The first four paragraphs of your post really have nothing intrinsically to do with the remaining five. A number of non-mainline yet doctrinally sound denominations are in no danger of schism over allowing non-repentant (my use of that term will doubtless alienate some people I care about and respect) homosexuals to join or become ordained as members, deacons, ruling or teaching elders. The obvious denom that springs to mind is Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Southern Baptists may split over something else, but surely not this.

One of the things these conservative, non-mainstream denominations have in common is their tenacious commitment to doing church the way North American Protestant church has always been done, with rolls of members, ordained ministerial class, and quasi-priestly approved appointed or elected lay-people, Sunday School with its attendant apparatus of approved literature and teachers, a stage up front, a worship-show, a speech, and the opportunity to participate by singing songs, but with the expectation that the audience or congregation will otherwise passively receive instruction and sacraments like those who are in need of someone to stand like Moses between them and God.

In the mail this week, I got a copy of the latest edition of Pagan Christianity, co-authored by Frank Viola and George Barna. Viola and Barna (I just started reading it, and already I’m thinking, “Right on!” that is, they seem to be in agreement the last part of you post here, and with stuff I’ve been saying or trying to say for years to a vastly smaller audience.

Sadly, Viola appears to have written another book wherein he seems to be trying to persuade his readers that God wants to be their boyfriend. Personally, I’m not looking for that kind of relationship with Jesus. People who make such arguments, however, have in my opinion no business speaking out against homosexuality in the church as the males among them appear intent upon forging a homosexual bond with Christ.

Some of the folks at http://www.cfmboards.com/index.php , and http://ichurch.informe.com have been trying to rethink and discuss alternatives to the institutional church with mixed results. Both of those boards arose out of discussion forums originally hosted by Dave Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church.

Maybe some of the things that irk the snot out of manly men in relation to the institutional church as usual also irk the snot out of homosexuals - at least those who are forthright about their orientation.

Steve Brown and his pastor, Pete Alwinson, always mention on their Friday broadcasts that they support the church, but the church they describe always sounds like the one you (and me - odd that we're in agreement about this when we radically diverge in opinion over the usefulness of government) think ought to be abolished in favor of a recognition of the reality that something like Richard Wurmbrandt's underground church is already in place and functioning in the United States, possibly also around the world.

I think Steve Brown on one of his broadcasts said that he wished those who spoke out in favor of the "Invisible Church" would sing in its choir. That hasn't changed the fact that I sing like a crow.

Happy Motoring,

Chris

P.S. Thanks Erik, for the opportunity to ramble, rewrite and repost.