Can we agree that the "church" is not some monolithic institution but rather the people who belong to Christ and are his bride? This really IS what Jesus established, that souls won to faith in Christ follow Him and live their lives to honor Him and draw others to saving faith as well as band together in local assemblies for common worship, prayer, teaching and taking care of each other like family members.
True. As I Catholic, I agree to that.
"This really IS what Jesus established, that souls won to faith in Christ follow Him and live their lives to honor Him and draw others to saving faith as well as band together in local assemblies for common worship, prayer, teaching and taking care of each other like family members."
Yes to that as well. It is all true --- but that's not all there is to say.
The Church Christ established has always had a differentiation of roles, a structure, which you can see in its earliest form right in the Acts and the Epistles. This structure determines that some are in authority, some teachers are legitimate and some are not ("Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" 1 Cor. 12:29) --- just as St. Paul did, either approving or disapproving of would-be Christian preachers and giving authoritative judgments on disputed Christian practices. Not every fellowship constitutes a Church, and not every "fellow" constitutes an authority.
Jesus says (Matthew 18:17-18) that disputes should be taken to "the Church" and that this Church has the power to "bind and loose."
Now imagine that a couple of young men in your congregation say they want to get married to each other. Your congregation, or your pastor, tells them that that cannot be done, it's a perversion.
So they find a local congregation that calls themselves "Conservative Gay Evangelicals," (Link). They teach that the OT prohibitions on non-kosher sex were part of the same "Holiness Code" that banned non-kosher food, and therefore not applicable to gentile Christians. Furthermore, the NT prohibitions (found in Paul) were focused on pagan temple boy-prostitution and pederasty, not on marriage per se, and this is --- they say --- clarified by Hebrews 13:4, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."
Therefore, since they are not temple prostitutes or pederasts, nor whoremongers nor adulterers, but just respectable Christian men who desire honorable marriage, caring of each other and forming a family, then they are justified.
I've got a feeling you'd say --- but no, you tell me. They are acting in good faith. They have interpreted Scripture based on the understanding the Holy Spirit has given them of the sacred text, and not by the traditions of men --- so they say. Their local church backs them up.
What say?