Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

And every so often there is one backwards. I had not known that his church bans gay members, that is extreme even by evangelical standards.

Is it? Here in North Carolina, it is the norm. We have a lot of evangelicals, and it is consistently a major controversy whenever even one evangelical church offers membership to openly Gay persons.

Perhaps it's different in California. Can you provide a statement by any evangelical organization that supports your perception?

I didn't know that Rachel Maddow (NorCal resident, Stanford Grad) was gay until the Christmas Dinner I attended last week and these three Lesbians became all hot 'n bothered 'n boisterous not to mention, giddy, at the mere mention of 'Rachel Maddow.'

Phil's right - at least by California standards. Churches would rather have gays come and join the flock for "reprograming" than outright ban gays.

I do find it arrogant that Saddleback Community Church "decides" which "sins" are "acceptable" and which "sins" are "banishable" - not even the Catholic Church goes that far...

Who are they to judge? Doesn't the Bible say: Judge not least ye be judged?

I'm just sayin'...

whoa...thanks Phil!

(sorry I'm just now getting back here. busy days!}

No, we embarrassed ourselves (again) by being one of the few that didn't sign.
Speaking of going backwards, I sometimes think this country is.


here too...
That said among individual Christians I know, a lot of progress seems to be being made.

Explanatory POV: Christianity's teachings did not make sense to me, so I am no longer Christian. For me, that was a more effective choice than trying to change Christianity. That personal choice very much informs my writing of this post.

Perhaps when the evangelicals have all reformed, somebody can do something about the Catholics; last I heard they don't mind a person being gay, so long as s/he never acts on it, or thinks about it.

Truly, there are some religions/people - perhaps many - who will not change. I'm not sure that asking existing congregations to change would be as helpful as forming new, inclusive congregations.

My point (and I do have one) is that if Christian congregations have as a tenet of their beliefs that Homosexuality is Wrong, trying to change that belief may be futile. It seems a little like insisting that the local synagogue should include readings from the New Testament in order to make non-Jews welcome.

Christianity is no stranger to sectarianism; split off a Reformed Liberal South-west Lutheran Synod or a New American Baptist whatever.

I'm also a little confused by something, and that's the whole freedom of religion thing. To take the point of devil's advocate (so to speak) - if the Little Brown Church decides that active homosexual behavior is a sin - are they free to say "active homosexuals are not welcome here?" So long as they do not advocate anything illegal (like housing discrimination, etc.) Reminder - I would find that abhorrent; I'm asking because I want to know. Because if the churches ARE within their rights to do that,than I think demanding change might really be a problem -both from a practical point of view, from the point of view of doctrine, and within he spirit of the Constitution.

I did hear a story on today's news that said a church could not refuse to rent property for a gay commitment ceremony (I think that's what it was,) and that sounds very positive.

A church is free to restrict membership in any manner it pleases and I would not have it any other way.

It does tend to belie the "inclusive" claims of Rev. Warren, however, that his church has the policy of excluding gays. It is his right, and it is mine to question his suitability for saying the invocation.

Neither of which I questioned. Thanks,Phil.

I guess I'm missing the list of requirements a priest/minister/reverend must have to say the invocation. Can you provide it?

Well, of course any such person must have my personal approval, didn't you know that Kap?