Yeah… if it were based on the unambiguous teachings of one moral leader, or one Divine Force…. Then there might be a little bit more continuity.

Indeed.

This is no different, of course, from any other human movement, including most of the social movements that you mentioned. Democracy, for example is not one thing. Nor is feminism.

But my point still stands… taken as an AVERAGE, on the whole, counting all the Christians in the country…. they lag the general population in civil rights issues.

I can’t quite remember the specific demographics, but isn’t “all the Christians in the country” (by which, of course, you refer to only one country) pretty much “the general population”?

Surely we would only expect to see that if Christiantity were one movement, one organisation, one thing. It isn’t.

Yeah… if it were based on the unambiguous teachings of one moral leader, or one Divine Force…. Then there might be a little bit more continuity.

But my point still stands… taken as an AVERAGE, on the whole, counting all the Christians in the country…. they lag the general population in civil rights issues.

So my question to Reverend Chellew-Hodge still stands: why bring GLBT individuals into a worldview with a poor track-record in fighting bigotry? Will they not be the Jesse Jacksons of tomorrow?

1. that groups/people on the periphery tend to be leaders (either reactionary or radical). Groups in the mainstream tend to be conservative
2. that religions can provide existing structures (both mental and organizational) that can help peripheral groups/people to be effective (instead of building them from scratch)

Hence small religious groups such as Quakers or some of the Black Churches tend to lead on social issues. Large churches (or at least their leaders) such as the Roman Catholic Church are conservative.

Yes, but my point is that if Christianity was a force for moral leadership, we should see corrolation. We don’t.

Surely we would only expect to see that if Christiantity were one movement, one organisation, one thing. It isn’t.

everything in the Bible is true when you interpret it according to the original intent.

That is just it. Short of ability to ask the original author there is no way to know what original intent was. It could be one of many ways one interprets. There is no way to know for sure.

I think Christendom should hold an international theological convention to adopt a common dogma to unify Christianity.

It’s interesting that you should say this in a thread about Christianity and homosexuality. A rather large and venerable Christian church, the Anglican Union, recently disunified itself over the very issue of homosexuality. I expect we will continue to see further splits.

The reason you want to be careful here is that the stock answers can be equivocal, so you have to probe a little to get a definite answer to a lot of basic questions.

Do you think the whole gay issue with the church is simply one part of a larger struggle/riff; the struggle between strict literalistic interpretations of the Bible, and more open or liberal interpretations?

Those of us on the Christian Left always seem to find ourselves at odds with the Christian conservatives/fundamentalists on issues like homosexuality, literal interpretations of the creation parable, etc. We are accused of not truly believing in the Bible, while in fact the fundies are guilty of “selective literalism;” you see them protesting gay pride events, but not Red Lobster, when clearly the Old Testament says shellfish are an abomination. We liberal Christians tend to take a broader look at the truth of the message of the Bible; love God and love your fellow humans. Don’t judge, but practice sacrificial and unconditional love. Like Rev. Gene Robinson has said, “the Bible is the best witness we have” about God, but I don’t believe in worshiping it. The Old Testament laws were for a specific people at a specific time, and the Old Testament as a whole was writen by men who were trying to understand God as best they could at that time. Our understanding of the Bible, and of God, must continue to evolve. The Church no longer uses Scripture to back the idea of a geocentric universe. The church (even the Southern Baptists) no longer use Scripture to justify slavery.

The thing is, if the majority of the population is reactionary (as they often are), and the majority of the population is religions (as has historically been the case in English-speaking countries), then it’s inevitable that this will happen.

Yes, but my point is that if Christianity was a force for moral leadership, we should see corrolation. We don’t.

The point is that I think it’s wrong to say that “religion” in general was “late” to most of these social movements. Some of them, for sure. But many of these movements were led by religious people and organisations.

I think these leadership groups represented a small slice of the pie of believers. Yes, we now, with the benefit of hindsight, can point to Dr King, for instance and say “wow, he did it.” And ignore the millions of Christians who were vociferously (and in some cases, violently) for the exact opposite.

So my question is, will today’s GLBT Christians lead the next civil rights movement, or will they do as (IMO) people like Jesse Jackson did, which is turn his back on, and actually fight AGAINST, the next civil rights movement (gay rights).

It takes time to win over a large population no matter what the issue. We can see it now in Christianity, inside mainline and liberal denominations. Those in a leadership position are often more liberal than most of the congregations.

My point is, and I think it’s clear in the case of gay rights here, is that this “winning over the population” runs much slower within religious groups than it does in the society at large. Hence the lag, where today in 2008, people are still in church arguing about the equality of women.