American Unitarian Conference Forum

There are many contrasts between Traditional Christian Creeds and newer ones, but, aside from the issue of the presence or absence of Mythic Elements, perhaps the starkest contrast I'm aware of is the treatment of the issue of The Family.


In the Mormon Church (which, despite its very recent origins is among the most traditionalist of churches) the basic social unit is the family and the entire experience of being a Mormon is structured around the protection and nurturing of the family as a unit. My experience of virtually all not-traditionalist religious communities is quite different. In them, the basic social unit is the atomistic individual.

The only exception to this in my experience was a Unity Church group in Califonia that I attended for a while after it split off from the main Unity Church in the area over the issue of (you guessed it) gender politics. It rather self-consciously billed itself as "family oriented" but couldn't make a go of it.

I am extremely ambivalent over this issue (which probably doesn't come as a surprise to many of you). My family of origin was pretty disfunctional and I'm well aware of the tyranny that such families can wield over their members. Yet, I see many Mormon families that, as far as I can see,function well and rear very happy children. Overall, that church made a very positive contribution to my family's functioning and well-being.

I have never seen the issue of The Family taken on in this Forum. I am curious to know what views we have here of the significance and proper place of families within the context of our religious views. And, I hope it is clear that I have no axe to grind on this ubject but am genuinely curious as to how others view it.

Fred

Strong families are the bedrock of a strong society. I am more liberal than some (i.e. I believe gays and lesbians should be permitted a blessed union, and that the definition of nuclear family needs to be a bit flexible) but people are shaped by their family.

I have found in the message of Jesus an interesting rejection of such narorw views however-i.e. "you must hate your brother and mother to follow me". I think the meaning of these statements is that all of humanity is an sense a family-that we need to overcome traditional family units and view all as our brothers and sisters.An interesting balancing exercise.

I have viewed the essence of religion as being one of personal transformation, strong communities and a new attitude of love...not neccessarily as being about reinforcing traditional families. I think it affirms their value but goes beyond it as well.

Hmmm...I need to think more. lol

hi Logan!

It seems like the Modern encounter with Homosexuality has had an enormous, and not altogether beneficial impact on us all. In thinking about my own experiences with it, a few incidents stand out. One occurred in High School when several of the school yard "toughs" severely roughed up a yong guy who unwisely revealed his sexual persuasion in a careless moment. I was repulsed and couldn't understand why they did such a thing. Another was while I was in the Marine Corps when a fellow junior officer made what I later recognized as a sexual "pass" at me. This particular Lt. was perhaps the toughest guy I have ever known in my life and it was scarey. I didn't realize what it was all about until later in my sevice career and found out he'd been kicked out of the MC for sexual mis-conduct. Form this experience, I was left forever uncomfortable with Gays serving openly in the Military. Finally, in my working career, I inadvertently made an enemy of a Gay employee during my days working in San Francisco and came to learn what it was like to incur the wrath of a "Gay Network" within the management of a SF business. Both positive and e
negative. I also came to find out what it was like to enjoy the friendship of someone willing to put such issues aside and extend friendship unintimidated by social pressure.

I find myself in the position of being genuinely tolerant of Homosexuality but seeing it as a deviation from normal sexual behavior, which, in my mind, forms the basis for normal family bonding. I think there should be legitimate roles in any society for those outside of the norms but I have no objection to those roles being recognized as being outside of society's expected norms and recognized as representing special accomadations for folks that are a little "different".

Modern day thought seems to leave little room for genuine "tolerance". To me, tolerance is a very different animal than "acceptance" and a much more honest expression of feelings for those that leave us uncomfortable but with whom we recognize we must share God's Green Earth. For me, tolerance is a perfectly acceptable relationship and I would never wish to insist that anybody that doesn't "accept" me must hate me.

Fred

Hi Fred!

I can accept that position. You may find this article of interest: It discusses possible responses for the church to take regarding homosexuality. To summarize here in the blog:

1) Categorical Prohibition

CREATION: Homosexuality is a perversion of God’s intent.
REPENTANCE: Repent of being gay.
REDEMPTION: Return to the true heterosexual nature or abstain.

2) Welcoming but not Affirming

CREATION: Homosexuality is a tragedy, not a perversion.
REPENTANCE: Repent of acting gay.
REDEMPTION: Stoic acceptance of one’s faith through abstinence.

3) "It's a Justice Issue"

CREATION: Homosexuality is sinful, one of many sinful conditions.
REPENTANCE: Repent of singling out homosexuality and ignoring other sins.
REDEMPTION: Create a world in which difference no longer makes a difference.

4) It's Really a Pastoral Issue

CREATION: Homosexual orientation is morally ambiguous.
RECONCILIATION: Gay and lesbian relationships, while disobedient to Scripture in form, may actually be obedient in substance. Heterosexual relationships are imperfect too.
REDEMPTION: Exclusive, committed same-sex partnerships are better than promiscuity.

5) Welcome, Affirm and Celebrate

CREATION: Homosexuality is a fact of nature to be regarded as good.
RECONCILIATION: Gays and lesbians need to be reconciled to the goodness of their homosexual orientation.
REDEMPTION: One's sexuality is to be celebrated as God's good gift.

6) Welcome, Affirm and Consecrate

CREATION: Homosexuality is a fact of nature not to be condemned, but is also ambiguous and needs to be rightly ordered.
RECONCILIATION: Sin does not reside in orientation but in whether one rightly orders one’s life. Our relationships are a means of grace.
REDEMPTION: One’s sexuality is to be consecrated through an exclusive, committed covenant -- blessed by the church. People, not sexuality, are the objects of our celebration.

My own position is a cross between #6 and #4. I regard homosexuality as a fact of nature-a lifestyle choice in a sense, perhaps, but also as a fact of nature. It's just what "is". I regard the orientation itself as morally ambigous-neither good, nor evil. It doesn't bother me or offend me in the least. I do believe the church should welcome people who are gay and should honor some type of union, but the emphasis needs to be in relationships. For me gay marriages is about the second half-not the first. I have found many of the gay groups to be too permissive, too flambouyant, too...intolerant, in many ways. To me you can't celebrate homosexuality as good anymore than it can be condemned as evil-nor can you force people to like it. Nonetheless I oppose discrimination-whether in the world or in the church.

Overall I feel that we've made this into too big of an issue-on both sides. Gays and lesbians are people too-they are not just homosexuals.

Just my thoughts!

Logan, you are one of the best young minds I have come across on this or any other board, You have given me a lot to think about. I'm not sure I agree completely with the way you have defined the issue and the catagories you have constructed, but you have given me a very different way of defining the issues and I find it very intriguing!

Fred

Hey Fred,

Just to clarify...I didn't construct the categories, Dr. William Johnson did-I merely reposted them from the article. I do agree with them for the most part though...if someone has said more eloquently then I could I'm not one to reinvent the wheel.

Glad to have provoked some though! This is what makes Unitarianism superior IMO-we think about things. lol.