Sometime back before I started this blog I may have mentioned a site devoted to Religious Tolerance. I had a reason to visit the site again (list it as a resource for the Center) so it is time to mention it again. They compare the big religions (and a few small ones too) and take a look at what these religions say about hot topics -- like gays. In our case it also talks about what gays and the culture in general also say. It is well researched and bends over backwards to be even-handed (though in a few places that means it is a bit bland -- but doesn't stop Fundies from blasting them). I've only read/scanned the sections on homosexuality. Some things it discusses:
In a section that contrasts conservatives wanting to ban gay rights and liberals supporting such rights, here is a quote from John S. Spong from a Beliefnet weekly mailing.
"I think that we have in recent years entered a 'New Dark Age' in the Western world. It is marked by the rise of religious systems that seek to build security by encouraging prejudice against a designated victim. Both evangelical fundamentalism and the kind of ultra-conservative Roman Catholicism that is at present installed in the Vatican are publicly defined by their visceral and uninformed hostility toward homosexual persons. What the heretic was in the Middle Ages, the black in the days of slavery and segregation, and the Jew in Nazi Germany, the homosexual has become in the religious hysteria of our day. This kind of behavior is always a response to fear and to a rapidly changing world. Security-providing religion, which always requires a victim, is like a drug that carries us over the rough places of life. It is certainly not the wave of the Christian future....Beyond that I think we ought to recognize that truth and unity cannot ever be built on identifying a victim that creates the illusion of unity because there is a common enemy. When these institutions say that God hates the same things that the worshiper hates, everyone should be very suspicious."
In a page about whether religion should trump gay rights, the site's author, B.A. Robinson wrote:
"Unfortunately, in debates, sermons, articles, books etc., people rarely describe their fundamental beliefs. Instead, they usually deal with conclusions that they have derived from those beliefs. Thus, dialogue between those with opposing beliefs is almost impossible. Debate deals with too high a level of abstraction; fundamentals are generally neglected. Discussion often degenerates into mutual hatred."
In other words, debates don't change minds.
As part of a discussion of whether various denominations will split over the gay issue there is an entire page about the United Methodist Church. Some things it says:
The UMC, partly because it is the second largest Protestant denomination (after Southern Baptist Convention), mirrors the society as a whole. More liberal denominations have decided in favor of gays, more conservative against gays. Only those encompassing a wide spectrum are caught in the debate. If the UMC can come to terms with the gay issue, it becomes a gift to other congregations. If not, it has missed an opportunity of grace.
There are several core problems in the gay debate within the UMC.
* John Wesley, denomination founder, stressed our faith is based on a quadrilateral of the bible, tradition, experience, and reason. Alas, conservatives stress the first two and liberals stress the last two.
* Conservatives believe the bible to be inerrant -- free of error. Liberals believe the bible expresses the faith of real believers based on what those believers knew. And they knew nothing about homosexuality. So liberals look to broader themes, such as justice and caring.
* Both sides are convinced God agrees with them and prayer is ineffective in determining God's view on this (and likely many) matters.
We have been at the point for a long time now where one side insists zero tolerance for homosexual acts is the only moral solution and the other side insists full inclusion of all people is likewise the only moral solution. Given there is no middle ground what are scenarios of the future? None of them are good.
* Maintain the status quo. Yeah, the church stays together, but the issue will come up every 4 years for a good long time (no matter which side wins), sapping energy better spent elsewhere. If trends of acceptance of homosexuality among youth continue liberals will eventually get their way with a might backlash from conservatives -- unless youth are disgusted over the church's position on the issue and leave. When the vote goes in favor of gays then conservatives will leave. Either way the American church is going to be smaller (the worldwide denomination is growing).
* Reach a compromise. Almost impossible to reach or implement because both sides feel a compromise is a violation of the will of God. It's a sin or it isn't. We can't have partial justice.
* Allow each congregation to decide the issue for itself: This is a combination of compromise and split. If a congregation can successfully choose it becomes an administrative mess for the bishop. But many congregations will split instead. Again, either full morality or full justice is denied.
* Split. This resolves the issue, but in the process tears apart congregations, friendships, and families. Some members will feel alienated by the church of their youth. In spite of the high personal cost this might be the least damaging option. The two parts might reunite in the future (as it did after a split over slavery, though it took a century) or they might drift apart, making reunification impossible.
* Ignore the 1000 pound gorilla: Catholics have put a cap on the issue -- but not to their benefit.
Merry Christmas :hugs:
ReplyDelete