Gay Marriage Cause No Real Defections In UCC Church

by Enigma One 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Enigma One
    Enigma One

    Six months after becoming the largest Christian denomination to endorse same-sex marriage, the United Church of Christ (UCC) reported that less than 1 percent of its churches have separated from the denomination.

    The UCC report, issued Thursday, noted that 49 churches -- out of 5,725 churches total -- have voted to disaffiliate, and nearly all of those cited disagreement with the UCC marriage equality resolution, adopted in early July.

    "The number of departing churches is far fewer than some had earlier expected," said John H. Thomas, president and general minister of the UCC. "We grieve the loss of any and every congregation that decides to leave, not only because of the loss of members but also for the loss of shared history, ministry and fellowship." At the same time, 23 congregations decided to affiliate with the UCC during 2005, and another 42 have expressed interest in becoming part of the denomination.

    In October the 4,300-member Cathedral of Hope voted to pursue UCC affiliation, largely because of the marriage equality issue. The Dallas-based church claims to be "the world's largest liberal Christian church with a primary outreach to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people." The UCC is unique among many mainline U.S. denominations because individual congregations retain legal ownership of their buildings and property, making it easier to decide their own futures.

    Currently there are 1.3 million members in the UCC. - From AP Newswire

    This just goes to show that the "Henny Penny's" screaming that the sky will fall are just plain wrong. As usual, bible literalists are just wrong. Why is it that they can't accept a larger idea of God. Certainly the god of the Old Testament was far more primative than the New Testament, why can't they accept something larger than themselves? Limited education is my guess.

  • unclebruce
    Limited education is my guess

    couldn't agree more EO

  • rwagoner

    Now I know that I won't be popular....but personally I think it is less about God and limited education and more about political correctness and keeping membership numbers....the UCC is comonly known for more "PC" and less Orthodox teaching anyway.

    2 Timothy 4: 2-5

    2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction.

    3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

    4 They will turn their ears away from sound teachings and turn aside to myths.

    5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

    not meant to offend...just an observation.

  • Abaddon

    rwa goner

    No offence, but here's a few observations comin' back at ya.

    You quote scripture to prove a point. What certainty do you have that any particular passage is an inspired thought from god?

    Believing in Jesus, God, the Christian message, and trying to share those beliefs with other is a SEPERATE activity from beliving the Bible is a book that is the literal, accurate and inspired word of god.

    There's a lot of evidence that the Bible is not accurate, and that it wasn't even written by those that are traditonally claimed to be the authors - let alone inspired of god.

    It would seem that one can have certainty of a relationship with God and Jesus, and a belief in the overwhelming importance of the Christian message BUT NOT TAKE THE BIBLE UNQUESTIONINGLY AS THE FINAL SAY IN WHETHER SOMETHING IS CHRISTIAN OR NOT.

    If we KNOW the Bible is inaccurate in places, how can we insist that a bit (that tickles our ears) is accurate?

    How can we be certain that we are not reflecting the human and flawed nature of those that wrote it? Did God really order wholesale slaughter of entire towns in the Promised Land, with the exception of virgin girls who would become sexual chattel? That's what the Bible SAYS happened. Doesn't mean it is true, or that (if the event occured) it was God's will.

    Are the 'Orthodox' teachings just a traditional set of beliefs that were unquestioningly accepted as being inspired and without fault? Are 'liberal' teachings those that try to express the SPIRIT of the Christian message, the over-abiding importance of love between each other, actually more likely to be 'what Jesus would do' if he were here now as a man of the 21st Century?

    Would Jesus argue he didn't care what the argument over DNA was, that homosexuals were bad and evil, even if they were largely genetically predetermined to be that way? Or would a modern Jesus ridicule those opposed to homosexuals in the Christian Congregation as being removed from the spirit of the Christian message in their ritualistic adherence to man-made teaching, just as he ridiculed the Pharasees of his day?

    No offence, just observations...

  • rwagoner

    no offense taken....your observations are yours..and mine are mine...I'd bet that neither are about to change.

    you can believe scripture or not. the discussion was about religion so I quoted scripture...if it had been about politics I would have quoted Newt G. or Ronald R. and we still might disagree.

  • Abaddon


    No matter what one was discussing, one has a complete right to react to the quotation used by the person you're conversing with.

    Quotes attributed to Newt G, Cicero M or Jesus C all have to bear the same standards of provability to be accepted as relaible representations of the mind of the person they're attributed to.

    If you don't want to get into a discussion about Biblical accuracy, that's fine. I can understand not wanting to go there. You have a complete right not to respond in a meaningful fashion... but, this is a DISCUSION BOARD. You're free to air your opinions and not discuss them, but it rather defeats the purpose of a discussion board.

    Never mind

  • rwagoner

    discussion is a wonderful thing...but I really have no interest in debating my opinion...I offered it and enjoy reading the opinions of others but since I dont plan on changing my opinion nor am I interested in trying to get you, or anyone else to change yours, I'll leave it at that.

    I also dont need to defend the either believe it or you don't. I don't make a judgement either way.

    I hope you a great day..filled with meaningful discussion !

  • Balsam

    Unitarian Universalist have an outreach to the gay community too. When we were going I thought it was pretty good that they were all enclusive. Saw lots of happy gay couples sharing how grateful they were to have a place to fit. I think as the years go by more and more religious denominations who are more liberal will welcome the gay community. Perhaps one day gay marriages will finally be accepted in all states.


  • sir82
    filled with meaningful discussion

    Sorry, don't mean to butt in or hijack the thread, but...

    How can one have a "meaningful discussion" if he adamantly refuses to even consider changing his viewpoint, regardless of any new information or perspective he may receive from said discussion?

  • rwagoner
    if he adamantly refuses to even consider changing his viewpoint

    I guess I must have missed where either of us did that. I said that I "don't plan" on changing my opinion but certainly did not exclude the possibility entirely. I think you may also be assuming that I have not discussed and considered the pros and cons of my opinions. Rest assured my opinions were reached after lengthy discussion and heartfelt consideration. But thanks for your concern.

Share this