On the point of why stay in a denomination you don't fully agree with--

Sometimes it's because the denomination is one that is committed to continuing thought and prayer and discussion of difficult subjects, and is devoted to a larger mission than any one subject of current dispute. The Episcopal Church (the Anglican church) has historically been one of these.

Does every parish operate from complete wisdom? No, of course not; but what are they supposed to be attemtping to approximate? That's the operant question.

The presiding bishop for the US church recently summed it up by saying that heresy is prefereable to schism. He was talking about the church having to be willing to allow enough present-time interpretation of matters to risk the occasional heresy. The alternative, when passions run high, is schism-- "I and my friends are putting OUR marbles in another collection plate, our butts in other pews, and our prayers in another direction! And BTW, YOU are going to HELL!"

This perspective-- heresy over schism-- allows for the rethinking and eventual clear sight of what may turn out, in hindsight, to have been incorrect. But schism cuts the communication off. A people can heal and grow from the former much more easily than from the latter. And who do we learn the most from? People we agree with, or people who irritate us into fresh thought?

One of the things I love about our denomination is that it has TOOLS to use to handle these difficult topics. At its best, it does not usurp what it sees as God's prerogative-- to evaluate. Rather, it seeks to provide a setting and an attitude of prayerful dialog with God, within which to seek His wisdom.


Another look at these sorts of discussions comes from the Re-evaluation Counseling community (RC).

There was a lengthy battle years ago, among RCers, over whether sexual preference is a choice, a distress recoding, or predetermined. The ultimate question was, how do we exchange good counseling on matters touching on our sexuality? (It's a peer counseling system.)

It was finally recognized, after all positions were thoroughly aired and after massive amounts of session time was spent just on the communication about it (I do not mean session time trying to "cure" gays), that the most important thing to see was this: All present developed countries' societies carry so much massive distress about ALL things having to do with sexuality that the answer to this specific question is not important in itself. The larger questions were agreed to be: "What exactly did you experience and how did it hurt you? How is it still holding you back? And in present time, how do we choose to treat people, and how do we want to BE treated?"

It always comes down to respect and a commitment to do one's own best thinking, guided by whatever one chooses to be guided by, within whatever ethics one has adopted, and always subject to continuing learning and understanding.

And truth and love are never far apart.

~Susan