An excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal article by Vauhini Vara, entitled "Moral Dilemma: When Weddings Are a Career Risk":
The Rev. Greg Comella, a Catholic priest and professor at a theological union in Berkeley, Calif., made the opposite decision from Ms. Lindsay. (a United Methodist minister who has decided to perform same-sex weddings in violation of UMC rules.) Last month, a former student, who has known Father Comella nearly 30 years, asked him to officiate at his same-sex wedding. Father Comella, 61, wrestled with this question but decided not to do it. If he were excommunicated, he would no longer be able to effect change through teaching, he says. It was also a personal decision: He has Parkinson's disease and worries about losing his health care benefits. "I felt guilty for letting them down and not being able to be more courageous," he says. (emphasis mine)
Just a couple of thoughts that came to mind as I was reading the WSJ over a cup of coffee early this morning:
1) If he isn't in agreement with his church's teachings, and teaches contrary to them while representing his church in an official capacity, then isn't he at risk of excommunication regardless of his practice? Otherwise, why would he care for his communicant status?
2) Wouldn't it be more "courageous" to be in compliance with Biblical standards rather than changing cultural expectations?
I have a feeling that same-sex "weddings" are going to result in a great winnowing of the wheat from the chaff.
Passive Christianity Is Dead Christianity
50 minutes ago