Thriving Churches Are Those That Have Not Redefined Marriage

[Scott Lloyd]

This blog post came to my attention as a link from Daniel Peterson's blog.

 

I post the link, because I keep reading here (most recently from Teancum) that the Church of Jesus Christ is going to die on the vine because it resists the trend to redefine marriage.

 

Yet we read this in the linked blog post:

 

Religion News Service’s Lauren Markoe authored a story yesterday on the Presbyterian Church (USA) decision to permit same-sex marriages and how, according to a poll from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a majority of Mainline Protestants now support the practice.

At the same time, the article notes that the majority of church-affiliated Americans belong to denominations that forbid gay marriage, including Roman Catholics, most Baptists, Pentecostals, evangelicals and Mormons. Markoe also reports that Mainline Protestants have lost ground in recent decades to other denominations and to independent churches.

Accompanying the article is a denominational chart of same-sex marriage support, with some interesting inclusions – and omissions. Taken together, the missing churches constitute tens of millions of members – a significant slice of the U.S. religious pie – all on record opposing redefinition of marriage. Meanwhile, all denominations nationally and globally that support same-sex marriage are in a state of decline.

 

 

I think the hand wringing (or eager anticipation, depending on one's perspective) is premature that the Church of Jesus Christ will weaken and perhaps die because it won't succumb to societal trends.

 

Oh, I almost forgot to add that the current clock reading is 39 years, 10 months, 2 weeks, 4 days, 5 hours, 32 minutes and 26 seconds and counting down.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Meanwhile, all denominations nationally and globally that support same-sex marriage are in a state of decline.

 

That's hardly any surprise.  While I am sure that there are many Christian supporters of SSM out there, I am equally sure that the percentage of SSM supporters that don't attend Church/don't believe in God is higher.

 

Basically - those devout Christians don't support SSM in as great a number as those non-believers.

Why would we think a Church supporting SSM would be in growth?  Now a spiritualist or atheist organization is probably growing well among SSM supporters.

[Storm Rider]

Scott, why do you want to rain on their parade?  That is just not fun or fair. 

 

I recently read an article about divisions, any division among people, but particularly in a religious context.  The moment that people begin to take sides in a debate they both forget the main purpose of the Church - to draw closer to Christ and to emulate his teachings.  Conversations should exist on controversial topics, but not at the expense of dividing the body of the Christ.  It is a matter of priorities; what is more important to an individual?  Is it some sacred cow they have created or is it Jesus Christ and discipleship? 

 

It was an excellent article and made me think of how some go out of their way to create sacred cows that become their god.  It was also evident that those who oppose the creation of those sacred cows go too far in fighting against them.  It is not about the sacred cow(s), it is about becoming like Christ, holiness, and righteousness.  We cannot do any of those things when we fight against others. We as saints should be careful about allowing others to set the agenda or the topic.  If their agenda would take our focus off of discipleship then it should be ignored or at least not allowed capture our focus.  Our words, our actions, and our thoughts belong to our Master and their sacred cow will fail because it is not and never will be the Savior.

[Mormonmaniac]

Redefining marriage is a a death notice for any Christian religion.

[Gray]

Even in churches with rules against same-sex marriage, a majority of those churches' members can still support marriage equality:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0226/More-religious-Americans-support-gay-marriage-than-a-decade-ago-survey-finds-video

 

 

 

• The greatest level of support in the new report came from Jewish Americans, 83 percent of whom favor marriage equality – even more than secular Americans who do not identify with any particular faith.
• A slight majority (57 percent) of white and Hispanic Catholics now favor same-sex marriage, up from roughly one-third 10 years ago.
• Support among white mainline Protestants nearly doubled, from 36 percent in 2003 to 62 percent in 2013.
• Although acceptance has increased among black and white evangelical Protestants, the majority of each group opposes a universal right to marry.

Not only are more congregants breaking away from their religion’s sanctioned position on gay marriage, but some are actually leaving because of it. The researchers found that nearly one-third of Millennials who left their childhood faith reported that negative views on homosexuality fueled their desire to leave.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Gray

[cinepro]

Redefining marriage is a a death notice for any Christian religion.

 

As history has shown...

[Scott Lloyd]

That's hardly any surprise.  While I am sure that there are many Christian supporters of SSM out there, I am equally sure that the percentage of SSM supporters that don't attend Church/don't believe in God is higher.

 

Basically - those devout Christians don't support SSM in as great a number as those non-believers.

Why would we think a Church supporting SSM would be in growth?  Now a spiritualist or atheist organization is probably growing well among SSM supporters.

I posted it basically in response to those who argue that the Church of Jesus Christ will languish and die unless it succumbs to social pressure on same-sex "marriage". At the moment, those religious bodies that are in decline are the ones that are caving in with respect to same-sex "marriage." I think there is a message here.

[The Nehor]

I posted it basically in response to those who argue that the Church of Jesus Christ will languish and die unless it succumbs to social pressure on same-sex "marriage". At the moment, those religious bodies that are in decline are the ones that are caving in with respect to same-sex "marriage." I think there is a message here.

A tactical one maybe but anyone who decides their doctrines based on tactics is doing it wrong in any case.

[Scott Lloyd]

A tactical one maybe but anyone who decides their doctrines based on tactics is doing it wrong in any case.

I'm not advocating that the Church decide its doctrine "based on tactics." If anything, it is the same-sex "marriage" proponents who are doing that.

 

I'm merely posting this to show that it is premature to sound the death knell for the Church of Jesus Christ based on its refusal to recognize same-sex "marriage."

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, why do you want to rain on their parade?  That is just not fun or fair. 

 

I recently read an article about divisions, any division among people, but particularly in a religious context.  The moment that people begin to take sides in a debate they both forget the main purpose of the Church - to draw closer to Christ and to emulate his teachings.  Conversations should exist on controversial topics, but not at the expense of dividing the body of the Christ.  It is a matter of priorities; what is more important to an individual?  Is it some sacred cow they have created or is it Jesus Christ and discipleship? 

 

It was an excellent article and made me think of how some go out of their way to create sacred cows that become their god.  It was also evident that those who oppose the creation of those sacred cows go too far in fighting against them.  It is not about the sacred cow(s), it is about becoming like Christ, holiness, and righteousness.  We cannot do any of those things when we fight against others. We as saints should be careful about allowing others to set the agenda or the topic.  If their agenda would take our focus off of discipleship then it should be ignored or at least not allowed capture our focus.  Our words, our actions, and our thoughts belong to our Master and their sacred cow will fail because it is not and never will be the Savior.

I'm wary about statements such as what I have emphasized in boldface above in the event that they become a pretext for disparaging or condemning or discouraging apologetics. I am a firm believer that apologetics (reasoned arguments in defense of the faith) is not only desirable but essential. If attacks against the Church of Jesus Christ are left unanswered, they threaten to mislead or confuse the unschooled or the unwary. Remember what Elder Maxwell said: Let there be no uncontested slam dunks.

[Scott Lloyd]

As history has shown...

One could argue that plurality of wives in the 19th century was not an attempted redefinition of marriage, but rather, a revival of a form of marriage stretching back into antiquity.

 

But that's a topic for another thread. Let's try to stay on topic with this one.

[cinepro]

 

I think the hand wringing (or eager anticipation, depending on one's perspective) is premature that the Church of Jesus Christ will weaken and perhaps die because it won't succumb to societal trends.

 

 

 

As I've said before, there are churches that are far weirder, far less socially trendy, and far less "true" than the LDS Church and they're still around.  The idea that something like the acceptance (or rejection) of gay marriage would ever put the Church out of business is absurd. 

 

Growth could plateau, tithing revenues could fall, conversion and retention numbers might dwindle, and the birthrate could shrink, but the idea of it "dying" is preposterous.

[Daniel2]

I posted it basically in response to those who argue that the Church of Jesus Christ will languish and die unless it succumbs to social pressure on same-sex "marriage". At the moment, those religious bodies that are in decline are the ones that are caving in with respect to same-sex "marriage." I think there is a message here.

The message is: give it 30-40 years, per the predictions that have been given.

The OP is not surprising to me, for now.

Though condemnation of interracial marriage was once the norm, how likely is growth and success today of churches that reject interracial marriage?

Time and the accompanying social change are the factors the OP doesn't address.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

I'm wary about statements such as what I have emphasized in boldface above in the event that they become a pretext for disparaging or condemning or discouraging apologetics. I am a firm believer that apologetics (reasoned arguments in defense of the faith) is not only desirable but essential. If attacks against the Church of Jesus Christ are left unanswered, they threaten to mislead or confuse the unschooled or the unwary. Remember what Elder Maxwell said: Let there be no uncontested slam dunks.

 

I don't think we have disagreed on anything; it is not about ignoring the agendas of others, but it is about not allowing their agenda to take our focus off of discipleship and our commitment to following Christ. This is just as much advice for faithful LDS as it is for those LDS who feel compelled to become advocates for social agendas in society and in the Church.  There is nothing that should divide the Body of Christ; we should all strive to be one rather than focus on that which separates us or divides us.  This does not mean that we cannot respond to questions or even take a stand, but our stand is being a disciple of Christ not a specific part of the gospel. We have to represent the entire gospel message.

[Shanky82]

Why would the birthrate shrink?

[Storm Rider]

The message is: give it 30-40 years, per the predictions that have been given.

The OP is not surprising to me, for now.

Though condemnation of interracial marriage was once the norm, how likely is growth and success today of churches that reject interracial marriage?

Time and the accompanying social change are the factors the OP doesn't address.

 

There is no comparison between gay marriage and inter-racial marriage.  I understand why you would want to make them equivalent, but there is nothing equivalent between the two.  It is interesting to use the race card to promote your social agenda, but it is a straw man argument.  One is deeply rooted in moral laws and the other is not. 

 

This straw man is used often, but it remains a non sequitur.  I hear your desire to find acceptance for a life style within the LDS and greater Christian community, but they are diametrically opposed.  On the other hand, you are no different from any other follower of Christ in that we are all sinners.  If you allow your sin to become your sacred cow you lose the focus on the Savior.  

[Storm Rider]

As I've said before, there are churches that are far weirder, far less socially trendy, and far less "true" than the LDS Church and they're still around.  The idea that something like the acceptance (or rejection) of gay marriage would ever put the Church out of business is absurd. 

 

Growth could plateau, tithing revenues could fall, conversion and retention numbers might dwindle, and the birthrate could shrink, but the idea of it "dying" is preposterous.

 

I wish you could use a little drama in your communication with us.  I never know your real meaning. 

[Scott Lloyd]

The message is: give it 30-40 years, per the predictions that have been given.

The OP is not surprising to me, for now.

Though condemnation of interracial marriage was once the norm, how likely is growth and success today of churches that reject interracial marriage?

Time and the accompanying social change are the factors the OP doesn't address.

As I said, present hand wringing (or smug projection of doom) is premature. As for the future, I'm confident the Lord will hasten His work in its time, even as I and others steady the arms of the prophet.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think we have disagreed on anything; it is not about ignoring the agendas of others, but it is about not allowing their agenda to take our focus off of discipleship and our commitment to following Christ. This is just as much advice for faithful LDS as it is for those LDS who feel compelled to become advocates for social agendas in society and in the Church.  There is nothing that should divide the Body of Christ; we should all strive to be one rather than focus on that which separates us or divides us.  This does not mean that we cannot respond to questions or even take a stand, but our stand is being a disciple of Christ not a specific part of the gospel. We have to represent the entire gospel message.

I agree in the sense that we are doing a great work and cannot come down.

[Robert F. Smith]

Scott, why do you want to rain on their parade?  That is just not fun or fair. 

 

I recently read an article about divisions, any division among people, but particularly in a religious context.  The moment that people begin to take sides in a debate they both forget the main purpose of the Church - to draw closer to Christ and to emulate his teachings.  Conversations should exist on controversial topics, but not at the expense of dividing the body of the Christ.  It is a matter of priorities; what is more important to an individual?  Is it some sacred cow they have created or is it Jesus Christ and discipleship? 

 

It was an excellent article and made me think of how some go out of their way to create sacred cows that become their god.  It was also evident that those who oppose the creation of those sacred cows go too far in fighting against them.  It is not about the sacred cow(s), it is about becoming like Christ, holiness, and righteousness.  We cannot do any of those things when we fight against others. We as saints should be careful about allowing others to set the agenda or the topic.  If their agenda would take our focus off of discipleship then it should be ignored or at least not allowed capture our focus.  Our words, our actions, and our thoughts belong to our Master and their sacred cow will fail because it is not and never will be the Savior.

While what you say is generally true, what does that all mean in practice?  Should we, as do the Orthodox Jews, set up a hedge about the Holy Scriptures in order to protect them and ourselves?  Our should we be more expansive, allowing our neighbors their full civil liberties, as we expect the same from them?  Should we argue for equality of access to public accommodations regardless of gender preference?  Should we be kind to all our neighbors?  Or should we engage in shunning those outside our faith who do not behave as we expect them to?  Should we seek through legislation and civil process to prevent same sex marriage outside our faith?  Does it mean that we agree with same sex marriage merely because we allow it?

 

What would Jesus do?  The guy who was accused of hanging out with revenuers and drunks . . .  

[Robert F. Smith]

One could argue that plurality of wives in the 19th century was not an attempted redefinition of marriage, but rather, a revival of a form of marriage stretching back into antiquity.

 

But that's a topic for another thread. Let's try to stay on topic with this one.

But, of course, cinepro's comment was right on target and on topic, Scott.  Church-going America certainly saw plural wifery as a barbaric redefinition of marriage and were prepared to destroy the LDS Church over it.  It is arguable that we are here today as Mormons only because of strategic accommodation in that matter, and I believe that it was God's will that we survive -- to see the demise of those other churches.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think we have disagreed on anything; it is not about ignoring the agendas of others, but it is about not allowing their agenda to take our focus off of discipleship and our commitment to following Christ. This is just as much advice for faithful LDS as it is for those LDS who feel compelled to become advocates for social agendas in society and in the Church.  There is nothing that should divide the Body of Christ; we should all strive to be one rather than focus on that which separates us or divides us.  This does not mean that we cannot respond to questions or even take a stand, but our stand is being a disciple of Christ not a specific part of the gospel. We have to represent the entire gospel message.

St. Paul just said "Amen" to that.

[Storm Rider]

Robert, I think you hit the crux of what I intended to say; we must emulate Christ in all things and in all ways.  Though we are pilgrims to this world we must live in the world fully, completely.  We should not separate ourselves from others in an effort to maintain an imaginary sense of purity; this is fallacy.  We must treat all as fellow sons and daughters of God.  The mere fact that we recognize that others join us as fellow sinners does not allow us to rightfully place ourselves above them.  We walk a path that demands commitment and effort.  When we fall we must get up again; when we see others fall we must stretch forth our hand and allow them the chance to take our hand in a desire to give them strength.  An action of pure love of God and them individually.

 

Our focus is a personal one; it is written on our hearts and in our minds.  It is not paraded about as a sign before the world to announce who we are or a way of self-aggrandizement.  We live such that we will only be seen by our deeds, which speak so much louder than our words. 

 

Sin is sin; we reject it, but the gospel teaches us that it is our own sins that should capture our attention rather than the sins of others. 

 

The world has too many protesters who are willing to destabilize society; what is needed are those who live moral lives of honest, sincere love for their fellow man.  I loath to support joining the parades of protests for a supposed civil right or even an injustice.  What I believe is that we should act today and be the action of change today rather than parading about in an attempt to change the behaviors of others. 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Storm Rider

[why me]

Most of the world has not succumbed to western secular reasoning when it comes to faith and beliefs. Those western church that submit to same sex marriage and on other secular issues will begin to lose membership or their membership will remain static. Since christianity is a world wide faith, those western churches that don't succumb to such sucular reasoning will grow. Now is the tme to swim against the maddening crowd that is found in western secularism.

[Gray]

Most of the world has not succumbed to western secular reasoning when it comes to faith and beliefs. Those western church that submit to same sex marriage and on other secular issues will begin to lose membership or their membership will remain static. Since christianity is a world wide faith, those western churches that don't succumb to such sucular reasoning will grow. Now is the tme to swim against the maddening crowd that is found in western secularism.

 

Even setting aside the assumption that growth of names on rolls should be a prime motivator for Christian churches, I don't see anything that indicates any kind of causative relationship between churches promoting marriage equality and churches losing membership. A slight majority of Americans favor marriage equality, and I think that number is only going to grow.

 

I would submit that within a generation or so the idea of discrimination against gay people will be unthinkable to a large majority of Americans, just as racial discrimination is unthinkable now. How well are churches that advocate for racial discrimination doing today? How well will churches that continue to advocate for LGBT discrimination be doing in 20 years? In 30 years? I would submit that such churches will face a lot of marginalization, and will only survive in isolated pockets. 

 

How well would we be doing today if we still had the priesthood ban?