This is a post Starlight's made on the Screwballs (in Tektonics) thread which I feel is worthy of deeper discussion (and obviously not in Screwballs )
Starlight gives the millennial generation (MG) credit for ditching authority but if the Church is silenced then all that has happened is that there has been a swop from one authority to another. I also find it ironic that Starlight gives MG credit for ditching authority and cutting their own path yet doesn't think they are capable of embracing the gay lifestyle if there are any anti-voices.
I guess this is true to a certain extent. Thinking back to my own childhood we had an extended family member (sibling of an in-law) who was openly gay. We didn't hardly see the guy as he lived in the neighbouring country but everyone in the family knew he was gay and when he did come on holiday he would spoil my cousins with gifts. My parents never said anything unkind to us about him and I remember them being upset when he was killed in a car accident. My mom's favourite hairdresser was also quite evidently gay (very camp) and he was quite open about it when talking whilst doing her hair.
Besides the fact that I still think that civil-partnerships were the non-religious equivalent of marriage and that I would have preferred for marriage to stay as defined 'in the beginning', I still think that if people want to live a same-sex lifestyle they should be free to do so openly if that is their choice. Obviously the Church is a theocracy and we do not get to vote out the bits we don't like, so this does not extend to the Church. I thought there was merit in the points Muz made the other day (in Ecclesiology 201) that we should make Christian maturity our goal and that openly gay people could be viewed within the church as less mature with the goal being maturity ie that they would eventually come to the point where they would view being celibate as the better option. Anyway, that is how I understood him.
So the point of discussion I feel is that if the Church is shut-up then the MG is really just changing one authority for another because they are not getting to hear both. The Church can't be silenced just because it hinders gays from embracing the lifestyle. If a gay person does not want to live a gay lifestyle because the Church says it is wrong then that is because the gay person respects Church authority and that is their choice and it is valid. If someone is secretly indulging in gay behaviour while paying lip-service to Church authority then that is a different thing and either the person does indeed respect the authority of the Church but has fallen into sin and needs to repent or if they don't respect the authority of the Church then one wonders why they are even bother to pretend they do.
Originally posted by Starlight
Originally posted by Starlight
Besides the fact that I still think that civil-partnerships were the non-religious equivalent of marriage and that I would have preferred for marriage to stay as defined 'in the beginning', I still think that if people want to live a same-sex lifestyle they should be free to do so openly if that is their choice. Obviously the Church is a theocracy and we do not get to vote out the bits we don't like, so this does not extend to the Church. I thought there was merit in the points Muz made the other day (in Ecclesiology 201) that we should make Christian maturity our goal and that openly gay people could be viewed within the church as less mature with the goal being maturity ie that they would eventually come to the point where they would view being celibate as the better option. Anyway, that is how I understood him.
So the point of discussion I feel is that if the Church is shut-up then the MG is really just changing one authority for another because they are not getting to hear both. The Church can't be silenced just because it hinders gays from embracing the lifestyle. If a gay person does not want to live a gay lifestyle because the Church says it is wrong then that is because the gay person respects Church authority and that is their choice and it is valid. If someone is secretly indulging in gay behaviour while paying lip-service to Church authority then that is a different thing and either the person does indeed respect the authority of the Church but has fallen into sin and needs to repent or if they don't respect the authority of the Church then one wonders why they are even bother to pretend they do.
Comment