- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A new revelation has been adopted by the conference of the Community of Christ church. It brings major changes to their previous doctrine. Adult water baptisms from all Christian faith communities will be accepted by the church, with no new baptism required. A simple confirmation will give people membership in the church. Also, GLBT (gay & lesbian) members will be considered for ordination to the priesthood, can be given important callings in the same, and same gender marriages will be performed by the church where they are legally allowed. In Long Beach, California (my home town), a beautiful Community of Christ building sits one block from the towering Long Beach Stake Tabernacle (same street). What a difference in doctrine & policies, two churches, born of the same prophet’s vision, offer to the extended community. I can but shake my head. Interesting, but it’s got to be said, the CoC hasn’t got much of a geographical spread. They’re never heard of in these parts, although I believe that they did do missions round here once. Fascinating. I heard they were headed that route. They really did it, I guess. That’s pretty cool. Very neat! I have been involved in discussions about this elsewhere and heard from members of the CofC. There are four things I want to emphasize for everyone here: 1) I have NO problem with the CofC doing what they have done, since I believe passionately in letting people worship how, when or what they may. I applaud them for doing what they believe is best for their church, and I applaud the process by which they did it. I truly am happy for those within the CofC who are excited about it.
2) It’s important to note that this announcement essentially said, in relation to issues concerning homosexuality, “Each geographic area can do whatever it wants. We won’t say one way or another what you should do. If one area wants to allow gay marriages and the ordination of homosexual members to the Priesthood, great; if another area doesn’t want to allow it, great. We won’t step in either way.” It was a statement of a hands-off, non-action policy – not an open acceptance and encouragement throughout their entire church. It essentially allowed the more liberal US congregations to move forward on gay issues while not pressuring the more conservative non-US congregations to do so. It appears to have been an attempt to avoid the type of splintering that has occurred in other Protestant denominations over this issue – to not force the more conservative congregations to leave the CofC umbrella if they don’t want to ordain gay clergy and accept gay marriage.
I’m NOT criticizing the CofC in saying that. Honestly, I’m not. I’m trying simply to parse what actually happened and what the section actually says and does – particularly to make the following point for everyone here:
3)
If this had occurred in the LDS Church as it did in the CofC, many of you would instinctively see it as proof that the LDS Church’s “revelations” are nothing more than re-active policy changes.Please think about that seriously for a minute.This announcement reads MUCH more like a careful, political policy change than like a “revelation” as many of you tend to define that term. I have no problem calling it a revelation for the CofC. However, disaffected members (including many of you) would react differently than you will to this announcement if it was the LDS Church making the announcement. You would embrace the content, but your instinct would be to question it as “revelation”. I know the same can be said of the Manifesto and the lifting of the Priesthood ban (OD1 and OD2), and I don’t disagree with that in regard to those to Official Declarations, but I simply want to highlight the fact that
it’s hard to tout this announcement as “revelation” if you also don’t tout the LDS Church’s OD1 and OD2 as revelations – and LOTS of other official policy changes, as well.4) I have a suspicion that this will hurt the CofC in some places and cause problems in some areas – ironically, more over whether or not to accept infant baptisms, since accepting sprinkling of adults and not infants seems on the suface like a nod to Protestants and a rejection of Catholics. It will be interesting to see in the long run how this affects them.
The prophet of the CofC gave much instruction prior to the actually document, as to events which led up to it. They were especially concerned about the gay priesthood issue, since certain African countries would not allow them to continue their missionary labors there. Thus the language which Ray speaks of, is when the government says NO, the CofC won’t push the issue. Here in the states, congregations will probably welcome gay leaders, some of whom live in same-gender relationships. The reason I brought his to the attention of StayLDS, is because of the “previous baptisms are OK” thing. If there are LDS people who feel they must leave our church for whatever reason, it is now apparent their original baptism can simply be transferred to the CofC. This is actually not a new event. The CofC, under their former name (Reorganized LDS church) had a transfer agreement in place with the Church of Christ – Temple Lot for some years back in the twenties. It was only cancelled when to many members began moving in the Temple Lot direction.
John Hammer, who was recently interviewed by John Dehlin, is a member of CofC and I found his narrative regarding this action. Latter Day Saint history is so interesting!
I agree, george. John’s post at By Common Consent was fascinating. Honestly, from a strictly theological standpoint, I am interested just as much in the baptism announcement as I am in the gay clergy / marriage announcement.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.