Is Christianity's stance on gay marriage costing churches followers?

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...what?

officepark is Catholic.

Are Popes and bishops and consistories suddenly not 'members' of the Catholic Church. They're a different, exalted class of members, but they're still members, unless officepark has an excessively literal definition of 'Vicar of Christ'.

Another reason to love Anglicanism. All the pageantry and hieratic states that having bishops brings, with the added benefit that they're allowed to be and be treated as human.

I would think by "members" in this context he meant laity, but even there the influence of a bishop should be fairly minimal if the Church is to truly be universal, the only exception being the Pope or a council. If individual bishops start to change too much in their diocese the cohesiveness of the Church would start to fall apart. But I still think he was probably referring to the laity and allowing the laity to influence anything that isn't superficial (ie. music, Mass times, etc) would turn the Church into a political club.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...what?

officepark is Catholic.

Are Popes and bishops and consistories suddenly not 'members' of the Catholic Church. They're a different, exalted class of members, but they're still members, unless officepark has an excessively literal definition of 'Vicar of Christ'.

Another reason to love Anglicanism. All the pageantry and hieratic states that having bishops brings, with the added benefit that they're allowed to be and be treated as human.

I would think by "members" in this context he meant laity, but even there the influence of a bishop should be fairly minimal if the Church is to truly be universal, the only exception being the Pope or a council. If individual bishops start to change too much in their diocese the cohesiveness of the Church would start to fall apart. But I still think he was probably referring to the laity and allowing the laity to influence anything that isn't superficial (ie. music, Mass times, etc) would turn the Church into a political club.

Well, I know, and I understand that line of thinking, it's just that the starkness of the laity/clergy distinction in the Roman Catholic Church and the firmness of the hierarchy are just kind of...well, odd to me, as an admittedly very high-church Protestant whose chief familiarity with another religion is with a type of Japanese Buddhism that, while more hierarchical than some, is still quite latitudinarian on most political issues (Tendai has a pretty clearly set and coherent theology but with Buddhism you always run into a sort of double-meaning between theological orthodoxy and folk belief or practice).

[politicus]

My assumption is that 'the Gospel I preach' is referring to the general set, there, rather than anything specific to Paul, but you're right that that's certainly not as clear as I'd thought. I hadn't considered that interpretation before. Thank you.

Anyway, Mikado's right that even though there can certainly be different types or levels of reading or interpretation deployed for different things we can't just write off Paul for the crime of not actually being Jesus. Saying 'it's Paul, it doesn't count' is intellectually lazy. There are any number of much more nuanced and interesting attitudes to take to the Epistles.

Well, given the stuff Paul says about women and gays, I have a hard time reconciling those passages with the overall message of Christ. "Paul doesn't count" is the position of many Scandinavian Lutherans today, but maybe we are lazy... I prefer to stick to what Christ actually said in the flesh. That is the core of the Christian message, which also makes for a significantly more tolerant religion.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

FWIW Paul's writings used to justify restricting women as clergy are taken insanely out of context and the idea that they would be used to justify as such 2000 years is pretty asinine even to someone who puts as much value on the writings of Paul as the words of Jesus. They are also distorted by the fact that some of the ancient Greek language doesn't have a truly accurate English translation (the bit about "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." being the most obvious example, it basically means "study in peace and without distraction".)

[patrick1]

FWIW Paul's writings used to justify restricting women as clergy are taken insanely out of context and the idea that they would be used to justify as such 2000 years is pretty asinine even to someone who puts as much value on the writings of Paul as the words of Jesus. They are also distorted by the fact that some of the ancient Greek language doesn't have a truly accurate English translation (the bit about "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." being the most obvious example, it basically means "study in peace and without distraction".)

FWIW, The doctrinal background of a male priesthood is rooted in the Gospels and not Paul's writings.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You'd have to remove Mary Magdalene for that to make any sense...

Whatever the case it's an idiotic policy from a logistical in addition to moral standpoint and why any woman would retain participation in any church with it is beyond me.

[patrick1]

You'd have to remove Mary Magdalene for that to make any sense...

Whatever the case it's an idiotic policy from a logistical in addition to moral standpoint and why any woman would retain participation in any church with it is beyond me.

A counter is that Mary wasn't one of the twelve apostles.  I should also note that Paul is also important.  As you know in the RCC the Bible and the tradition of the Early church and the teachings of the Church Fathers is important.

I had a second cousin who was a nun. She saw it as another way to serve the church and the community. I don't think she felt belittled by it at all.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah like I noted Paul's writings here are quite out of context and of no relevance 2000 years later. It's like arguing that modern day foreign relations should be based on Wilson's Fourteen Points.

One of the pastors at my church when speaking was talking about while most people in Catholic family were fine with what she was doing, her grandmother could never comprehend how she could be a pastor because she was a married woman. The point wasn't Catholic bashing, just an example of illustrating the main sermon point of how people can not accept change and become too set in their ways, but it's pretty clear that if she had stayed Catholic there would be no future for her in the role she wanted to take.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My assumption is that 'the Gospel I preach' is referring to the general set, there, rather than anything specific to Paul, but you're right that that's certainly not as clear as I'd thought. I hadn't considered that interpretation before. Thank you.

Anyway, Mikado's right that even though there can certainly be different types or levels of reading or interpretation deployed for different things we can't just write off Paul for the crime of not actually being Jesus. Saying 'it's Paul, it doesn't count' is intellectually lazy. There are any number of much more nuanced and interesting attitudes to take to the Epistles.

Well, given the stuff Paul says about women and gays, I have a hard time reconciling those passages with the overall message of Christ. "Paul doesn't count" is the position of many Scandinavian Lutherans today, but maybe we are lazy... I prefer to stick to what Christ actually said in the flesh. That is the core of the Christian message, which also makes for a significantly more tolerant religion.

Well, yes, and that's a coherent reason for rejecting parts of the Pauline Epistles. I don't think that's lazy at all; my church does the same. I just get irritated by people who write off Paul for being Paul rather than Jesus, when it's perfectly fine and easy to write him off because there are parts of his writings the actualization of which is actively detrimental to the extension of the Love of God. I'm also not sure what I think of the idea that denying actualization to parts of Paul necessarily means that one is ignoring him or writing him off as such...

Of course the actual text of the Gospels takes absolute precedence, though; denying that is just perverse. And, I might add, vaguely idolatrous.

Regarding an all-male priesthood, one has to wonder if the fact that the people in a position to be prominent followers of and teachers after Jesus were at the time all or almost all male has or should have any bearing whatsoever on determining who's in a position to fulfill those roles now. They were also all members of ethnic groups of the Eastern Mediterranean basin. It's possible to hold forth in favor of an all-male priesthood philosophically, but just because one can think up a theoretical justification for something doesn't necessarily mean one should.