We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
This pretty much describes the attitude I've seen from a number of Episcopalians. They want to do good work, have a sense of community, and embrace the community that comes along with faith, but they don't want any of those nasty hang-ups about "sin" or "commandments."
The Episcopalian Church has become basically a liberal country club. And it explains why many who really do believe in God have left the church.
I agree with both of the above. The certainty people have in accusing the church(es), completely oblivious to the words coming out of their own mouths, is chilling.
Was it ever thus? Because 90% of all people are shallow, or hypocritical, or not very smart, it is hardly surprising that most Christians are s/h/nvs as well. Why that is conveniently taken as evidence of anything says more about the critic than the church. All this twisting and contorting oneself to try and salvage stray bits of a religion one does not want to sacrifice anything for...
I guess it's just too hard to admit "But it has a cost!"
Assistant Village Idiot
Abandon any church that has accepted gay marriage and gay pastors. You will not find true Christians there. Plenty of conservative churches out there that don't act as social clubs and actually stands fully for ALL parts of Christianity. Even the parts that the 'social change' types are trying to stamp out.
The church needs to evolve. It always has. Everybody gets all bent out shape about the preserving the definition of marriage, conveniently forgetting the greatest leaders of antiquity had multiple wives. The man heralded as the epitome of wisdom had in the neighborhood of 700. Times change, and so does the church.
The trajectory was always clear, although human society had to evolve in its practices.
The Bible is given in a generation that tolerates polygamy and concubinage - as part of a general pagan pattern of un-brotherly exploitation - and immediately sets about restricting these practices in expressing a different view of G-d and man.
There is not a single positive example of polygamy in the Jewish Bible.
Rabbinical Judaism extends the clear direction of Biblical law, instituting a sort of alimony and the marriage contract still in use today by Jews - all of which were intended to protect women from being used and discarded.
Most of King Solomon's "wives" were consorts sent to Jerusalem to cement political alliances - which says more about the surrounding pagan cultures that it does about the Judeo-Christian culture whose moral and political fruits we enjoy.
So there has been one unrelated change in 3000 years, primarily affecting only the king and sometimes, a few other well-placed males. That change was in a related religion, Judaism, and never needed to occur in Christianity (though there were occasional outliers early on).
Therefore, gay marriage should be acceptable.
I'm hoping for your sake you've actually got a better argument than that. You might want to brush up on it a bit.