X-no-Archive:yes
> As I understand it, Protestants of every flavor believe that each
> individual has a direct line to God and no need of priests to interpret
> God's will for him
True, but this direct line is essentially one way. Protestants believe that
they can talk to God without needing any intermediary other than Jesus. But
revelation or the canon is settled. Yes, there is some latitude for
interpretation, and for the individual's conscience. Conscience is never to
be violated, but is not an infallible guide - see Romans 14, and parallels
in 1 Corinthians. I would also like to note that the differences between
apparently very different groups are actually few in number, especially when
it comes to the interpretation of individuals passages of scripture,
although some of those differences are in areas regarded as essential and
nonnegotiable.

> (didn't the founding of the United States have something
> to do with this belief?!).
No. Martin Luther who formalized the priesthood of the believer. If
anything, these ideas influenced the founding fathers, not vice versa.

> In other words, each person will have his own
> individual moral code depending on how God has inspired him.
Not so. Not everything is a matter of conscience. A cursory reading of the
New Testament includes some pretty clear prohibitions and obligations. Thou
shalt not steal and Thou shalt not commit adultery have held up pretty well,
and have their corollaries in the New Testament; we would not think it too
odd that a congregation disfellowship someone who practiced either as a
lifestyle.

> It is noteworthy that most Christian congregations can gladly accept the
> general responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and the conscientious
> objector who refuses to go to war at all.  They not only accept them but
> are able to support both in their beliefs.
Not really. It is one thing to fellowship with someone from another
communion, tradition, denomination. And not everyone does this. There are
separatist congregations so separatist that they will not allow someone who
is not a member of their local congregation to take communion with them.
Even guest preachers could be excluded. But in denomination which are not
conscientious objectors, and anyone who practiced this would find themselves
in legal trouble (to be a conscientious objector, your denomination must
practice conscientious objection), which would generally remove them from
active participation in the life of the congregation.

> Surely killing other people is
> just as serious a moral question as who you have sex with?
If you killed a convenience store clerk while robbing the convenience store,
your membership would be seriously reconsidered. Killing "the enemy" in time
of war is generally recognized as a morally different category from whom one
has sex with or is erotically attracted to (which are also recognized as two
somewhat different issues).

> Why cannot the
> homosexual be accepted as a fellow Christian with a different inspiration
> from God?
Because this is not seen as a mere matter of conscience, nor can it be for
those who hold to scripture as an unmediated authority. For those things
that Protestantism or Catholicism are matters of conscience but not clear
matters of morality (is it permitted to eat food ceremonially offered to
idols?), the conscience can be educated. I seriously doubt that the majority
of those who identify themselves as Christian and homosexual believe that
their conscience could be educated out of this behavior. And, if one who is
weak in faith and offended by a permitted action (such as another's eating
food offered to idols), then others are not to give offense by doing that
permitted but offensive thing.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com