Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bcsaic!carroll@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: homosexuality Message-ID: Date: 18 Jul 90 09:20:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Lines: 108 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article tom@dvnspc1.dev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes: >In article jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >>What is objectionable is trying to call vice virtue. Amen. People in my parish take all kinds of positions on this issue; the one thing, however, on which we are all able to agree, is that "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." ... >the oldline, liberal churches have gone along with the agenda of the >homosexual community, and are now engaged in the active harassment of >those within their communion who would challenge the "progressive" >idea that homosexual conduct is acceptable for a Christian. This is somewhat unfair. What I have observed to be true is that each of the "oldline, liberal" churches have militant *minorities* who engage in such harassment. These minorities usually tend to be well enough connected within the appropriate denominational hierarchies that it can feel as though the whole church is coming down on you (Lord knows that many of us are susceptible to vague guilt feelings which can be aroused by anyone with an axe to grind). All the "oldline, liberal" churches with democratic polity that I know of have steadfastly refused to ordain avowed homosexuals, because the rank and file remain opposed. (The Episcopal Church is the exception that comes to mind; there such an ordination has been performed by a maverick bishop who has bucked the traditional but not constitutionally mandated practice of coordination with the House of Bishops on such matters.) >Homosexual groups are also using negative tactics to turn the opinion >of young people in our society. They are demanding the right to >present their case in our public school under the guise of wanting to >"help youngsters with their latent homosexual feeling." This is >happening even in the church. At a recent gathering of PCUSA young >people, that denomination's gay and lesbian advocacy group passed out >literature to young people on this matter of homosexual rights. I >understand the uproar over the matter was felt in the denominational >offices as well as at a recent General Assembly. Clearly there is an >attempt by homosexuals to do an end run around the parents in order to >get at the kids. Their hope being that if they can get 'em while >they're young they won't make the same "mistakes" as their parents. This much I believe. I had several such experiences in the United Methodist Church. There, as in this case, there was an *advocacy group* within the denomination which operated to the dismay of most of the membership; and, I might add, most of the youth that the homosexual lobby would recruit. >[Since this posting uses the PCUSA as an example in an article >complaining that the "liberal" church now accepts homosexuality, one >could easily infer that the PCUSA accepts homosexual activity. It >does not, although it does oppose "homophobia". The PCUSA does not >permit ordination of homosexuals. Because of the nature of Reformed >polity, this restriction is somewhat more severe than it would be in >other denominations. All leaders of local churches are ordained as >elders or deacons. Over time, most active members end up being >ordained. Thus prohibition of ordination effectively bars homosexuals >from normal participation in the church. This issue, like many other ... >develops. My current feeling, based on experiences in one of the more >liberal presbyteries, is that there is not likely to be any official >acceptance of homosexuality. > >--clh] The moderator would seem to imply that the PCUSA rejects or declines to accept homosexuality to a greater degree than other denominations. Though I would not presume to accuse him of disingenousness, I would suggest that it is naive to assume that practicing homosexuals are "effectively barred" from participation in the clergy or laity of *any* church by its regulations. I am personally aware of the existence of "gay" ordained people in several denominations, including the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, *and* the Presbyterian Church, USA; and I do not have many contacts in the "gay community". These people can only very imaginatively be said to be "in the closet". The refusal of the Church to deal with homosexuals in our midst has forced many of them into lives of hypocrisy and shame; perhaps they would not be so adamant that their lifestyles be recognized as "normal" were we all to admit that we are people in a state of forgiven sin; that clergy who commit homosexual acts are no more "homosexuals" than, say, clergy who drink too much are "alcoholics", or clergy who cheat on their spouses are "adulterers", or clergy who fail to practice what they preach are "hypocrites". First and foremost, we are all human beings; and God loves each of us, sinners though we are. Deep inside, each of us knows his own sinfulness, and each of us needs the saving grace of Christ to escape the sinful habits that hold us prisoners. Jeff Carroll carroll@atc.boeing.com [I am in no position to compare PC(USA) attitudes with others, and intended no such comparison. Like you, I have no reason to suspect any difference between us, Methodists, and the rest of the "mainline". I simply didn't want the impression left that the PC(USA) accepts homosexuality. I am not so naive as to believe there are no homosexuals in the denomination. I know there are. There are even homosexuals who openly admit to being homosexuals. But there are enough official bars to strongly discourage homosexuals from identifying themselves in public. This is a very significant fact, because it prevents most members from normal contact with people that they know to be homosexual. --clh]