Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?
Throughout church history the church has thrived when it has kept to its beliefs and not bent to societal whims of the moment. Whereas churches have declined and decayed when they conform themselves to what society wants them to say/do at the moment. If churches embrace all the things a society wants them to at a given moment, they offer nothing unique and compelling to interest people. In that case, I suggest everyone stay home and sleep in on Sunday morning, etc.
I don't appreciate the "smug self righteousness" crack. But, not surprising.
As somewhat of a church history nerd, I find the comment that the church has thrived when it kept to its beliefs curious. The Church of long ago does not in any way resemble what it started out as and has never been one sect with one belief. There have been constant internal arguments regarding the Church's beliefs from the church's conception starting with the Bible. If you assume the Church sailed smoothly to its current path I would recommend Heresies of the Early Christian Church- fascinating. Dry as a bone but enlightening about the many ways the Church developed and morphed over time. There has never been a status quo until quite recently and even that is constantly under argument.
-The Bible describes arguments between the disciples about whether Gentiles should be excluded or have to be circumcised to enter in.
-There were arguments, sometimes violent, regarding the focus of the church in the first centuries- Gnostics who believed the message should focus on what Jesus did in life and those who wanted to focus on Resurrection being the main message.
-Timothy (3, I think) states a Church leader must be in good standing, married to a righteous woman and have upstanding children. The Roman Church decided (can't remember when, possibly the 800s) that they would require celibacy, un-marrying couples and bastardizing numerous people. The Orthodox Church still requires marriage, I believe.
-The Bible says to pray to God. Somewhere along the line in some sects a priest became the middleman and was required to broker forgiveness.
-The Early Churches studied the Scriptures together, discussing and memorizing them. The later church actively discouraged reading the Bible, substituting the Priest as the conduit and explainer of God's Word.
-Communion was bread AND wine. In some churches there is still no wine except for the Priest or Altar celebrants.
-Indulgences were invented. The Church split over whether it was consistent with what the Scriptures directed.
-Purgatory was invented and un-invented
-The Pope was part of a committee of Cardinals and not considered infallible until the late 1800s.
-The Church regularly brokered marriages between powerful leaders and families with no consideration for the people involved (men or women)
-Jesus said in the Bible render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, iedo not go against the Gov't. The Church in the Middle Ages controlled governments and not too gently.
- .....
"Clear Biblical teaching" is anything but clear to me.
One of the most fun things to do is put a bunch of knowledgeable people in a room and ask them to define what certain Bible verses actually mean. Exhibit A below.
The difference between this situation and the Republicans is that the Republicans need to be popular to get into office. The church should not be driven by any desire/need to be popular. Believe what you believe, regardless of whether others approve or not.
On the Episcopaleans, it's really a combination of factors. There has been some defections by conservative members, but I'd guess that the biggest thing at work is simply time. Episcopalean parish membership is very old, so their membership is simply dying off, and they aren't getting many young members (in spite of claims by them that embracing certain things will make them more acceptable in modern society and will fill their pews). I've seen numbers in the past and the average age is like 60 years or somewhere in that ballpark. Any organization with that demographic setup, absent some new big way of getting lots of young members quickly, will fade away as their membership gradually dies off.
I do not believe the Episcopalians made the decisions they made because they were trying to be popular. The decision was made through studying the Scripture and discerning what they thought God would want them to do. You obviously do not interpret the Scripture the way that they do and visa versa- a great example of how even very learned and earnest Believers can disagree.
I would agree with who ever said that the very conservative churches are not in any better shape than those you would consider trying to pander to the masses. The leadership of the Catholic Church is unbending in their current belief system. In our area there has been an uproar in the past few yrs because they do not have enough attendance or priests to keep open their churches. This has resulted in a mini mutiny in a number of parishe, some going to court to preserve their church/prevent it being sold off. The argument heard here is the need to preserve the status quo at all costs, even to extinction, because it is the right way vs the claim that inflexibility regarding manmade rules is causing an inability to minister to the masses and hindering their ministry.
I think the distinction needs to be made between sexual drive and behavior. I generally use sexuality terms to describe drive more often than behavior. For instance, a man may be married to a woman but internally, his sexual drive is predominantly homosexual. If he does not act on his homosexual drive but instead only has heterosexual sex with his wife, how would you identify his sexual orientation?
In the same way, bi-sexuality can be used to describe someone who has an equal drive for both sexes. This does not mean they act equally on those drives. If they end up with a woman, it does not mean they inevitably need to have sex with a man.
We all have sexual drives that we do not act upon (unless you are asexual). Our lovely prefrontal cortex informs on whether it is a good or bad idea to listen to our reptilian brain at any particular moment. I may have a sexual preference for brunettes (thank you reptilian brain). If I marry a blonde, does that change my preference? No.
Edit-unofan is correct
Really cool observation. Need to spread rep. Had to take Human Sexuality in Grad School. I think it was Kinsey who did research that showed there were very few truly heterosexual or homosexual individuals but rather people had a preference for one or the other with varying strength of urges toward the other persuasion. Took this >25 yrs ago so I remember the concept but not the actual stats.
