"Religion today"

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 18, 2006


Kendall Harmon has to monitor his blog these days, so he can delete insults and offensive language from the comments section.

His topic: the Episcopal Church.

As a critical church meeting nears over homosexuality, the debate online and in public comments has grown so intense that one publication has dubbed it ''blood sport.''

''I think people are dreading possible outcomes and when you're dealing with the unknown, fear kicks in in a big way,'' said Harmon, a minister and conservative leader in the Diocese of South Carolina. ''And I do think things are more polarized now.''

The Episcopal General Convention, which begins June 13 in Columbus, Ohio, must respond to fellow Anglicans worldwide who were outraged by the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop -- V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. The votes will shape not only the church's future, but also its role as the U.S. representative of the Anglican Communion.

The emotion of the moment is visible in the explosion of blogs since the convention three years ago, when delegates voted to confirm Robinson's election. A quick Web search yields at least 20 dedicated to the plight of the 2.3 million-member denomination. The Living Church, an independent magazine, compared the tone of the discussion to ''a wrestling cage match'' in an editorial titled ''Blood Sport.''

Some bishops have complained of being flooded with hateful e-mails and of being personally attacked on the Web. Harmon, who runs the widely read titusonenine blog, has had to take down comments he said were ''cynical, angry and alas, even petty.'' He now reviews all statements before they are posted. Some liberal-leaning blogs have had to do the same.

''The Internet and blogs do give megaphones to anonymous bigots, but they also allow you to organize more quickly and, in some instances, trade opinions across ideological lines,'' said Jim Naughton, a liberal who runs the blog for the Diocese of Washington and has had to warn people about the language they use there. ''It intensifies the conversation for better and for worse.''

But the debate goes beyond the Internet. Episcopalians with traditional beliefs on homosexuality, a minority in the denomination, feel persecuted and silenced by the majority -- and their public statements reflect a deep anger over their circumstances.

A conservative group called Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion is pressing for a church trial of Robinson and the dozens of bishops who consecrated him. A spokesman for the advocates, James Ince, said his group was engaged in ''a fight to the death of our church.'' The debate is becoming more direct and truthful, not harsh, he said.

''You can expect the liberals not to appreciate the clear, straight language from lay organizations because they're used to this goody goody two-shoes pantywaist stuff,'' Ince said.

The Rev. Paul Zahl, dean of the conservative Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa., said in a May 10 letter posted on the school's Web site that an ''army of Brown shirts'' was falsely interpreting Scripture to fuel ''the gay-agenda steamroller.''

Some moderates and liberals have responded by accusing traditionalists of being more concerned with power than with faith. In a recent edition of The Washington Window, the newspaper of the Diocese of Washington, Naughton wrote a two-part report called ''Following the Money,'' linking conservative Episcopal advocates to right-wing donors intent on fighting the political stands of liberal Protestants.

Perhaps the most inflammatory commentary can be found on the Web site virtueonline, where founder David Virtue offers his own and others' traditionalist views in ways that even some fellow conservatives find offensive. For example, Virtue refers to one of the church's first openly gay priests as the ''First Sodomite.'' Virtue caused an uproar at the 2003 General Convention when he published last-minute claims of impropriety against Robinson that bishops quickly deemed baseless.

Delegates will be entering the convention in Columbus under a heavy burden. They will decide whether to fulfill a request from Anglican leaders for a moratorium on electing partnered gay Episcopal bishops and on creating blessing ceremonies for gay couples.

Anglicans worldwide will be watching closely. The Communion teaches that gay sex is ''incompatible with Scripture,'' and if overseas archbishops think the General Convention has not moved far enough toward following that teaching, it could split the 77 million-member Communion.

''I definitely think the tenor of the conversation is a little stronger right now, primarily because both sides of the political issue think there's a lot to lose and there is,'' said Brother Karekin Yarian of Every Voice Network, which works with moderates and liberals in diocesan groups called Via Media. ''Both sides are concerned about the church splitting and no one wants to see that happen.''

------

On the Net:

Conservative-leaning blogs:

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/index

Liberal-leaning blogs:

http://www.blogofdaniel.com/

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/

Go to national Review web site

Stanley Kurtz
National Review
February 28, 2006

No Nordic Bliss
There’s no refuting the claim that same-sex partnerships harm marriage.

Now that we've learned about the Swedish drive to abolish marriage and recognize polyamory (see "Fanatical Swedish Feminists"), and about the demise of marriage in the Netherlands (see "Standing Out"), let's take a look at an important attempt to refute my arguments on Scandinavian marriage. In 2004, Yale Law Professor William Eskridge, Attorney Darren Spedale, and Sweden's Ombudsman for Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Hans Ytterberg, published "Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate." (For brevity, I'll refer only to first-author Eskridge.) Understanding Eskridge's criticisms will tell us much about the meaning of same-sex marriage.

Against Marriage
The most revealing thing about Eskridge's paper is that it goes beyond a mere defense of registered partnerships to offer a full-throated endorsement of Swedish parental cohabitation. Having a Swedish government official as a coauthor emphasizes the point.

But Eskridge goes further and criticizes me for treating Sweden's 56-percent out-of-wedlock birthrate as a problem. "[Kurtz] uses the term 'out-of-wedlock births' in a consistently disparaging manner," complains Eskridge. This, says Eskridge, means "fetishizing one institution" (i.e. marriage), at the expense of the perfectly legitimate Swedish practice of parental cohabitation. Is there anything wrong with the fact that so many Swedish children are raised by unmarried couples? "Of course not," says Eskridge.

Eskridge defends Swedish parental cohabitation by pointing to a study that found Swedish children suffering when raised by a lone parent, but doing better when raised by either married or cohabiting parents. Eskridge neglects to mention that this equivalence between married and cohabiting parents applies only as long as the couples stay together. But cohabiting parents break up at two to three times the rate of married parents, which in the long run means more kids raised by lone parents. This problem of family instability is my main complaint about parental cohabitation. Yet Eskridge doesn't refute the point; he ignores it.

So while Eskridge offers a passing good word for marriage, he is actually deeply hostile to the idea of marriage as the preferred setting for parenthood. Eskridge endorses a Swedish system that has effaced virtually every legal distinction between marriage and cohabitation. Sweden is actually the model for America's most radical anti-marriage activists. So the "conservative case" for gay marriage is looking awfully dead right now.

Misrepresentations
Having ignored my critique of parental cohabitation, Eskridge goes on to egregiously misrepresent my causal framework. Eskridge claims that I consider Sweden the best and clearest example of the negative effect of same-sex marriage. False. Norway is the clearest Scandinavian example of the negative effects of same-sex partnerships (as I've repeatedly noted), and the Netherlands is the most important European example.

Eskridge goes into high dudgeon over my supposed inability to acknowledge that many factors contributed to martial decline in Sweden, well before registered partnerships were introduced in 1994. Yet I've repeatedly noted the importance of multiple causal factors and pre-existing marital decline. That's exactly why I concentrate on Norway and the Netherlands rather than Sweden and Denmark. Gay marriage had more effect on Norway and the Netherlands because there was "more marriage" left to undermine when gay marriage came around than in either Sweden or Denmark. There's no way Eskridge can even claim to refute me without looking at Norway and the Netherlands. Yet he spends all his time on the two countries where marriage had declined the furthest even before gay marriage was introduced (while pretending I don't understand that point).


Does this mean same-sex partnerships did nothing to contribute to Swedish marital decline? Not on your life. In "The Marriage Mentality" I showed how same-sex partnerships are pushing Sweden toward recognition of triple and quadruple parenting. And in "Fanatical Swedish Feminists," I showed how Sweden's same-sex partnerships have opened the way for a drive to abolish marriage and recognize polyamory. Eskridge talks about "nordic bliss." Read "Fanatical Swedish Feminists" and you'll see a nordic nightmare. When it comes to "slippery slope" issues, the impact of same-sex partnerships on Sweden is quite strong.

But that's not all. The Swedish out-of-wedlock birthrate continued to rise after passage of registered partnerships in 1994, and there's good reason to view registered partnerships as a contributing factor in that rise. As we saw in "Fanatical Swedish Feminists," Swedish legislation removing the final remaining differences between registered partnerships and marriage (e.g., the right to state-funded artificial insemination), made a point of treating marriage, registered partnerships, and mere cohabitation alike. So instead of highlighting marriage's privileged status as a site for parenthood, partnership legislation is communicating the message that marriage is no different from cohabitation.

Read on here.

When rules no longer matter and are meant only to be changed

The New Jersey Synod Assembly voted to "accept" Resolution II submitted by Assistant to the Bishop Gladys Moore, a copy of the Metro NY resolution which was ruled by the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to be unconstitutional. The unconstitutionality of it was argued on the floor but it was approved anyway, approximately 230 to 170.

In the words of the person who passed the news along, "The message this sends is that "rules" no longer matter. Guess we knew that all along - but this surely lays it out in black and white. Could not resist giving you the scoop."

SENATE VOTES ON JUNE 6:

"Tell Your Friends:

Thank you for taking a stand to protect marriage for our children and grandchildren by writing your Senators. Now please help us make sure that our voices are heard on Capitol Hill -- the voices of the vast majority of Americans who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Please tell your friends, family, and neighbors that the time is now to make a difference. Our deadline of June 6th is rapidly approaching. Help us by entering five e-mail addresses below to tell your friends and family that that they need to make their voices heard. These addresses will only be used for sending your message.

We will add your personalized message to the email below and deliver it to the friends and family you choose. See here.

Email Your Senators

Let your Senators know they must vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment on June 6. Enter your constituent information below, as well as any additional personal comments you may want to add to the message, and click 'Send My E-mail.'

····

Subject: Vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment

E-mail Text:

Dear Your Senator's Name;

Marriage is the union of a husband and wife. Its benefits for children and for society as a whole are incalculable. Marriage is not discrimination; it is common sense, for the common good. For marriage to flourish in our culture it must be protected against being redefined as something other than the union of one man and one woman.

Therefore, as your constituent, I respectfully request that you support S. J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment, and that you support all procedural measures to bring the amendment to a floor vote.

Your Comments Here

Signed,

Your Name
And Mailing Address



Please complete the form here:

ELCA's last statement on marriage still stands?

Clarification Regarding Same-sex Blessings
and Ongoing Deliberation Concerning Homosexuality From the ELCA Office of the Presiding Bishop, May 2000

The Rev. H. George Anderson

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America upholds heterosexual marriage as the appropriate context for intimate sexual expression. The ELCA’s 1996 message, Sexuality: Some Common Convictions, stated:

Marriage is a lifelong covenant of faithfulness between a man and a woman. In marriage, two persons become "one flesh;" a personal and sexual union that embodies God’s loving purpose to create and enrich life. By the gift of marriage God "founded human community in a joy that begins now and is brought to perfection in the life to come."

In 1993, the ELCA’s Conference of Bishops stated:

We, as the Conference of Bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, recognize that there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church’s ministry. Nevertheless, we express trust in and will continue dialogue with those pastors and congregations who are in ministry with gay and lesbian persons, and affirm their desire to explore the best ways to provide pastoral care for all to whom they minister.

Recent synodical actions do not change the ELCA’s stance upholding marriage.

In 1999, the Churchwide Assembly (this church’s highest legislative authority) called upon all members and congregations to continue dialogue regarding homosexuality. The assembly voted:

To continue discerning conversations about homosexuality and the inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in our common life and mission and to encourage churchwide units, synods, congregations, and members of this church to participate in thoughtful, deliberate, and prayerful conversations through use of such resources as "Talking about Homosexuality–A Guide for Congregations."

To reaffirm 1991 and 1995 actions of the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that "Gay and lesbian people, as individuals created by God, are welcome to participate fully in the life of the congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America." [excerpts from CA99.06.27]

The Rev. H. George Anderson
Presiding Bishop
on behalf of the ELCA Conference of Bishops

Mark Hanson, could you go on the record? After all, lots has happened in the last five years.

Top 10 Social Scientific Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM)

Top 10 Social Scientific Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM)

A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, see work by David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth. This statement from Sara McLahanan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative: “If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.”
* Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Harvard University Press. p. 38.

1. Children hunger for their biological parents

SS couples using IVF or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: “Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?” “Can I write him a letter?” “Has he ever seen me?” “Didn’t you like him? Didn’t he like me?” Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.
* Kyle Pruett. 2000. Fatherneed. Broadway. p. 204.
* Elizabeth Marquardt. 2004. The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.

2. Children need fathers

If SSM becomes common, most SS couples with children would be lesbians. This means that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior/delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls. What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe’s work, suggests that a father’s pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.
* Ellis, Bruce J., Bates, John E., Dodge, Kenneth A., Fergusson, David M., Horwood, L. John, Pettit, Gregory S., & Woodward, Lianne. Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?. Child Development, 74, 801-821.
* David Popenoe. 1996. Life Without Father. Harvard.

3. Children need mothers

Although gay men are less likely to have children than lesbians, there will be and are gay men raising children. There will be even more if SSM is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby summarizes much of this literature in her book The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads’ book, which comes out in the fall.
* Eleanor Maccoby. 1998. The Two Sexes. Harvard.
* Steven Rhoads. 2004. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Encounter.

4. Inadequate evidence on SS couple parenting

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are “no effects” of SS couple parenting on children. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on SSM, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian Court considering SSM: “Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.” This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.
*Steven Nock. 2001. Affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department.


5. Children raised in SS homes experience gender and sexual disorders

Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, the evidence does suggest that children raised by lesbians or gay men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey—an advocate for SSM and a sociologist—reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: “lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions.” Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine. She also found that a “significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers… reported having a homoerotic relationship.” Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions. Her review must be view judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of SS couple parenting.
*Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. 2001. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially pp. 168-171.

6. Vive la difference

If SSM is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would me more use of gender-neutral language like “partners” and—more importantly—more social/cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage. But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion’s share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia Psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.
* E. Mavis Hetherington & John Kelly. 2002. For Better of For Worse. Norton. P. 31.
* Steven Rhoads. 2004. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Encounter.

7. Sexual fidelity

One of the biggest threats that SSM poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of marriage, Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan wrote: “There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.” This line of thinking, of course, were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media, would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
* Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon. 2003. Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology.
* David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison. 1984. The Male Couple. Prentice Hall. P. 252.

8. Marriage, procreation, and the fertility implosion

Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms. Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. SSM would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage. This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing SSM have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman—well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.
* For national fertility rates
* For the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation

9. For the sake of the children.

The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades has seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion. It is plausible to suspect that SSM would have similar consequences for marriage, that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? SSM would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father. This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. SSM would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.
* James Q. Wilson. 2002. The Marriage Problem. Basic. PP. 175-177.
* George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz. 1996. "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.

10. Women & marriage domesticate men.

Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home. If the distinctive sexual patterns of “committed” gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that SSM would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in SSM. Thus, gay activists like Andrew Sullivan who argue that gay marriage will domesticate gay men are—in all likelihood—clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.
* Steve Nock. 1998. Marriage in Men’s Lives. Oxford.
* Institute for American Values. 2003. Hardwired to Connect. P. 17.

A Letter from America's Religious Leaders in Defense of Marriage

A Letter from America's Religious Leaders in Defense of Marriage

Throughout America, the institution of marriage is suffering. As leaders in our nation's religious communities, we cannot sit idly by. It is our duty to speak. And so across the lines of theological division, we have united to affirm, in one voice, the following:

For millennia our societies have recognized the union of a man and a woman in the bond of marriage. Cross-culturally virtually every known human society understands marriage as a union of male and female. As such marriage is a universal, natural, covenantal union of a man and a woman intended for personal love, support and fulfillment, and the bearing and rearing of children. Sanctioned by and ordained of God, marriage both precedes and sustains civil society.

Marriage is particularly important for the rearing of children as they flourish best under the long term care and nurture of their father and mother. For this and other reasons, when marriage is entered into and gotten out of lightly, when it is no longer the boundary of sexual activity, or when it is allowed to be radically redefined, a host of personal and civic ills can be expected to follow. Such a point has always been stressed by the world's great monotheistic religious traditions and is, today, increasingly confirmed by impeccable social science research.

Long concerned with rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers, we have recently watched with extreme alarm the growing trend of some courts to make marriage something it is not: an elastic concept able to accommodate almost any individual preference. This does not so much modify or even weaken marriage as abolish it. The danger this betokens for family life and a general condition of social justice and ordered liberty is hard to overestimate.

Therefore, we take the unprecedented stand of uniting to call for a constitutional amendment to establish a uniform national definition of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on the whole of our society. We encourage all citizens of good will across the country to step forward boldly and exercise their right to work through our constitutionally established democratic procedures to amend the Constitution to include a national definition of marriage. We hereby announce our support for S.J. Res.1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

May God bless all marriages and all those who labor to protect the sanctity and promote the goodness of marriage throughout this nation.

Signed,

The Right Reverend Keith L. Ackerman, SSC
Episcopal Bishop of Quincy, IL

Daniel Akin, Ph.D.
President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

The Right Reverend Peter H. Beckwith
Episcopal Bishop of Springfield, IL

Bishop Charles E. Blake
First Assistant Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ (COGIC)

Bishop Wellington Boone
Founder and Sr. Bishop, Fellowship of International Churches

The Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Denver, CO

Charles W. Colson
Founder and Chairman, Prison Fellowship

His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of America
Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman, Focus on the Family

David Dockery, Ph.D.
President, Union University, Jackson, Tennessee
Chairman, Board of Directors, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities

The Right Reverend Robert Duncan
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, PA
Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network

His Eminence Edward Cardinal Egan
Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, NY

His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, IL

Timothy George, Th.D.
Dean, Beeson Divinity School of Samford University
Executive Editor of Christianity Today

The Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez
Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, TX

The Reverend Ted Haggard
President, National Association of Evangelicals

The Reverend Dr. Jack W. Hayford
President, The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
Founder/Chancellor, The King's College and Seminary
Pastor Emeritus, The Church On The Way

The Most Blessed Herman
Archbishop of Washington and New York
Primate, The Orthodox Church in America

The Right Reverend John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

Bishop Harry R. Jackson
Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church, Lanham, MD
President, High Impact Leadership Coalition

His Eminence William Cardinal Keeler
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, MD

The Reverend Dr. D. James Kennedy
Chancellor, Knox Theological Seminary, Fort Lauderdale, FL

The Reverend Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick
President, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

Dr. Richard Land
President, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention

Rabbi Daniel Lapin
President, Toward Tradition

Steve W. Lemke, Ph.D.
Provost, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

The Reverend Dr. Peter A. Lillback
Senior Pastor, Proclamation Presbyterian Church, Bryn Mawr, PA
President, Westminster Theological Seminary

The Reverend Herbert H. Lusk, II
Senior Pastor, Greater Exodus Baptist Church
President & CEO, People For People, Inc

His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, CA

His Eminence Adam Cardinal Maida
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Detroit, MI

Most Reverend Richard J. Malone
Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, ME

His Eminence Theodore Cardinal McCarrick
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, DC

The Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino
Roman Catholic Bishop of Madison, WI

The Most Reverend John Myers
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Newark, NJ

The Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kansas City, KS

Elder Russell M. Nelson
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Reverend Richard John Neuhaus
Editor in chief of FIRST THINGS

The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
Roman Catholic Bishop of New Ulm, MN

Rabbi David Novak
J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies,
Professor of the Study of Religion and Professor of Philosophy, University of Toronto
Visiting Professor of Religion, Princeton University (2006)

The Most Reverend Thomas J. Olmsted
Roman Catholic Bishop of Phoenix, AZ

His Eminence Sean Patrick Cardinal O'Malley, O.F.M., Cap.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, MA

Rev. Dr. Luciano Padilla, Jr.
Senior Pastor, Bay Ridge Christian Center, Brooklyn, NY

Dr. Paige Patterson
President, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

His Eminence Justin Cardinal Rigali
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Philadelphia, PA

The Reverend Eugene F. Rivers, III
Founder and President, The Seymour Institute for Advanced Christian Studies

The Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, Jr.
President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
National Hispanic Association of Evangelicals

The Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan,br> Roman Catholic Bishop of Colorado Springs, CO

Rabbi Meir Soloveichik
Associate Rabbi, Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun of Manhattan, NY

The Most Reverend John G. Vlazny
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, OR

The Reverend Dr. Rick Warren
Founding Pastor, The Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA
Author, The Purpose-Driven Life

Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
Executive Vice President, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

The Reverend David Welch
Executive Director, U.S. Pastor Council

The Most Reverend John W. Yanta
Roman Catholic Bishop of Amarillo, TX

Malcolm B. Yarnell, III, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Theological Research
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Institutional affiliations are provided for purposes of identification only.

If you can't play by the rules, declare there are no rules

...and end it by saying, "Bless me, Father"! Really, read this resolution and tell me what you think:

A Neutral Stance that Addresses the Ministry of Gay and Lesbian Persons

WHEREAS, the 2005 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America adopted without amendment 'Recommendation One of the 2005 ELCA Church Council, committing this church; asking every part of the ELCA - congregations, synods, institutions, agencies and churchwide units, "to seek unity in the midst of our disagreements over matters of sexuality"; and

WHEREAS, the 2005 Churchwide Assembly, *Recommendation One, directed action "to concentrate on Finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements, recognizing the God-given mission and communion that we share as members of the body of Christ"; and

WHEREAS, it is the churchwide organization's responsibility through decisions of the CWA and Church Council to develop "churchwide policies in consultation with the synods and congregations" *(ELCA Constitution 8.14) and it is each synod's responsibility to "provide for pastoral care of the congregations, ordained ministers, associates in ministry, deaconnesses, and diaconal ministers within its boundaries" tt(ELCA Constitution. 8.13).

WHEREAS, gratitude is expressed to the Grand Canyon Synod for adoption of the Resolution of Welcome at its 2005 Assembly specifically declaring that 'all persons regardless of race, ancestry, color, citizenship, religious background, sexual orientation, age, gender identity, marital status, ability, economic status, or primary language share with all others the worth that comes from being unique individuals created by God, are welcome within the membership of the synod, and that, as members, are welcome to full participation in the organizational and sacramental life of this church'.

WHEREAS, there are many instances where congregations have expressed their willingness to receive the ministry of partnered gay and lesbian pastors and leaders as well as those congregations not willing; and

WHEREAS, St. Paul writes in Ephesians 4:3-5: "...making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above ail and through all and in all."

Now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Grand Canyon Synod shall take a neutral stance, neither in favor of nor prohibiting the rostering of otherwise-qualified persons in a mutual, chaste, and faithful same-gender partnership; and be it further

RESOLVED, That those congregations of this Grand Canyon Synod that choose to call and those that choose not to call otherwise-qualified persons in a same-gender partnership shall be seen as being faithful to the Word of God.

Submitted by: The Congregation Council of Faith Lutheran Church, Phoenix, Arizona

Joy as gay dean stays at St. Mark's

Pastor loses election for Episcopal bishop of California

"It was not until the Very Rev. Robert Taylor had stepped to his pulpit at Sunday's 11 a.m. service at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral that applause erupted in some back rows. His congregation quickly stood, and the ovation spread, row by row.

At first, Taylor motioned for people to sit. Then he smiled. The Capitol Hill worshippers were disobeying his request. Church members knew that Taylor, the cathedral's openly gay dean, had lost Saturday's election to be the new bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California.
Robert Taylor
Zoom Jim Bryant / P-I
The Very Rev. Robert Taylor, openly gay dean of St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, greets 7-month-old Maxwell Keeler after services on Sunday.

By applauding, they let him know he still had a home in Seattle.

The diocese elected the Right Rev. Mark Andrus, 49, bishop suffragan of the diocese of Alabama, as its first new bishop in 27 years, a decision that averted inflaming a crisis over homosexuality in the denomination.

The broader Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion to which it belongs have been shaken by a dispute over the inclusion of gay men and lesbians that grew increasingly acrimonious after the Episcopal Church consecrated the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.

In the Diocese of California, three of the seven candidates on Saturday's ballot for bishop were openly gay or lesbian ministers in long-term relationships. None of the gay candidates received more than a handful of votes.

Taylor, 48, is from South Africa and arrived at St. Mark's in 1999. A protégé of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, he leads about 2,400 members of St. Mark's.

He shares his life with his partner, Jerry Smith.

If a gay candidate had been elected, the trickle of congregations that have left the Episcopal Church USA since the consecration of Bishop Robinson might have accelerated, and the strained relations between the Episcopal Church and the broader communion could have been pushed to a schism, church experts have said.

advertising
The American Anglican Council has said that the election of a non-celibate gay bishop would "set off a firestorm."

Taylor said he is aware of the division.

"I think the question we're struggling with as a church is that baptism makes everyone a full member of the church," he said in an interview Sunday.

"So we're struggling to live the truth of what God already knows. ... God is inclusive. God is filled with love and justice."

After the approximately 500 church members took their seats, Taylor opened his sermon with an understatement, causing many people to laugh: "Something happened yesterday."

He thanked the congregation for its support, both for him and for Smith, and said their lives have been strengthened during this process.

He also talked about St. Mark's -- which he calls "a house of prayer for all people" and is celebrating its 75th anniversary -- and how the church has made controversial choices based on compassion and justice.

Those include opposing the war in Iraq. "Have we and will we disappoint some? Yes," he said.

He also repeated a passage that the congregation read earlier in the service. "Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed," he said.

Inside the high-ceilinged, well-lit cathedral, people said they were happy that Taylor would be staying. They praised him for his ability to challenge people and to bring out the best in them.

Among the congregation was Helen Morse, a downtown Seattle resident. She was one of the first people to stand and clap. She said her friend nudged her to action. "There was apprehension that he was going to leave."

For her, having gays and lesbians at the church was not a problem. "We've accepted it."

"Sometimes fear gets in the way of progress," said Liz Ford, a 41-year-old Seward Park resident. "He's brilliant."

Deacon Mary Shehane said Taylor would have made a great bishop -- but she's happy he is staying on Capitol Hill.

She added that churches can have differences on controversial issues. "But we've managed to hold together," she said.

In an acceptance statement via a phone call piped into Grace Cathedral, Andrus -- the new bishop -- said he would continue to support the full inclusion of gay men and lesbians in the diocese.

"We must all understand, and here I address the Diocese of California and those listening from elsewhere, that your vote today remains a vote for inclusion and communion -- of gay and lesbian people in their full lives as single or partnered people, of women, of all ethnic minorities, and all people," Andrus said, referring to continuing in the Anglican Communion, which has about 77 million members worldwide.

"My commitment to Jesus Christ's own mission of inclusion is resolute."

Despite the tension surrounding the vote, local clergy members and lay delegates who voted on Saturday and outside experts familiar with the diocese said that the candidates' sexual orientation did not play a role in the election.

In meetings two weeks ago between the seven candidates and members of the diocese, people emphasized that they wanted a bishop with a commitment to social justice, evangelism and young people, said those who went to the meetings.

To win, a candidate needed to receive a simple majority of the votes of the two representative bodies, the lay delegates from the parishes and the clergy members, on the same ballot.

Some parishioners said Andrus won because he was the safe bet: a straight, white male, not unlike Bishop William Swing, the current bishop who will retire in July.

But others who voted said that Andrus' open support of gay men and lesbians while serving as the bishop suffragan, or assistant bishop, in Alabama, a clearly unpopular position in that diocese, won them over.

The Episcopal Church's triennial general convention will meet in Columbus, Ohio, in mid-June, and Andrus is expected to be consecrated there. But while the vote in California did not worsen tensions in the Episcopal Church, anger over the acceptance of gays continues to simmer -- as does the possibility that an openly gay or lesbian bishop might be elected elsewhere, such as in Tennessee and New Jersey.

At St. Mark's on Sunday, though, people just smiled when they saw Taylor stand before them.

As worshippers left, many wrapped their arms around him. Taylor knelt down and gave two boys "high fives."

"Happy Sunday," he finally said to one church member."

This report contains information from P-I reporter Brad Wong, The New York Times and The Associated Press.

Bishop Robinson speaks to Log Cabin

NEWS



by Bob Roehr

Bishop Gene Robinson and the Reverend Martha Simmons at the Log Cabin Republicans conference in Washington, D.C.

"It is really important for us to come out as religious, because religion is the greatest single source of our oppression. It is going to take religious people to undo that religious oppression," said Bishop V. Gene Robinson.

"There is no story that you can tell that is any more important than how you, yourself came to grips with your being gay. And that you believe in a God who loves us all," he said.

Robinson, the first openly gay elected bishop in the Episcopal Church, who presides over the Diocese of New Hampshire, made his remarks in a keynote speech at the Log Cabin Republicans national convention on April 28 in the ornate Hall of Flags at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, across Lafayette Park from the White House.

He said every major Jewish and Christian group is grappling with the issue of gays, and the struggle is within denominations, not between them.

Robinson tied the debate to a dichotomy of whether the sacred text "is conceived to be the word of God, as if dictated from God's own mouth, or the work of God ... I think the great divide between religious peoples is between those who believe that the creation is the central story, and the point of it is that creation is good, versus those who see the fall as the central story. Is humanity essentially good? Or is humanity essentially depraved?"

He "challenged them to be a missionary ... go to the communities that you know and love ... and describe how I navigated my way through being gay and claiming God's love for me."

Robinson lambasted rhetoric of "hate the sin, love the sinner" as insincere.

"Being gay is something I am, not something I do," he said. He called the Vatican's attempts to link child abuse to homosexuality "absolute violence against you and me." He urged everyone to "get a little bolder about confronting homo hatred."

Panel

Robinson then participated in a panel discussion with Atlanta religious publisher the Reverend Martha Simmons and the Reverend C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance.

Simmons spoke movingly of having lived in San Francisco near the Castro and of losing her best friend to AIDS. "He taught me so much about being human and being kind, and the kind of person god would want you to be," she said.

She said, "A big part of homophobia that I encounter is just plain ignorance. Education goes a long way." The only thing that will help is courage: "Stand up against homophobia when you see it."

Gaddy stressed the importance of religious liberty to the gay rights movement. He said the one thing that can unite conservative Baptists and religious liberals is that "they do not want the government regulating their wedding ceremonies or telling their houses of worship who they can marry." He saw that as a potentially winning strategy.

Robinson said the easy answer to what motivates much of the opposition to equality for gays is fear, "and perfect love casts out fear." But he also tied it to patriarchy; that straight white males have for so long dominated society that they fear losing more. "None of us wants to give up the privilege we have," he said.

Gaddy said that religion "has never done well with sex, we don't know what to do with it." He said, "People who know better" have exploited it for political purposes.

Simmons said the problem was exacerbated by Democrats "who paid no attention to moral issues" and allowed the religious right to frame the debate. "Poverty is a moral issue, whether or not people have jobs" is a moral issue. "There were voices in the African American community who knew that this happened but they did not want to say they support the rights of gay people."

Marriage

"The notion that my love for my partner somehow undermines somebody else's marriage is just pure idiocy," Robinson said.

Drawing upon his own recent experience in a residential program for alcohol abuse, he added, "If the people really want to protect marriage in this country, they should be putting money into treatment centers for alcohol because that is what is undermining marriage."

"In this country, unlike some others, we have put together the sacred and secular. Clergy act as agents of the state in solemnizing marriage. In our minds, the two have become inextricably linked. As clergy, we need to begin to separate civil rights from religious rites," Robinson said.

"I'm not sure that we shouldn't stop doing marriages. We ought to do what churches do, which is bless those marriages. Until we start separating that out, I'm not sure that our people are going to separate them in our mind."

Simmons echoed that, "It is the only way this issue is winnable over religious people. That was the only way the issue of slavery was winnable over religious people. History will show you that this country would still be practicing slavery had it been left up to religious people.

"Instead, there were people who said, the law has to change. We wish you all felt it in your heart, but since you don't..." She encouraged dialogue but also practicality, "Don't waste a whole lot of time trying to convince people who you know are never going to change their mind and accept you."

Gaddy said, "At one point people thought that we out to change the nation by changing one individual at a time. But it takes too long. The civil rights movement found its initial success because laws changed. And laws changed because there was political leadership willing to take a position to let the nation be all that it promised to be.

"I am perfectly willing to live with people who are bigoted if the laws have changed enough to create a culture in which it is not acceptable to be bigoted," Gaddy said, "because we can live with that; we can't live with the idea that the laws have to support our bigotry."

GAY REFORMATION HYMN

Tune: Ein' Feste Burg, No. 551 in the Hymnal 1940



Two thousand years we feared our love,

Condemned "unnatural sinners";

Now stepping forth from heaven above

Christ makes Gays special winners:

This world is filled with hate;

It seems almost too late

For God to interfere

Again to bring love here,

But that's what God is doing.



No more can foes God's plans decide

Nor obfuscate God's choosing.

God's love for Gays they cannot hide.

Their puppetry is losing.

The Lord of heaven and earth

Affirms Gays' priceless worth:

Our ransom has been paid:

Joint heirs with Christ we're made:

Let homophobes take notice!



The Church once asked to have us killed

Our blood has writ this witness

All ignorant minds must now be filled

With sexual truth and fitness

The pressures still are strong

To work on Gays much wrong

We're called to persevere

Endure our holy fear

For Christ commands our army.



Our strength is not in guns or laws

Our weapon is but meekness

We can forgive our foes their flaws

Gay might is just such "weakness"

More friends will join this fight

Because the Lord is right

Gay bodies house God's spirit

But only through Christ's merit

God's love will triumph through us.



--Louie Crew

Must Read for Lutherans!

Binding and Unbinding the Conscience: Luther's Significance for the Plight of the Gay Protestant by Paul E. Capetz

Leave your critique, pro-or-con, in comments. I'll have more to say later in comments section myself. -Shrimp

Know your opponents

What would a gay professor of historical theology preach about Luther? Go here where you will find: "Luther’s “reformation” was nothing less than a wholesale rejection of this medieval understanding of Christian existence as the pursuit of holiness. Luther came to realize that his commitment to the monastic life was motivated by fear of God’s judgment. To avoid the possibility of eternal damnation, Luther entered the monastery, hoping thereby to evade God’s wrath against sinners. But soon he discovered that his efforts to be a saint led him to despair of himself. He confessed every impure thought that crossed his mind and engaged in ruthless self-examination to see whether he truly loved God with his whole heart and his neighbor as himself. Eventually, Luther concluded that his inherited understanding of the Christian life was at odds with the basic message of scripture which he believed to find in the teaching of the apostle Paul that we are “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28)."

Nothing too wrong with that, he actually preaches what (too bad) many say about Luther and holiness (which I don't believe at all-Luther taught we were to live beyond any self-righteous conceptions of holiness) but we can see that he is trying to abolish something and put something else it its place.

And so Capetz goes on to play around with Bonhoeffer too:

"I discovered later, and I’m still discovering right up to this moment, that it is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. One must completely abandon any attempt to make something of oneself, whether it be a saint, or a converted sinner, or a churchman...By this worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life’s duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God….That, I think, is faith…and that is how one becomes a [human being] and a Christian (letter of July 21, 1944)."

Capetz spins it out:

"It’s striking that Bonhoeffer appeals to Luther’s example here. I think Bonhoeffer correctly grasped the radical character of Luther’s message about the freedom of the gospel and that he translated it into action in a dramatic way in the context of the modern world. Here was a person who set aside religious scruples to be a human being in solidarity with his fellow human beings and was willing to get his hands dirty with the moral ambiguities of life in this world. Because of his confidence that God accepts the sinner, Bonhoeffer knew that he had no higher calling than to be a human being—not a saint, not a religious type, but a human being, living a secular life in the midst of a godless world. He understood, as did Luther before him, that the gospel frees the conscience to act boldly in the face of life’s tasks. He realized, as did Luther before him, that the gospel frees us from pre-occupation with our own salvation so that we need not (indeed, must not!) withdraw from the world with its all-too-human sorrows and failures as well as its oh-so-human joys and wonders.

"Nevertheless, the gospel frees the human being to live in this world with the bold confidence that God accepts the sinner and, therefore, the sinner can trust in God’s grace."

So just go ahead and sin, right? YOu can read the whole thing here.

Let's see what Capetz does with "telling his own story":

"Although I have never been the victim of a hate crime such as that perpetrated against Matthew Shepard, my life and my career have been adversely affected by homophobia, specifically of the ecclesial variety. Eleven years ago I was ordained as a minister in this church and was called to teach at one of our Presbyterian seminaries. Before I had even packed my bags to assume my new post, however, an anonymous accusation on account of my sexual orientation threatened to take this job away from me. I later discovered, to my great shock and dismay, that this accusation had come from one of my own professors in graduate school. Since the substance of the accusation could not be proven and the person making it denied any responsibility when directly confronted, I was allowed to join the faculty after all. But an ominous cloud hung over my head, for I knew that my job would always be vulnerable to such threats. After a year I took another position at a seminary affiliated with the United Church of Christ which has allowed me to pursue my vocation unhindered by homophobia. While I was glad to find refuge with the U.C.C., there was much sadness, nonetheless, since I had to leave colleagues with whom there was an unusual and rare "meeting of minds" of the sort for which one always yearns yet seldom ever finds in academic settings.

"Nine years later, in the spring of 2000, I asked the presbytery to release me from the exercise of the ordained ministry.5 This decision was made in response to the passage in 1997 of so-called "Amendment B" which implied commitment to a life of permanent celibacy for a gay person holding an ordained office. Up until that point, I had been able to live within the bounds of the constitution in good conscience. To be sure, the "Definitive Guidance" of 1978 had already put into effect what was essentially a policy of "Don't ask, don't tell!" Yet there was still some space for gay officers to serve the church within these ambiguous constraints. The change in the constitution itself forced my hand. For me, the crucial consideration in relinquishing my ordination was a matter of principle: enforced celibacy without the possibility of marriage violates a fundamental tenet of Reformed theology. Previously there had never been a situation in the history of the Protestant church when celibacy was required of an entire caste of persons as a condition of their fidelity to the gospel.6 Remaining silent was no longer an option. I could not continue to represent the church as one of its ministers when the theological principles of its own heritage were ignored for the purpose of excluding gay people. In the meantime, another Presbyterian seminary invited me to apply for a faculty position, but when I explained the reasons for deciding to set aside my ordination, I was informed that there was no point in submitting an application since it could not be taken seriously. I mention these experiences not to make myself the focus of attention here, but simply to illustrate that gay people are not the only victims of homophobia. The entire church suffers the consequences insofar as talent is drained from the ranks of its leaders for the sake of a policy that I have no hesitation in decrying as immoral."

Read the whole remarkable thing here.

Capetz has had a busy career. Read this response to his revisionism of Luther.

There we can read a fellow Presbyterian professor responding to him:

"While every first-year seminarian knows that Luther considered the book of James an “epistle of straw,”only one reading of Luther claims that he created a “canon within the canon.” Luther never said that, nor did he eliminate James from the canon. He did not “reject James,” as Capetz says, for rather than driving a wedge between the formal and material principles, he threw his hands up, offering his doctor’s cap to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Both Calvin and Bullinger maintained sola fide and sola scriptura together, suggesting that Capetz is anachronistic in reading back post-critical categories on these arguments. Granted, there is some tension and ambiguity in the Reformers’ use of the Bible, which tension is exacerbated after the development of higher critical methods. But does this not increase, rather than decrease, the need for confessional documents in the public teaching of the church?"

Which is just to say what, that we live in a time where good minds are bent on turning and twisting words until they say what they want them to say, so we need to nail some things down?

No doubt Capetz has had his troubles, but he is hardly a victim. I found him while googling around wondering who had implanted the ideas that Megan Rohrer espoused below about Luther rejecting celibacy as an idea that relates to gay ministerial candidates today.

More reasons for the gay activists to leave the mainlines and start their own liberal church. They have professors, seminarians, laity, and lots of money. Perhaps they can convince themselves to go and sin boldly after all, and "do a Nike" (just do it).

Looking like the promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle is growing

One of the lines that is thrown out oh so casually is that it seems like God must make people gay since there are so many. Seems to me that this is but another canard, another example of God being blamed for what people are pretty good at all by themselves.

What do I mean? Do gays promote their lifestyle of not? Have they been successful at convincing liberals to join them in promoting the homosexual lifestyle as a civil rights thing or not? Have they convinced businesses to join them in promoting the homosexual lifestyle as a normal thing or not? Have they convinced teachers to join them in promoting the homosexual lifestyle as a something children should not discriminate against or not? Have they convinced media to join them in promoting the homosexual lifestyle as a good thing or not?

Read the following:

May 2, 2006 – "CBS and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) have teamed up to produce a series of Public Service Announcements(PSAs) that will be dropped into a day-time soap opera promoting teen homosexuality.

"READ WHOLE ALERT HERE

They go on to say:

"THEN TAKE ACTION: Write a letter of concern to Mr. Moonves asking for CBS to give equal time to Rev Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition to present an alternative viewpoint on homosexual behavior. Forward this alert to your friends!

"GLAAD only wants a positive portrayal of homosexuality presented to the American people over public airwaves. This is a betrayal of the public trust. CBS should be willing to prevent a fair and balanced message on homosexuality—and not promote only one viewpoint on this controversial topic.

"Go WRITE THAT LETTER! Better yet, write a letter, send an email and then RING HIS PHONE!!!"

Leslie Moonves -- CBS Entertainment
Title: Chairman and CEO, CBS
Department: Headquarters
E-mail: diversity@cbs.com
Phone: (323) 575-2380
Address: 7800 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036

Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries urges pastors to talk to them first before they tell the truth to their bishops...

Click here for the pdf and scroll down to paage three and read the story on "Coming Out" to bishops. It is interesting to read that they think all but a few bishops think that it is a bishops job to uphold the constitution and policies of the ELCA!

Homosexuality, Conscience, and the Reformation

by Scott H. Hendrix

A comparison of the idea of “bound consciences” reveals that the meaning is different today from what the sixteenth-century reformers meant by it.

The Task Force on Sexuality appeals to “deeply held and conscience-bound positions” to explain the lack of consensus within the ELCA and argues that Martin Luther’s careful approach to moral issues showed a “genuine concern for the integrity of conscience.” Moreover, the report cites Luther’s appeal to his captive conscience at the Diet of Worms and solicits “respect for one another’s bound consciences as a matter of pastoral concern.”

What is meant by the term conscience in these phrases? Did Luther understand his conscience to be captive to the Word of God in the same way that the report describes the captive consciences of Lutherans today? The questions are worth asking because the bound conscience is the basis of the task force’s decision to frame its recommendations in nonbinding terms.

Meaning of Conscience
For Lutheran theologians at the time of the Reformation, the conscience was not an inborn sense of right and wrong. Instead, they inherited from medieval theology the notion of conscience as the point of saving contact between us and God. For medieval mystics that point of contact was a divine spark that could be fanned into the flames of union with God. For scholastic theologians conscience was the capacity of the human being to earn saving merit, with the help of grace, by knowing and doing the will of God. Luther and his colleagues also regarded the conscience as a point of contact with God, but saving contact was established by faith in Christ that was created by the Holy Spirit through the Word.

When sixteenth-century Lutherans fought for the liberation of consciences, they sought to free believers from what they called human traditions — that is, rules and practices that the late-medieval church said were required for salvation but that the reformers could not find in Scripture. Reformers attempted to comfort the “terrified” or “anxious” consciences of the faithful, who felt they could never perform enough religious works to merit salvation. On the one hand, therefore, Luther and his colleagues advocated the freedom of conscience through faith against additional requirements for salvation that would bind the conscience.

On the other hand, reformers also considered the consciences of Christians to be captive to the Word of God, as indeed Luther said about his own conscience at Worms. His conviction that salvation came through faith in Christ alone was not only a theological opinion but the central message of Scripture as he, a professor of Bible, taught it. He was unable, therefore, to recant his teaching, because it would violate his conscience: not his moral sense of right or wrong but his religious conviction, formed and sustained by the Holy Spirit through Scripture, that Christ alone was the way of salvation. Luther’s conscience was not the only basis of his decision at Worms. A lesser-known part of his reply appeals to the consciences of the faithful that “have been miserably ensnared, vexed, and flayed” by human teachings and papal regulations. Luther felt keenly a responsibility for consciences besides his own that had found freedom through his writings.
The report of the task force appears to equate the bound consciences of Lutherans disagreeing about homosexuality with the captive consciences of Luther at Worms and other sixteenth-century believers. The views of ELCA Lutherans are based, to be sure, on divergent interpretations of Scripture and tradition, but those views would bind consciences in the Reformation sense only if Lutherans today believed that their salvation depended on those views. Luther and his colleagues would remind us that our salvation depends on faith in Christ alone, not on our personal convictions about sexual orientation, even though the Bible could be used to support those convictions.
Sixteenth-century Lutherans regarded homosexuality as a sin, because for them it was condemned by the Bible. Luther’s appeal to a captive conscience does not, therefore, tell the whole story of his use of Scripture. Like many theologians before him, he distinguished ceremonial from moral prescriptions in the Old Testament and held Christians to the commandments. Accepting the condemnation of homosexuality did not, in his opinion, contradict salvation by faith alone. On the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:34 Luther also rejected the ordination of women (LW 41:154-55). Appealing to specific cases of the reformers’ biblical interpretation, therefore, makes it possible to hold different views on issues of polity and conduct.

Different Sense Today
The task force report agrees, but it uses “bound consciences” in a sense different from that of the Reformation. The report implies that ELCA Lutherans are free to be bound by the dictates of their conscience in the modern sense: their personal judgment about the morality of homosexuality. An appeal to the Reformation would argue, however, that Lutherans are free to disagree not because our consciences are bound in the modern sense but because they are free in the Reformation sense — that is, not because our consciences are bound to personal convictions that may invoke Scripture but because they are liberated in Christ from additional requirements for salvation.

Lutherans will continue to disagree about homosexuality, but this disagreement is not a matter of conscience in the Reformation sense and need not prevent the setting of church policy. The Augsburg Confession approves of regulations that do not “burden consciences... as if such things were necessary for salvation” (art. XV, 2) but it does not require the church’s policy to be uniformly binding or to include a teaching to which everyone must adhere. In fact the Apology (art. XV, 5152) recommends the moderate exercise of liberty in such matters, “so that the inexperienced may not take offense and, on account of an abuse of liberty, become more hostile to the true teaching of the gospel... We judge that the greatest possible public concord which can be maintained without offending consciences ought to be preferred to all other interests.” That advice echoes the stance taken by Luther on the mass, images, and vows after he returned to Wittenberg from the Wartburg Castle in 1522:“Now do not make a must out of what is free” (Luther’s Works 51:74).

On an issue so controversial, no church policy can avoid offending some consciences, and the “moderate exercise of liberty” is not easily determined. Nevertheless, the recommendations of the task force have strong precedents that could be stronger yet by emphasizing the Reformation appeal to consciences liberated by faith.

Found http://www.elca.org/lutheranpartners/archives/0507_09.html.

goodsoil is officially recommending noncompliance at the synod level!

Shrimp here: The following is under the link: "One More Step: Synod Assemblies....In the 2006 Synod Assembly season, we hope each synod will pass a resolution that takes at least one real step further in fully including LGBT people. How you can help!In the 2006 Synod Assembly season, we hope each synod will pass a resolution that takes at least one real step further in fully including LGBT people.

"For some synods, that may mean becoming a Reconciling in Christ (RIC) synod. For others, it means finding a way to refrain from policies that discriminate against LGBT members of the ELCA. And some synods, we hope, will discern that now is the time to refuse to comply with those policies. Goodsoil's template resolutions allow for all of these possibilities."

Refuse to comply? If this is really where you are at (burn the church down ot the ground) how about we make a deal? You lose this assembly season and just take the money you are raising to fight and use it to build a denomination?

Goodsoil, you are basically saying, "Play by the rules until we can't win using them, then break them." Good grief!

Why should solid Lutherans get out? Why not revisionists?

Read it here.

The battle for hearts and minds (and votes)

Shrimp here: The spin is in! You have to visit the goodsoil web site in their cover story they write, "In a response as nuanced as the resolution itself, the Church Council said, in part, "that the resolution contains inherently conflicting statements that may be read as being in conflict with the constitution and bylaws of this church".

Well, duh, the Church Council is in control of revisionists (remember the Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 were much more radical than anything the revisionist sexuality statement said). Council didn't nuance, read between the lines, they said, "We're really sorry, you are going to have to try again. Please come back with something that doesn't make us culpable in splitting the ELCA."

Here's the beginning of their spin. Read it and visit the site. And thanks to goodsoil for putting the Almen pdf up on the web! if they keep it up they are going to show everyone in all synods how to bring them up before a disciplinary hearing in a way that will stick!

ELCA News Service Misrepresents Church Council Decision

-- 2006-05-02

The ELCA News Service, among others, has stated erroneously that the ELCA Church Council found a Metropolitan New York Synod (MNYS) resolution to be in conflict with ELCA Church rules when the Council’s action clearly stated only that the MNYS resolution may be read as being in conflict.

Because the Church Council’s ruling was not definitive, it is important that Synod Assemblies continue to voice concerns regarding the relationship between the ELCA’s mission and its processes for discipline and candidacy. Your help is needed to bring this issue before your Synod Assembly.

At its April 1-2, 2006 meeting, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America responded to a MNYS request received last fall for an evaluation of a resolution the synod adopted at a special assembly on October 29, 2005. The resolution stated in sum that the MYNS would not disqualify a candidate for ministry in a committed same-gender relationship solely on the basis of the relationship. The MYNS said in the resolution that it would put that fact in the context of what was best for the mission of the synod and the church before rendering judgment.

In a response as nuanced as the resolution itself, the Church Council said, in part, "that the resolution contains inherently conflicting statements that may be read as being in conflict with the constitution and bylaws of this church" (emphasis added).

Go there (and take care!).

Lutheran Conservatives Fear Contextualization of Scripture

Shrimp here: This is what it is all aboit folks, the reason for this blog.


by Pauline J. Chang


Lutherans read the Bible. This is the title of a proposed multi-year project to get the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) members and congregations to focus on the authority and interpretation of Scripture.

At first look, the emphasis on the Bible seems to stand in line with what confessing and traditional Lutherans have been saying all along: we must return to the heart of our faith, which is the Holy Scripture.

However, some conservative Lutherans fear that this core will get lost in the process of a larger denominational framework that has often placed the virtues of diversity and humanity above the absolute truth of God.

“I’m not confident that this process will reveal in a helpful way of how far some people in the ELCA have become from Martin Luther and the reformers and how little we focus on the authority of Scripture when we read the Bible,” said Mark Chavez, president of the Word Alone Network – a grouping of conservative Lutheran churches within the ELCA. “I’m not confident that this process will point out to everybody that most of the academic community in North America rejects absolute truth.”

The multi-year special focus on Scripture was adopted at the denomination’s Church Council meeting in early April, with plans to produce congregational resources on the topic by 2007. By then, a working group would be selected to lead the project and test out the resources at various Lutheran seminaries and colleges.

“[We] developed a consensus that the initial response should involve the members of this church in reading the Bible, informed by resources that would help them understand and use a Lutheran approach to the Scripture," the report to the council said.

The idea for the project began last year in the North Carolina Synod, following the release of a controversial church-wide report on homosexuality that addressed the thorny issue from varying viewpoints – from the traditionalists who reject the act as a grave sin, to the contextualists who view it as a celebration of diversity.

While the North Carolinian request made no mention on the report on homosexuality, it used terms familiar to traditional Lutherans, such as “authority of Scripture” and “biblical renewal.”

“In a round-about way the [Lutherans Read the Bible] project is related to the sexuality debate,” said Chavez. “The North Carolina synod did ask us to focus on the bible precisely for what was happening in the sexuality studies.”

Chavez fears that this original request will eventually get lost as the denomination struggles over which view – traditional or contextual – best represents the Lutheran view.

“I hope I’m wrong, but I think they are going to come up with different categories with the way Lutherans read the Bible,” said Chavez. “One of the categories will be a contextualist’s and the other will be the so-called Biblical literalist’s.”

“The practice so far has been to carefully select people to participate in this who are going to favor the contextual understanding,” he added. “This is a symptom of a deeper problem we have in our culture, academia and churches, where there is a prevailing assumption that the church is very relative and dependent on the context of things.”

Ultimately, Chavez said he believes the project can be positive for the church since it will get the denomination to focus “a lot more attention on the church and authority on Scripture all along.”

“My hope for this end project is that through this process, we really would take a serious look at how Martin Luther and the 16th century reformers approached the authority of the word of God,” he said.

Read about it at The Lutheran If you have'nt read the Craig Nessan essay which lays out the contextual hermeneutic go here.

We get letters....

Someone wants you to know:

"The Forum Letter reported Bishop Landahl's participation in the installation of Pastor Goldstein at St. Francis Lutheran Church in San Francisco. The editor guessed that he wished to express sympathy for the noble struggle to "change ELCA policies toward sexual minority pastors," and then added: "This is not to suggest that, as a bishop in the ELCA, he is not also equally charged with upholding those policies St. Francis seeks to change."

"In January, February, and March of 2006 Bishop Landahl sent letters to the pastors in the Metro Chicago Synod that each began, "This kind of letter is difficult to write." Three pastors were removed from the ELCA roster for having sexual affairs outside of marriage. Two had sexual affairs with women in their congregations. The third case, however, was a single pastor who had had an affair with an adult male. A pastor in the Metro Chicago Synod reported that a little probing uncovered the following facts in the case: this pastor's affair took place over a year and a half ago, it did not involve anyone in his congregation, the informant who filed the complaint to the bishop's office was the ex-wife of this pastor's ex-lover who filed her complaint six months after her divorce, and the effect of removing this pastor from the roster was that he was shy a half of year of being in the Health Plan for 30 years, which would have enabled him to continue to receive health benefits (he has a diabetic condition). Our informant in the Metro Chicago Synod who knows this pastor well reports that said pastor repented of his action, made a confession and received absolution. Nevertheless, he was given the maximum penalty of being removed from the roster. Vision and Expectations was enforced. Then Bishop Landahl went off to be an "ecumenical guest" at St. Francis to preside at the installation of a pastor who has made no secret of his gay orientation."

Perhaps this was passed on to me because we carried the news about Landahl's participation in Pr Goldstein's installation, perhaps because Goldstein them visited this site in an effort to "continue the dialogue" or perhaps it is pure mischief, bu tthe fact it that these people and the congregation at St. Francis, San Francisco is trying to provide another test case in an effort to keep the issue alive.

I myself am torn between clossing this blog down now that it has become a tool for them or beat them at their own game (mischief that is). What do you think?

Smear is smear

Megan is writing up a storm! In comments below she posted a link to Extraordinary Candidacy Project Resources where one finds the provocatively misnamed and phantastically written: Word Alone Supports the Ordination of Non-Celibate GLBTQ Individuals in the Lutheran Church: Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:17-40 By: Vicar Megan Rohrer.

http://www.ecpsems.org/resources/wordalone.pdf

Megan, the main thing to point out to you and everyone is that it is purely your opinion that WordAlone is "against homosexuals." All tehy are trying to come against is the teaching that homosexual pracitce is not a sin. We've seen this tactic before, but it is a smear, and I challenge you to stop it.

Every once in a while...

...I need to explain that this blog is called Shellfish because I think the "silly shellfish argument" is ludicrous. That does not mean that I think revisionists and gay activists are ludicrous. Far from it, they are forces to be reckoned with. In my opinion they are idealists,true crusaders, and if their cause is right they would be a great blessing to the church. However, when they are wrong, they are dangerous, and as we see in the mainline churches, quite capable of derailing the train, sinking the ship, or whatever, choose your metaphor.

Go here to see the shellfish argument laid out and taken apart.

In the last few days though, we have seen a new version of silly shellfish. Statements like the following can only need to a quite new religion. It comes from a commment left below, so I hope the author will not think I am not out of line by posting it here, but all I am doing here is what I might do in the comment section itself. Having gone back and forth a few times with her already, and concerned that the person is already doing some ministry and perhaps preparing for a career in it, it is legitimate concern:

"To be honest I think that we could be back and forth for days and days because one of the beauties of the scripture is that it is able to speak through many times, with the stories of many people (some more sinful than others) and even when God is violent or nonviolent, male or female (though more rightly probably male AND female), homosexual or heterosexual that the omnipresent message of the text is that God is with us and God saves us." (you'll find that in commments here)

I wrote the following in response which I put here not that it is utterly brilliant, but because I do not want anyone to miss it, and it is for practical reasons almost as much as our wish that this silly game would end:

Megan, I myself am not going to answer all your questions. I wish you well, but the way to help you is to refer you to someone else who can take you under their wing and point out your recklessness, lack of training in logic, the principles of hermeneutics, and the value and meaning of tradition. You live in a seminary community, right?

What I mean is this. You try to make the point that Luther had no problem with lesbians, but only male homosexuals because you know of a place where he says men should not try and be like women. You cannot argue that a person is neutral or negative on an issue because their opinion on certain subjects is not on record. If the record is silent, it is silent; it cannot endorse the question you bring to it.

This is sort of like the problem that people have when they want to argue that Jesus endorses homosexuality because he does not explicitly condemn it. He doesn't condemn everything that Scripture condemns--if he did the NT would be as many pages as the OT. However, when he endorses marriage as between a man and a woman, that taken with the fact that he says he came not to abolish the law would negate the proposition that Jesus endorses same sex marriage. But beyond that, the Christ does speak of sexual immorality:

Revelation 21:6-8 He also said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the one who is thirsty I will give water free of charge from the spring of the water of life. 7 The one who conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells, idol worshipers, and all those who lie, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur."

You'll note that that also has implications to the argument that it doesn't matter so much what sins we do since we are all sinners.

Megan, from what you've written in the last few days, you simply must understand that your position is antinomian. You have been condemned by Luther himself.

You think the Bible is beautiful because you can spin out many explanations. No, the bible is beautiful because it speaks of salvation and does this by pointing out our need for salvation and the promise of God to save those who accept their need for a savior.

In the future if you want an answer from me keep it to one question (some writers might get paid by the word, we don't).

Now, any of the rest of you have the time, please go at it. But do be nice and remember, Jude is in the canon, that is, the reason we do apologetics, especially with people who work in the church, especailly with seminarians, is not to prove we are right, but because the answer matters, and if it doesn't have eternal consequesnces we should all resign the pastorate and put up the counselor's shingle, or better yet, run for political and not ecclesial office.

Peace and blessed Holy Week,
Shrimp


Also, rethink your positions. Try out your arguments on someone who is not a radical (I'm sure you can find one in the Bay area if you try hard). Have a good day!

Did you see "The Three Bishops" tour?

I just learned that LTSP has provided us with web casts of each speech.

Watch them. Then give your answers to the pop quiz:

Each of the three bishops is a revisionist (we know by their actions) in their own way. Name the type of revisionism they represent.

If you need to crib go here.

OK, no answers as of April 7. Must be to hard. Let me give a hint. One is a "pragmatic revisionist"? Name which fits that description and why.

Passing on some information from a friend:

On the last page of the ELCA Church Council Response to Metro NY (7) it says, "Yet, in any careful reading of the whole resolution, the plain meaning of the statements must be considered." If only they read the Bible and its prohibitions of sexuality the same way!

I think these sections need to be scrutinized as we look for ways of helping our bishops enforce the rules governing the sexual behavior of ordained persons:

"Further, the synod has responsibility to exercise discipline as specified in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and in applicable policy documents...Discipline hearing committees are made up of six members of the synod discipline committee and six members of the churchwide discipline committee, with a hearing officer appointed by the presiding bishop from the Committee of Hearing Officers elected by the ELCA Church Council...In fact, oversight and review of the decision of a discipline hearing committee is vested solely in the Committee on Appeals, which is elected by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly."

This is important:

"In regard to such discipline, the word “may” is used in bylaw 20.21.04. The “may” reference, however, does not imply that a synodical bishop or synod has the latitude to ignore the bylaws of this church or “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.” In that bylaw, “may” relates to the need to gather information before determining that “cause for discipline may exist.”

I really like this part, and I wonder if it cannot be used with both professors who are also ordained in the ELCA as well as with bishops?

Ordained ministers, according to bylaw 20.21.01., “shall be subject to discipline” for the following:
“a. preaching and teaching in conflict with the faith confessed by this church;
“b. conduct incompatible with the character of the ministerial office;
“c. willfully disregarding or violating the functions and standards established by this church for the office of Word and Sacrament;
“d. willfully disregarding the provisions of the constitution or bylaws of this church; or
“e. willfully failing to comply with the requirements ordered by a discipline hearing committee under 20.23.08.”

…Further, under bylaw 20.21.02. in regard to ordained ministers:

“The disciplinary actions which may be imposed are:

“a. private censure and admonition by the bishop of the synod;
“b. suspension from the office and functions of the ordained ministry in this church for a designated period or until there is satisfactory evidence of repentance and
amendment; or
“c. removal from the ordained ministry of this church.”

…When there are indications that a cause for discipline may exist, and before charges are filed with the secretary of this church, the synodical bishop must seek to resolve the matter by consultation as required by bylaw 20.21.04. in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.Information that a rostered person is allegedly a non-celibate homosexual is—under “Definitions Response of the Church Council to the Resolution of the Metropolitan New York Synod (April 2006) - page 6 and Guidelines for Discipline”—an indication of a potential cause for discipline. Information that a
congregation has called someone not on the clergy roster is similarly such an indication. In an effort to resolve the matter by consultation, the bishop may appoint an advisory or consultation committee to provide advice as described in bylaw 20.21.05.

…It is in the bishop's discretion how much investigation to do. In order to make a decision or to try to reach a resolution, however, it is necessary to gather as much information as possible about the situation. Every case is different, and these cases can be particularly difficult. It would be important to know, for example, exactly what the “committed relationship” entails and what evidence exists that it violates “Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline.” Except for the attempted resolution under bylaw 20.21.04., the synodical bishop has discretion about the following:

1) Whether to censure and admonish under ELCA constitutional provision 20.18.
2) Whether to appoint an advisory or consultation committee.
3) Whether to file formal disciplinary charges against the pastor, rostered layperson, or a congregation.
4) Whether to request resignation from call or from the roster.

And from the footnotes, a reminder: The document, “Vision and Expectations: Ordained Ministers in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,” in the section on “Sexual Conduct,” reads: “The expectations of this church regarding the sexual conduct of its ordained ministers are grounded in the understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that ordained ministers are to live in such a way as to honor this gift. Ordained ministers are expected to reject sexual promiscuity, the manipulation of others for purposes of sexual gratification, and all attempts of sexual seduction and sexual harassment, including taking physical or emotional advantage of others. Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful. Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.”

The full, official report is a 7 page document that was posted to the ELCA COMMUNICATORS ONLINE meeting on LutherLink in pdf form.

Two Questions:

Passing on questions from friends. The first is for the folks at goodsoil.org "Why are you saying it is a new day?" That is, what new bit of resistance are you doing? the second is for Robert Goldstein. "You are on the roster but your congregation is not?" second part of that question is "So, then, you maintain celibacy?" If Robert and soomeone from good soil could respond in comments? Thank you.

"New Day at St. Francis
-- 2006-03-27

"On Sunday, March 26, Pr. Robert Goldstein was formally installed as the Lead Pastor of St. Francis Church. The Rev. Paul R. Landahl, bishop of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America preached; the Rev. Dr. Susan Strouse of First United Lutheran Church in San Francisco was presiding minister. The rite of installation was performed by the Rev. Daniel Solberg of St. Paulus Lutheran Church and dean of the Conference of San Francisco Lutheran Churches.

Pastor Robert Goldstein is on the ELCA clergy roster and has been a pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and its predecessor, the Lutheran Church in America, since 1975. He formerly served congregations in New Jersey and Chicago.

Born in Melbourne, Australia, Pr. Goldstein received his B.A. in biblical languages and literature from Abilene Christian University, and a B.D. and S.T.M. at Yale, where he specialized in the philosophical writings of Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard. He received a Ph.D. in philosophical theology from Princeton Theological Seminary.

An openly gay man, Pastor Goldstein has been a proponent of equal rights for women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

St. Francis Lutheran Church was one of two congregations expelled from the ELCA at the end of 1995 because it called and ordained a gay man and a lesbian couple as pastors in 1990 in violation of a rule requiring congregations to call only clergy approved by the ELCA. The three candidates were ELCA seminary graduates, and were denied approval for call solely because they would not commit to lifelong abstention from homosexual sexual relationships as required by ELCA policy. St. Francis is an independent Lutheran congregation. It continues to participate in activities of the ELCA's local San Francisco Conference and regional Sierra Pacific Synod. The congregation has been granted voice but not vote at synod assemblies." The rest is at goodsoil.org