culture is headed.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Only Dominionist bigots do not

[NMMNG]

9. I don't give a damn if they "accept" us

I just want them to stop demonizing us and eradicating our rights. They don't need to accept us to do that.

[Deep13]

12. True enough, but acceptance is politically useful.

I know what you mean and agree. Your rights should not depend on the whim of the majority. Unfortunately, in a practical sense they do. FWIW, gay marriage is recognized on the few square yards of land my wife and I own even if the rest of Ohio is living in the bronze age.

[NMMNG]

18. Human/civil rights are useful

Acceptance is another story. There are countless things that are legal, and for which people have a legal right, that we don't have to accept. The false claim that "if we make gay marriage legal that means everybody has to accept homosexuality" is one of the biggest lies. Religion is legal, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it (and I outright detest many religions and religious tenets). We have the right to accept or not accept whatever we want. We don't have the right to outlaw willy nilly things simply because we don't accept them.

[Deep13]

11. This former Episcopalian agrees.

I liked my church. I only left because I discovered that I did not believe in god.

[nichomachus]

13. "Most mainline Protestants?" Both of them? n/t

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Creideiki]

20. I'm curious

What does activating the dragonspawn in Upper Blackrock spire have to do with Jesus and homosexuality?

[bluedawg12]

21. The US population is split 50/50 on this?

Data from Pew Forum U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007, released in 2008.
Question wording: Now I'm going to read you a few pairs of statements. For each pair, tell me
whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own views, even
if neither is exactly right. 1 - Homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society,
OR 2 - Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=245

[bullwinkle428]

22. EDIT - re-posted in the proper place!