The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[Daniel2]

I just came across this opinion piece, today. I was noted that it includes mention of Mormons in the long list of diverse religions we are all likely to encounter in our daily lives.

While the article itself is referring to the trend of gay-affirming Christianity, in general, I imagine the reactions to a more gay-affirming Mormonism would be met with much more resistance by those who are more conservatively LDS, vs those that are more liberal…

The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

By John Shore

It is inevitable that Christians who would now be described as “liberal” will be the overwhelming majority of Christians in America. That sea change, the waters of which we already feel swelling everywhere around us, can no sooner be stopped than can the moon passing across the night sky.

Today’s conservative evangelical Christians who are rallying against “postmodern relativism,” “revisionist secular theology,” “a naturalistic doctrine of God,” or however else they might label the theology of the left, are like yesterday’s horse-and-buggy owners rallying against the newfangled automobile. The future of transportation was obvious then; the future of Christian theology is obvious now.

Please note the difference between “inevitable” and “good.”

I’m not saying that the rise of the Christian left is a good thing (though I personally believe that it is). I’m saying it’s inevitable. And the reason that’s true is as obvious as a Buick parked in your living room.

In the old days, it was easy for the vast majority of American Christians to believe that, say, Jews and homosexuals (to name but two of the many, many groups Christians traditionally so destine) are going to h***. And what made it so emotionally and spiritually comfortable for so many Christians to assert that? Because none of them knew any Jews or homosexuals.

No Jews or gays had a nearby farm; no Jews or gays were at the county fair; no Jews or gays attended the local PTA meetings; you never ran into either at the hardware store. The Jews were (however involuntarily) sequestering themselves in places like New York City; and while you may have interacted with a gay man over in the pipes department, that was his secret.

As far as most Americans knew (or, of course, cared to know), white was right, God shed his grace upon them, and happy days were afoot.

That was yesterday.

Today most people have in their lives, and deeply care for, at least one person who is no closer to being a Protestant Christian than I am to being French Canadian. Today everyone is related to, shares a neighborhood with, works with, or goes to school with someone who is gay, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Mormon, Unitarian Universalism, Wiccan, Native American, Shinto, Baha’i, Rastafarian, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, agnostic, atheist, or any combination thereof. (Humans. We are a creative group, are we not?)

It’s a great deal more troubling to condemn to h*** someone for whom you have affection than it is an abstract member of an abstract group. Growing up in my white suburban neighborhood, I didn’t know a single person who was Hindu.

Today there are five young men who are Hindu living right next door to me. Those young men have become friends. If part of my theology insists that my Hindu friends are going to h***, you better believe I’m going to reassess that part of my theology. I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t.

It’s typical to think that theology is static and permanent. It’s not, though. What’s true instead is that theology follows sociology. And slowly but surely we are all becoming members of one big society. At the very least media generally, and the Internet in particular, has made world travelers, and culture tourists, of us all.

The world is rapidly changing. And as surely as one day follows the next, Christian theology, as it always has (slavery, anyone?) will change right along with it. As our world grows smaller, our Christianity will grow larger, broader, more inclusive.

Last month the Public Religion Research Institute found that 44 percent of young evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 support gay marriage. It also found that 52 percent of all Catholics—despite the explicit teachings of the Catholic church—favor same-sex marriage.

Polls consistently now show that in America support for gay marriage is no longer the minority opinion.

This past May, Focus on the Family President Jim Daly said this in an interview with WORLD magazine:

We’re losing on [the issue of homosexuality], especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. …. We’ve probably lost that. I don’t want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.

When the president of Focus on the Family basically gives up on the gay issue, you know things have changed.

I’m on the board of a group called The Christian Left, whose Facebook page grows by about 300 new members a week.

That’s no trend. That’s the future.

The religious right can rail, and scream, and protest all it wants that (to quote Albert Mohler) “Liberalism just does not work.” Mohler may be perfectly correct. I personally believe that he is not; I think that assertion reveals a sad lack of faith in the enduring nature of human goodness.

Either way, one thing is certain: We — and certainly our children — will find out.

Will Mormonism follow the trend?

Daniel2

Edited September 23, 2011 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

Will Mormonism follow the trend? Daniel2

In other words, will he wild branches overtake the olive garden?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sky]

I don’t see the LDS Church ever changing to embrace same-sex relationships. But, I do see a trend towards more compassion and the use of softer language with regards to homosexuals. I also see less of an emphasis to encourage individuals to attempt to change or alter their orientation.

The attitude seems to be – if you are able to marry a person of the opposite sex and have children, then wonderful. But if you can’t attain that, you can still be a worthy member of the Church if you keep the Law of Chastity. No eternal blessing will be denied from them.

Of course, if the LDS Church is not progressive enough for non-celibate gay Mormons, they could always give the Community of Christ a try (not saying that I agree with that, but it is an option).

Edited September 23, 2011 by Sky

[Saints Alive]

As slow moving as the church is think we will see Catholics and southern baptists embrace homosexuality before we do.

[seriously honestly]

It seems the article is based off the common misconceptions that (1)Christianity hates homosexual individuals (something I believe many Christians misinterpret in scripture as well), and (2)the only way to solve that is to reassess ones Christian beliefs because you have gotten to know someone who is gay.

For starters, I don't think "liberal Christianity" is a good idea at all, nor do I think supporting something that God has already deemed wrong is very wise. Just because someone enjoys the friendship of someone else doesn’t mean God is going to accept them while they are in sin.

Secondly, I believe the act of homosexuality is wrong, but to say that someone is condemned to h*** because they are a homosexual is incorrect. If someone is going to h***, it is because they have not accepted Christ (therefore rejected God) gay or straight, and even though there are individuals I care deeply about doesn’t mean God is obligated to give them a pass.

As to your actual question, I lean towards yes and do see it as a possibility that as a whole the LDS church would “follow the trend”. It may not be any time soon, but still.

[jskains]

I think this article also forgets the "pendulum effect". And the liberal community has pushed that pendulum so far left that the eventual swing will even frighten some of even the most conservative of society. You can only push a group so far until there is a fight back.

And how many of these pro-gay responders to these polls are doing so to avoid being labeled as a "homophobe"?

JMS

[erichard]

I think this article also forgets the "pendulum effect". .... You can only push a group so far until there is a fight back.

...

That is the way I see it too. The present system thinks it can continue its perversions forever, but the scriptures indicate otherwise. Read 3 Nephi 16:7-13 for instance.

Richard

[Storm Rider]

...and they shall call black, white and evil, good. Their hearts have hardened to the point they can feel nothing of the Spirit. Their mouths will profess the Son of God, but their hearts are far from the Holy One of Israel. They have itchy ears and seek word to mollify their hateful desires.

When things devolve into abject depravity, God's correction can be quite severe. When it occurs, it will be very difficult for any of them to say they were unawares.

[california boy]

I think this article also forgets the "pendulum effect". And the liberal community has pushed that pendulum so far left that the eventual swing will even frighten some of even the most conservative of society. You can only push a group so far until there is a fight back.

And how many of these pro-gay responders to these polls are doing so to avoid being labeled as a "homophobe"?

JMS

Christians have a long history of excluding groups that are not like they are as the article points out. It has been going on since the Crusades. We must kill the infidels was the rallying cry. It has been the Irish Catholics, the Protestants. It seems everyone has been excluded or sent to He** at one time or another. Those that wanted Slavery to continue used the Bible as the word of God to support that practice. And they used the Bible again to condemn inter racial marriage. But over time, Christianity has learned to be more Christlike in accepting those that are different than us and leaving the judgement to God. The pendulum has never swung back in support of those excluding others.

[Facsimile 3]

A vital pillar of LDS theology is the Temple sealing of a man and a women; the ability to have spiritual children. That's non negotiable.

Everything else is negotiable and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the future.

We treat straight couples or individuals that have sex out of wedlock with respect; that same disposition that we have towards straight couples living together will make its way to how we view gay couples (that much I'm sure of).

I'm sure we'll cease looking at homosexuality as a cancer and instead see it as simply an opting out of the continuation of creating spiritual lives within sacred covenants.

Just ask yourself. How do I feel about John Wayne? He was a womanizer, but do I fear him and do I think of his way of life as cancer?

In making a brief appraisal of John Wayne and Oscar Wilde I put them in the same category of human beings who I respect.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[Cobalt-70]

First of all, I want to make it clear, because I don't think anyone has done so yet, that LDS theology has nothing against gays and lesbians on any theoretical level. Being gay or lesbian is not itself any longer considered to be a sin in Mormon theology, and that's a considerable recent change in Mormon doctrine.

Second, if you are not a sealed husband and (one or more) wives in the celestial kingdom, current Mormon doctrine (since Brigham Young, at least) says that you will be eternally making spirit babies in the afterlife. Obviously, heterosexuality will exist in the Celestial Kingdom. But what about everyone else in the Celestial Kingdom who isn't making babies with their opposite-sex spouses? Even though they are not eternally married, are they still heterosexual? What would be the purpose of heterosexuality if you are forever barred from any intimate heterosexual relationship? That doesn't seem like heaven at all. Moreover, if there are frustrated heterosexuals in the Celestial Kingdom, why can't there be frustrated gays and lesbians there, too? Why couldn't there be celibate drag queens in the Celestial Kingdom?

[Storm Rider]

First of all, it is not LDS doctrine that the definition of the Celestial Kingdom is limited to making babies. Second of all, the Celestial Kingdom is varied in degrees of glory just as all the other kingdoms. Third, there is no definitive doctrine on the totality of activity in the Celestial Kingdom.

What we know of the Celestial Kingdom is that we will be one with the Father; he will be our God for eternity; all our actions will glorify him; he will direct us in our actions. Some may participate in the creation of worlds, the creation of spirit children, etc., but to attempt to limit our activities for eternity to this single purpose is without foundation. Our activities will be as varied as the grains of sand on a beach.

Lastly, Brigham Young has never been the sole source of Mormon doctrine any more than any other prophet. Mining specific quotes and then attempting to state that is LDS doctrine is just as deceiptful as mining the thoughts of any other individual and stating that is the sum total of beliefs for any other group. People so often make this mistake; prophets are men and they are allowed to make their own speculations. When they speak as a prophet their words are brought before the church and accepted as doctrine and then that declaration is joined to the canon of the Church. Everything else remains their personal thoughts.

[Mudcat]

As slow moving as the church is think we will see Catholics and southern baptists embrace homosexuality before we do.

Bold mine, Saints Alive. I certainly hope none of us, LDS included take such measures. As a Southern Baptist, I can say that we have tried to reckon with this issue. But more in respect to realizing that because a person struggles with homosexuality, they are no better or worse in that respect than the person who struggles with alcoholism or other sinful behavior. We are trying better to "love the sinner but not the sin" in an effort to reach out to them.

However, the Southern Baptist convention is more likely to excise SB churches that embrace same sex marriage and so forth, like so much cancer. I don't think any formal pro homosexuality agenda will ever be set forth by the SBC.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Mudcat

[dougtheavenger]

Pro-homosexual sentiment requires constant thought policing and propaganda. The "natural Man" is as much an enemy to homosexuality as he is to God. The high profile of homosexuality versus other sexual minorities like (1) people married to their first cousines who number about 120,000 in the US. and (2) polygamist families that include about 100,000 people in the US, is due to the fact that the pro-gay agenda serves other larger, non-gay agendas. The first of these is to provide propaganda to non-Western tyrants. It is more than likely that the author of the article you cite was paid by the House of Saud to write that article so that they can use it in their anti-Christian, anti-Western propaganda. Africans as well as Arabs are consumers and financiers of pro-gay articals like the one cited. Allow me to paraphrase Sam Nujoma, the dictator of Namibia. "When you people talk about rights, you mean gay rights. This is not African" Tyrannts around the world are doing their best to convince their people that "Western freedom" must bring with it homosexuality. Much of the money that finances "gay causes" in the United States comes from those that condemn "Western decadence" in the Third World.

Edited September 25, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[jskains]

California Boy - Being Jewish is both a religion and a race. Being homosexual is a behavior. The article fails to detach these two facts, which makes it a bit biased in its conclusions.

Homosexuality and cross dressing and other "sexually immoral" behaviors are specifically condemned in the Bible. The first passage condemns men lying with men as they would a woman. Then that same behavior is listed again in another reference to immortal sexual behaviors. Then there are additional references, a couple I would admit take some interpreting to pin to homosexuality.

Being against the Jews requires complete interpretation IMHO. While the group of Jews are likely condemned for abandoning Jesus, I do not believe there is any scripture which condemns the chosen race for that action. So unlike homosexuality which is specifically called out, being against Jews is no different than being against anyone who doesn't follow Christ.

I have always found it offensive that people make homosexuality out to be a race. It isn't. It's a behavior. To me, accepting homosexuality is no different than accepting adultery, or any other behavior that God has declared against Him. So I think the article is wrong in lumping these cases all together in one pile.

JMS

[David T]

... and Mitch Mayne is on the front page of cnn.com today.

[David T]

Will Mormonism follow the trend?

I'm somewhat disappointed we're not leading it. Much like it's somewhat disappointing we weren't leading the trend of racial equality in Church matters during the civil rights movements, being a beacon and example for all to follow. Instead, we had massive baggage of even more developed Curse of Cain lore than mainstream Christianity held to, and a widespread pulpit-inspired understanding that africans were somewhat less valiant in a former life.

But, revelation received and accepted, we've done a fantastic job of creating a new culture that does lead the pack in racial equality, especially from the pulpit. Unfortunately there are still those from generations past who still cling to culture and tradition and think the racist folklore is still simply unspoken doctrinal fact.

In some cases, our strengths of strong sense of community, tradition, and acceptance of apostolic authority can also turn inwards and lead to massive stumbling blocks of being unwilling to move past the incorrect inherited cultural traditions of our (apostolic) fathers in regards to social issues and science.

And no, I don't think an acceptance of homosexuality has to equal an acceptance of fornication, any more than an acceptance of heterosexuality has to equal an acceptance of fornication. I think in some cases we try so hard to keep our sense of community that we look for excuses to exclude more than we do opportunities to include in the context of the Gospel.

Edited September 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[dougtheavenger]

Cobalt-70 and Storm Rider,

Brigham Young is not the source of any official Mormon Doctrine except for 1 entry in D&C concerning the migration to Utah. I love Brigham Young. I think he saved the church. I think he was the chosen prophet for his time. He just wasn't chosen to add much to the doctrines of the restored gospel which are contained in the 4 standard works; Bible, BoM, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price.

Edited September 25, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[dougtheavenger]

nackhadlow,

The church did lead in racial equality in 1844 when Joseph Smith ran for president with a plan to eradicate slavery in the US by 1850. He also stated that if it were up to him, he would "put them on a national program of equalization". I'm not sure he meant anything more radical that was eventually done by the Republicans after the Civil War.

If you are referring to the Civil Rights movement, most of that was rubbish. Between 1865 and 1949, blacks entered every trade and proffession. Black universities flourished which left no doubt that we intended some blacks to recieve higher education. The Civil Rights movement did 2 legitimately good things; 1. End the demeaning aspects of segregation, and 2. Restored voting rights to southern blacks. Much of the Civil Rights movement, however was rubbish. I will inumerate the rubbish.

1. Integration for its own sake. - rubbish

2 Talk of "absorbing the negroes" by intermarriage (Norman Podhoretz) - rubbish and racist rubbish at that.

3. Affirmative Action - rubbish

4. Indefinite denial of property rights and involuntary servitude a.k.a. equal accomodations - rubbish

5. Denial of due proccess (trial by jury) and indefinite detention via court order - rubbish

For decades after the Civil Rights movement; ie, during the 1970's the economic divide between black and white increased and only began to decrease when black fertility declined to replacement level or lower. The decline in black poverty rates; from 55% in 1960 to 27% today was part of a general decline in poverty; ie, 17% in 1960 to 10% today. This is due mainly to capitalism which MLK condemned

Edited September 25, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[David T]

Cobalt-70 and Storm Rider,

Brigham Young is not the source of any official Mormon Doctrine except for 1 entry in D&C concerning the migration to Utah. I love Brigham Young. I think he saved the church. I think he was the chosen prophet for his time. He just wasn't chosen to add much to the doctrines of the restored gospel which are contained in the 4 standard works; Bible, BoM, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price.

While the core elements of the Endowment were introduced by JS, following the martyrdom it was codified and revised, added to, and arranged in its general standard narrative form by Brigham Young. There are some very specific things in the (current) Endowment ritual which are documented innovations of BY, and are known not to have been presented by JS. The Temple - the 5th Standard Work? - was highly influenced by BY.

Also, much of his his thought - and thought and interpretations of the Pratt brothers - while not 'canonized' have become, through repetition by leaders in manuals and General Conference settings, de facto 'doctrine'.

Edited September 25, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Jaybear]

nackhadlow,

The church did lead in racial equality in 1844 when Joseph Smith ran for president with a plan to eradicate slavery in the US by 1850. He also stated that if it were up to him, he would "put them on a national program of equalization". I'm not sure he meant anything more radical that was eventually done by the Republicans after the Civil War.

I am curious. How and when did Smith's personal and political position on slavery become LDS Church policy? Smith was a northerner, after all.

The only statement regarding the official position of the LDS Church about slavery that I am aware of was made by Brigham Young, who proclaimed that it was the official position of the LDS Church that slavery was a divine institution.

[sethpayne]

I am curious. How and when did Smith's personal and political position on slavery become LDS Church policy? Smith was a northerner, after all.

The only statement regarding the official position of the LDS Church about slavery that I am aware of was made by Brigham Young, who proclaimed that it was the official position of the LDS Church that slavery was a divine institution.

Armand Mauss and Lester Bush are certainly the experts but here is my take on the question:

http://www.sethpayne.com/?p=1027

[Questing Beast]

... and Mitch Mayne is on the front page of cnn.com today.

“I’m not saying I have an intent to go out and sin,” he said. “Here’s where I am; I am able and willing to serve. But I don’t have a crystal ball and don’t know what the future holds.”

That bishop is nuts. His exec sec isn't "sinning". Yet: "He will not, however, commit to a life of celibacy and hopes, “for all my gay brothers and sisters,” that same-sex marriage will someday be an option." ??? The implication of this is just unbelievable. If the LDS Church ever allowed same-sex marriage as valid, it's doctrine on the CK and temple work would take a fatal shot to the head. Homosexuality has NO place in Mormon cosmology; the afterlife does not include it in the CK and never could.

If Mitch advocated for celibacy then I could see the bishop's position. But as Mitch is clearly an unrepentant homosexual, who hopes to see the Church CHANGE to suit him, his calling is only going to cause trouble, both for himself and the bishop who called him. This should be, interesting....

[David T]

If the LDS Church ever allowed same-sex marriage as valid, it's doctrine on the CK and temple work would take a fatal shot to the head. Homosexuality has NO place in Mormon cosmology; the afterlife does not include it in the CK and never could.

Only if you are a fan of the implications that Exaltation in the CK means making spirit babies from spiritual sexual intercourse.

I see the CK and Exaltation being a family bound by a covenant of love who adopt less advanced eternal intelligences and take them by the figurative hand, and guide them into their own likeness and image.

I don't believe my spirit is a physically sexually begotten organism, but at its essence an eternal intelligence that was adopted by and taken under the wind of our Heavenly Father. Biological gender is a powerful symbol of partnership necessary to successfully bring forth life, but I think times we take that symbol farther than we really need to when applied to Eternal things.

[HeatherAnn]

California Boy - Being Jewish is both a religion and a race. Being homosexual is a behavior. The article fails to detach these two facts, which makes it a bit biased in its conclusions.

...I have always found it offensive that people make homosexuality out to be a race. It isn't. It's a behavior. To me, accepting homosexuality is no different than accepting adultery, or any other behavior that God has declared against Him. So I think the article is wrong in lumping these cases all together in one pile.

Good points!

Not only is it behavior, but at least half of the influential sources of such tendencies are environmental.

The existence of us all clearly demonstrates that nature intended a man & woman to be together... besides anatomy.

Also, we know that children benefit most by being raised with the 2 types that created them... a mother AND a father. Legalizing gay marriage denies the importance of both... deceivingly pretending a child is ok without a mother or without a dad (& instead 2 dads or 2 moms).

Also, according to US CDC statistics... sexually active homosexuals are much more likely to get STDs & AIDS than heterosexuals.

"Homosexuality is death, and I choose life." - Ex-Homosexual and ex-gay rights leader Michael Glatze

As the OP mentions, or hopes... more are accepting or encouraging lies of homosexuality... much because of peer pressure.

Simply for stating US CDC articles, & other health info, & that a couple of friends died of AIDS...I was called homophobic, or even closet homosexual. Ridiculous. Yet to those who are gullable or too weak for peer pressure, they go along.

Personally, I believe there's a bigger agenda behind the push for homosexual behavior & demanding legal credibility through gay marriage.

#1 on:

http://en.wikipedia....gia_Guidestones

The spread of homosexual supporters world-wide may possibly be associated with:

http://www.freerepub...c/1145562/posts

Edited September 25, 2011 by HeatherAnn