Homosexuality And The American Religion
Leander Harding
This was originally published on Titusonenine and picked up and excerpted by both First Things and Christianity Today.
Harold Bloom, an iconoclastic literary critic at Yale, wrote a book published in 1992, with the title “The American Religion.” Using an argument developed by Msgr. Ronald Knox in his magisterial work on “Enthusiasm” and by the Presbyterian theologian Phillip Lee in his book “Against The Protestant Gnostics” Bloom makes a convincing case that the real American Religion that is the unofficial but actual spiritual mythos which gives shape to the American worldview and energy to the American religious quest is some form of Gnosticism. The Gnostics, ancient and contemporary, teach that the true and deepest self is a spark of divinity which has become lost and imprisoned in a corrupt world. The drama of salvation is the drama of rediscovering this secret self and reuniting this spark with the divine one. This is accomplished by access to a secret knowledge or “gnosis” which is unavailable to the uninitiated. Gnostic versions of Christianity have been a problem for the church from the earliest times. The struggle with Gnosticism caused St. Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.) to write his chief work “Adversus omnes Haereses.” Gnosticism is hard to kill and has many contemporary fans including the scholars of the Jesus Seminar who champion the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.
Bloom thinks that it matters little what is on the label, the flavor of the product is more often than not Gnostic.
“Mormons and Southern Baptists call themselves Christians, but like most Americans they are closer to ancient Gnostics than to early Christians. I have centered on Mormons and the Southern Baptists than on other major denominations . . . but most American Methodists, Roman Catholics and even Jews and Muslims are also more Gnostic than normative in their deepest and unwariest beliefs. The American Religion is pervasive and overwhelming, however it is masked, and even our secularists, indeed even our professed atheists are more Gnostic than humanist in their ultimate presuppositions. We are a religiously mad culture, furiously searching for the spirit, but each of us is subject and object of the one quest, which must be for the original self, a spark or breath in us that we are convinced goes back to before the creation.” (The American Religion, p. 22)
The quintessential American Religion is the quest for the true and original self which is the “pearl of great price,” the ultimate value. Finding the true self requires absolute and complete freedom of choice unconstrained by any sources of authority outside the self. Limits upon personal freedom and choice are an affront to all that is sacred to the American Religion. When the self determining self finds “the real me”, salvation is achieved and the ultimate self has achieved contact with the ultimate reality. Finding your true self is to the contemporary Gnostic the same thing as finding God. For the Gnostic the purpose of the religious community is to facilitate the quest and validate the results. The contemporary Gnostic church, which can appear in both conservative and liberal forms, is the community of those who know that they have found God because they have found their own uncreated depths. For both the Southern Baptist and the latest devotee of the New Age salvation is often reduced to the level of personal experience, which can only be validated by those who have had similar “deeply personal” experiences.
Notice how perfectly the contemporary presentation of homosexuality fits the American Religion. A person who discovers that he or she is Gay has recovered his or her true self and “come out” and come through what the Gnostics called the “aeons” in this case levels of personal, familial and social oppression that hinder and constrain the true self. It is a heroic and perilous journey of self-discovery which would be familiar to a first century Gnostic like Valentinus. That the means of liberation is sexual practice is even a familiar theme. Some ancient Gnostics were ascetic but others counseled sexual license. Both stratagems can come from the same contempt of nature and are different ways of asserting the radical independence of the self.
Here is the point. Gene Robinson was elected Bishop of the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire not in spite of being Gay, not as an act of toleration and compassion toward Gay people, but because he is Gay and as such is an icon of the successful completion of the quest to find the true and original self. He has been chosen for high religious office because he represents high religious attainment. He is being recognized and receiving regard for being an accomplished practitioner of the American Religion. According to this Gnostic logic divorcing his wife and leaving his family to embrace the Gay lifestyle is not some unfortunate concession to irresistible sexual urges but an example of the pain and sacrifice that the seeker of the true self must be willing to endure. That natural, organic and conventional restraints must be set aside is time worn Gnostic nostrum. From the point of view of this contemporary Gnosticism, if the church does not validate such a noble quest for enlightenment then it invalidates itself and shows that is no help in the only spiritual struggle that counts, the struggle to be the “real me.” Because Gene Robinson has “found himself” he has according to the Gnostic logic of the American religion found God and is naturally thought to be a truly “spiritual person” and a fit person to inspire and lead others on their spiritual journey which is to end in a discovery of the true self which is just so the discovery of the only real god, the Gnostic god.
Seeing the elevation of Gene Robinson through the lens of the mythos of the American Religion explains some of the fanaticism of his defenders, explains why so many bishops of the Episcopal Church including the Presiding Bishop would be willing to take such institutional risks. Here is a paradigm of salvation that echoes deeply in the American soul and promises to restore a sense of purpose to a mainline church which has lost confidence in the story of salvation told by the orthodox tradition of the church. Inclusion becomes the fundamental value for the church because it allows the church to have a real purpose of validating that people have indeed found their true identity, and thus found God. Gay people become icons of hope. These people have “found themselves” and hence by force of Gnostic logic “found God.” To celebrate Gays in the life of the church, not accept but affirm and celebrate, is to celebrate the church as a truly spiritual community with real spiritual power which can facilitate and validate the salvation of souls. The church leaders who are risking everything for Gene Robinson are in their own way and according to an heretical but powerful vision trying desperately to find a spiritual vocation for the church that has some liveliness and connects deeply with the deepest yearning of the American soul. The Presiding Bishop and his company of supporters think they are regaining the lost keys of heaven. That these newly discovered keys are not the real thing but Gnostics imitators of the keys of St. Peter will be lost on those who are intoxicated by the promises of the American Religion of the true, free and uncreated self.
©Leander Harding+ 2004
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
in our deliberations
In our deliberations we should be clear about what the biblical evidence is and how it is to be interpreted. The issue Scripture is concerned with is sexual expression which is a matter relating to the well-being of God's creation that is in bondage to sin and in need of regulation as well as redemption. The consistent testimony of the Old Testament and the New Testament is that sex outside of marriage is a danger to society. Given the consistency and the persistence of such testimony, our question probably ought to be whether good reasons exist for rejecting those opinions.
There are few mysteries about the relevant biblical material for regarding homosexual activity as acceptable behavior. It has been thoroughly discussed and there is no basis for any sexual expression outside marriage. In Romans 1, Paul is embarrassingly frank about homosexual acts. When he wanted to find a way to depict a world alienated from God, he as well as Jesus, Ezekiel and others could find no more graphic example of rebellion than Sodom. The argument that Scripture only condemns homosexual rape has not been made and we could discuss it if we had more than three minutes.
Such acts are used as an example of alienation from God. This point deserves emphasis: for Paul sexual improprieties are tied directly to "not knowing God' (1 Thess 4:3-8; Rom 1:18-27). There are matters about which Paul is willing to allow more than one view (e.g., marriage; cf. 1 Cor 7:6-7, 12-16, 25ff). In other instances, what Paul says in one letter must be balanced by what he says in another (I Cor 11:2-16 and Col 3:26-28), but comments about sexual immorality are not of this sort: Paul is consistent.
People have grown accustomed to expecting a "however" from biblical commentators at this point-a sudden shift in the argument that demonstrates the one-sidedness of Paul's views or their cultural relativity, perhaps contrasting them to what Jesus said. There is no relief in the Gospels, of course, where Jesus' words about sexual expression are less compromising than Paul's (Mark 10:2-12 or Matt 19:10-12). People expect of interpreters is a way around difficult texts, perhaps even a way to make the Bible say the opposite of what it seems to say. Some seek refuge in a divine law that offers absolute clarity and assurance-and a weapon to be used against those who are different. Others view the enemy in church and society as a conservative view of marriage and sexuality, who believe teachers in the church need to combat conservatism and legalism in the interests of the 'freedom of the gospel.' In fact, the greater danger in our society may well be a nihilism that acknowledges no values outside individual freedom. It is possible that the greater danger in our time is the threat to the stable social order that makes it possible for people to simply live together as man and wife without being a man and woman married.
When discussing such matters as sexual expression, we ought to begin our conversation and mark that we remain focused by respecting what the Bible says. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors are clear and consistent in maintaining that sexual relations between members of the same sex (and between members of the opposite sex outside marriage) violate God's will for the creation. It should be said that "however" is necessary at another point. Discussions about homosexuality and illicit intercourse must finally turn to how to be neighbor to homosexual persons. Jesus taught his followers a stringent view of sexual expression while seeking to associate with sinners of all sorts. Paul's dealing with his churches proceeded from an insistence that all have sinned and fallen short, and that God's saving righteousness has been revealed apart from law. God's saving grace is for homosexual persons as well as for sinners of all sorts. In our efforts to understand the gospel, however, we cannot collapse law into gospel. As forgiven sinners, we are freed to serve those for whom Christ has died. Out of respect for our neighbors and concern for the well-being of creation, we must work for a just order, but same-sex unions, and especially for the ordained, cannot be argued as being a part of it.
There are few mysteries about the relevant biblical material for regarding homosexual activity as acceptable behavior. It has been thoroughly discussed and there is no basis for any sexual expression outside marriage. In Romans 1, Paul is embarrassingly frank about homosexual acts. When he wanted to find a way to depict a world alienated from God, he as well as Jesus, Ezekiel and others could find no more graphic example of rebellion than Sodom. The argument that Scripture only condemns homosexual rape has not been made and we could discuss it if we had more than three minutes.
Such acts are used as an example of alienation from God. This point deserves emphasis: for Paul sexual improprieties are tied directly to "not knowing God' (1 Thess 4:3-8; Rom 1:18-27). There are matters about which Paul is willing to allow more than one view (e.g., marriage; cf. 1 Cor 7:6-7, 12-16, 25ff). In other instances, what Paul says in one letter must be balanced by what he says in another (I Cor 11:2-16 and Col 3:26-28), but comments about sexual immorality are not of this sort: Paul is consistent.
People have grown accustomed to expecting a "however" from biblical commentators at this point-a sudden shift in the argument that demonstrates the one-sidedness of Paul's views or their cultural relativity, perhaps contrasting them to what Jesus said. There is no relief in the Gospels, of course, where Jesus' words about sexual expression are less compromising than Paul's (Mark 10:2-12 or Matt 19:10-12). People expect of interpreters is a way around difficult texts, perhaps even a way to make the Bible say the opposite of what it seems to say. Some seek refuge in a divine law that offers absolute clarity and assurance-and a weapon to be used against those who are different. Others view the enemy in church and society as a conservative view of marriage and sexuality, who believe teachers in the church need to combat conservatism and legalism in the interests of the 'freedom of the gospel.' In fact, the greater danger in our society may well be a nihilism that acknowledges no values outside individual freedom. It is possible that the greater danger in our time is the threat to the stable social order that makes it possible for people to simply live together as man and wife without being a man and woman married.
When discussing such matters as sexual expression, we ought to begin our conversation and mark that we remain focused by respecting what the Bible says. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors are clear and consistent in maintaining that sexual relations between members of the same sex (and between members of the opposite sex outside marriage) violate God's will for the creation. It should be said that "however" is necessary at another point. Discussions about homosexuality and illicit intercourse must finally turn to how to be neighbor to homosexual persons. Jesus taught his followers a stringent view of sexual expression while seeking to associate with sinners of all sorts. Paul's dealing with his churches proceeded from an insistence that all have sinned and fallen short, and that God's saving righteousness has been revealed apart from law. God's saving grace is for homosexual persons as well as for sinners of all sorts. In our efforts to understand the gospel, however, we cannot collapse law into gospel. As forgiven sinners, we are freed to serve those for whom Christ has died. Out of respect for our neighbors and concern for the well-being of creation, we must work for a just order, but same-sex unions, and especially for the ordained, cannot be argued as being a part of it.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
ex-gay not easy but worth it
Susan Payne, 46, was a committed lesbian who had her first same-sex relationship at age 13. The hardship of being an adolescent "who didn't want to go the prom" led Payne into alcohol and drug abuse, she said. But at age 23, she discovered a lunchtime Bible study at her workplace. Not previously religious, she said, "I heard a lot of truth there."
Payne gradually left her hard-partying life, but was afraid to discuss her same-sex relationships with fellow Christians. When she did divulge her own background to another woman in her Bible study, the woman "didn't bat an eyelash," said Payne. "She just said, 'Let's pray together and see what the Bible says.'
"From reading the [book of] Romans, I realized that I was settling for less. God designed us to be for the opposite sex," Payne said. In the first chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans, found in the New Testament, Paul describes God's wrath against a faithless people, whom he punished by "giving them over to shameful lusts" such as homosexual desires.
That conversation started Payne down a path of spiritual transformation that eventually led to her now-12-year-old marriage. In the mid-'80s, she joined a group for Christians struggling with "unwanted" same-sex attractions called Regeneration, which started in Baltimore in 1979.
Self, sex and Christ: For some gays, sexual preference can be decided through faith
Payne gradually left her hard-partying life, but was afraid to discuss her same-sex relationships with fellow Christians. When she did divulge her own background to another woman in her Bible study, the woman "didn't bat an eyelash," said Payne. "She just said, 'Let's pray together and see what the Bible says.'
"From reading the [book of] Romans, I realized that I was settling for less. God designed us to be for the opposite sex," Payne said. In the first chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Romans, found in the New Testament, Paul describes God's wrath against a faithless people, whom he punished by "giving them over to shameful lusts" such as homosexual desires.
That conversation started Payne down a path of spiritual transformation that eventually led to her now-12-year-old marriage. In the mid-'80s, she joined a group for Christians struggling with "unwanted" same-sex attractions called Regeneration, which started in Baltimore in 1979.
Self, sex and Christ: For some gays, sexual preference can be decided through faith
They are preparing are you
Preparing for Churchwide, 2005
Now is the time to get ready for the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando. Gather your friends, colleagues, family, contacts and partners to be a part of the historic and aligned effort of nonviolent activists supporting the full inclusion of lgbt individuals and communities in the ELCA.
SIGN UP family and friends to this effort.
MAKE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION today to support this very important ministry.
VISIT the websites of our the Alliance members to find out more about the partners in this effort.
EDUCATE and read up on our church’s historical and contemporary perspectives on celibacy, sex, lgbt people, etc.
PRAY for sexual minority pastors and those who are awaiting call.
CALL an ECP pastor.
SUPPORT closeted pastors in coming out to their congregations.
PARTICIPATE in a Soulforce event. Offer to host a fund-raising event for LLGM in your area.
REMEMBER your baptism and act for change."
They are preparing, what are you doing? Educate yourself, organize or join together with those who already are in that process, and them go and educate others.
Educate your self: Go read two essays by David Mills Be Fair to Liberals and Reorganized Religion
If you want to educate yourself concerning whom are the opponents, how they think, and what are their tactics, visit them!
Now is the time to get ready for the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando. Gather your friends, colleagues, family, contacts and partners to be a part of the historic and aligned effort of nonviolent activists supporting the full inclusion of lgbt individuals and communities in the ELCA.
SIGN UP family and friends to this effort.
MAKE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION today to support this very important ministry.
VISIT the websites of our the Alliance members to find out more about the partners in this effort.
EDUCATE and read up on our church’s historical and contemporary perspectives on celibacy, sex, lgbt people, etc.
PRAY for sexual minority pastors and those who are awaiting call.
CALL an ECP pastor.
SUPPORT closeted pastors in coming out to their congregations.
PARTICIPATE in a Soulforce event. Offer to host a fund-raising event for LLGM in your area.
REMEMBER your baptism and act for change."
They are preparing, what are you doing? Educate yourself, organize or join together with those who already are in that process, and them go and educate others.
Educate your self: Go read two essays by David Mills Be Fair to Liberals and Reorganized Religion
If you want to educate yourself concerning whom are the opponents, how they think, and what are their tactics, visit them!
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Sola Bishopola
Shrimp here: Can one of you Lutheran humans translate this for me?
From p. 6 of Bp. David Strobel's report to the NE PA synod assembly this year:
"Our Lutheran identity is a crucial antidote to the moralistic,
therapeutic, biblically literalistic religious culture in which we are
embedded. We Lutherans do things differently and (if I may say)
better. But we have not had the courage of our convictions. In our
difficult discussions about human sexuality and the roles of gay and
lesbian persons in our church, we have too often thought, behaved and
decided as if the Bible were a 'paper Pope.' For us Lutherans this is
not what sola scriptura means! And this points to the fact that we
have not effectively preached and taught the distinctives of our
Lutheran heritage: evangelical freedom, justification by grace, law
and gospel, the two kingdoms doctrine, that our Lord Jesus Christ is
living and present in our lives and churches, not lifelessly entombed
in the pages of a book, even a book like the Bible. I am convinced
that if we are true to our heritage, the Holy Spirit will prune our
branches, perhaps even growing smaller statistically in order to grow
more powerfully spiritually. For our stock in trade is not self-help,
pop-psychology nor moral certitude. It is, instead, the gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the power and the wisdom of God. This is the source
of our life, our love and our faith. How can we become comfortable
with our Lutheran distinctiveness? So comfortable that we can give
ourselves permission to grow smaller because of our distinctiveness
and yet comfortable enough to invite others, with us, to taste and see
that the Lord is good?!"
From p. 6 of Bp. David Strobel's report to the NE PA synod assembly this year:
"Our Lutheran identity is a crucial antidote to the moralistic,
therapeutic, biblically literalistic religious culture in which we are
embedded. We Lutherans do things differently and (if I may say)
better. But we have not had the courage of our convictions. In our
difficult discussions about human sexuality and the roles of gay and
lesbian persons in our church, we have too often thought, behaved and
decided as if the Bible were a 'paper Pope.' For us Lutherans this is
not what sola scriptura means! And this points to the fact that we
have not effectively preached and taught the distinctives of our
Lutheran heritage: evangelical freedom, justification by grace, law
and gospel, the two kingdoms doctrine, that our Lord Jesus Christ is
living and present in our lives and churches, not lifelessly entombed
in the pages of a book, even a book like the Bible. I am convinced
that if we are true to our heritage, the Holy Spirit will prune our
branches, perhaps even growing smaller statistically in order to grow
more powerfully spiritually. For our stock in trade is not self-help,
pop-psychology nor moral certitude. It is, instead, the gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ, the power and the wisdom of God. This is the source
of our life, our love and our faith. How can we become comfortable
with our Lutheran distinctiveness? So comfortable that we can give
ourselves permission to grow smaller because of our distinctiveness
and yet comfortable enough to invite others, with us, to taste and see
that the Lord is good?!"
How to YOU respond?
Shrimp here: There are reasons why ELCA and ECUSA are behaving stupid. If you don't get this, you will forever be clueless. Humans err, humans sin, humans do bad things, stupid things.
When humans do not think Bible is from God, when people do not know their own history, when they become illiterate, they do the stupid. When their own leaders think of dark ages not as medieval times but everything before Freud and Kinsey you humans in deep doo doo. Sorry.
Me get underwater cable and I these days I really like Vonage commercials. You go to assembly, you in Vonage commercial. Like one where couple drove to countryside so he can fire off model rockets. The one that he blasted toward the sky zooms back at him a couple of times, sparks fire in truck bed and woman runs into frame with fire extinguesher.
You think you need to be rocket science to figure this out?
Maybe you problem Bible Science?
Anyway in the background of Vonage commercial plays this song, Whoohoohoo-Whoohoohoo." Me sing that song all day. You sing it too, it helps.
See this is how humans do church now. You elect "voting members." They go to Walt Disney World. ELCA say, "You voter. You vote and tell us what we do from now on." You think you do this forever? You think God let you vote on God?
Shrimp ask human people? Why you need new rules all the time?
Whoohoohoo-Whoohoohoo.
People think they evolving?
Whoohoohoo.
Think truth change?
Whoohoohoo--Whoohoohoo--Whoohoohoo!!!!
"A recent poll showed 66% (two thirds) of Americans no longer believe there is such a thing as "absolute truth." More disturbing, though, was the fact that 53% of those not believing in absolute truth identified themselves as born again Christians; 75% of whom were mainline Protestants.[61]
If "absolute truth" no longer exists, even in the minds of half the "born-again" population, it logically follows that doctrine, and the Bible itself, is given less credence. Pollster George Gallup Jr. noticed this in The People's Religion: American Faith in the 90's. "While religion is highly popular in America," he states, "it is to a large extent superficial. There is a knowledge gap between American's stated faith and the lack of the most basic knowledge about that faith."[62]
"In short, self-identified Christians in the 90s are Biblically ignorant. Doctrine has become less important than good feelings; indeed, a USA Today survey found that, of the 56% of Americans who attend church, 45% did so because "it's good for you," 26% went for peace of mind. Specific doctrines, the pollster noted, seemed unimportant.[63]
If the notions of "truth" and "doctrine" are becoming unimportant to Christians, can the idea of "sin" hope to survive? Probably not; 25% of Christians polled in 1993 believed sin to be "an outdated concept."[64]
""The awareness of sin used to be our shadow," Cornelius Plantinga writes in Christianity Today. "Christians hated sin, feared it, flew from it. But now the shadow has faded. Nowadays, the accusation you have sinned is often said with a grin."[65]
Read Joe Dallas.
When humans do not think Bible is from God, when people do not know their own history, when they become illiterate, they do the stupid. When their own leaders think of dark ages not as medieval times but everything before Freud and Kinsey you humans in deep doo doo. Sorry.
Me get underwater cable and I these days I really like Vonage commercials. You go to assembly, you in Vonage commercial. Like one where couple drove to countryside so he can fire off model rockets. The one that he blasted toward the sky zooms back at him a couple of times, sparks fire in truck bed and woman runs into frame with fire extinguesher.
You think you need to be rocket science to figure this out?
Maybe you problem Bible Science?
Anyway in the background of Vonage commercial plays this song, Whoohoohoo-Whoohoohoo." Me sing that song all day. You sing it too, it helps.
See this is how humans do church now. You elect "voting members." They go to Walt Disney World. ELCA say, "You voter. You vote and tell us what we do from now on." You think you do this forever? You think God let you vote on God?
Shrimp ask human people? Why you need new rules all the time?
Whoohoohoo-Whoohoohoo.
People think they evolving?
Whoohoohoo.
Think truth change?
Whoohoohoo--Whoohoohoo--Whoohoohoo!!!!
"A recent poll showed 66% (two thirds) of Americans no longer believe there is such a thing as "absolute truth." More disturbing, though, was the fact that 53% of those not believing in absolute truth identified themselves as born again Christians; 75% of whom were mainline Protestants.[61]
If "absolute truth" no longer exists, even in the minds of half the "born-again" population, it logically follows that doctrine, and the Bible itself, is given less credence. Pollster George Gallup Jr. noticed this in The People's Religion: American Faith in the 90's. "While religion is highly popular in America," he states, "it is to a large extent superficial. There is a knowledge gap between American's stated faith and the lack of the most basic knowledge about that faith."[62]
"In short, self-identified Christians in the 90s are Biblically ignorant. Doctrine has become less important than good feelings; indeed, a USA Today survey found that, of the 56% of Americans who attend church, 45% did so because "it's good for you," 26% went for peace of mind. Specific doctrines, the pollster noted, seemed unimportant.[63]
If the notions of "truth" and "doctrine" are becoming unimportant to Christians, can the idea of "sin" hope to survive? Probably not; 25% of Christians polled in 1993 believed sin to be "an outdated concept."[64]
""The awareness of sin used to be our shadow," Cornelius Plantinga writes in Christianity Today. "Christians hated sin, feared it, flew from it. But now the shadow has faded. Nowadays, the accusation you have sinned is often said with a grin."[65]
Read Joe Dallas.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Silly Shellfish Argument Alert
(siren alarm playing in the background, a horn blaring most annoyingly, and then we hear a shrill, yet tiny, non-human voice(obviously coming through an underwater megaphone)
Shrimp here: Silly human people, when will you stop these words, words, words about what God said or never said! Too many human words about Divine Word! Stop it!
We have warning that there was yet another foul attempt at using the Shellfish argument.
I will answer one more time: Paul said Christians can eat whatever they want, and Jesus said it is not what goes into a body but what comes out that makes one unclean. OK. That is the answer. That's as much unfolding Truth as you get! No more question, OK?
However, some human people just do not read very widely, I guess.
OK, one more time but that's it.
So, look at fresh offense, look at classic answer, and then look back to a world series classic exchange of both sides arguing but good.
First, fresh offense in NY Times (hello!):
5/15/2005
Liberal Bible-Thumping
by Nicholas Kristof
“Bishop Spong particularly denounces preachers who selectively quote Scripture against homosexuality. He also cites various textual reasons for concluding (not very persuasively) that St. Paul was “a frightened gay man condemning other gay people so that he can keep his own homosexuality inside the rigid discipline of his faith.”
The bishop also tries to cast doubt on the idea that Judas betrayed Jesus. He notes that the earliest New Testament writings, of Paul and the source known as Q, don’t mention a betrayal by Judas. Bishop Spong contends that after the destruction of Jewish Jerusalem in A.D. 70, early Christians curried favor with Roman gentiles by blaming the Crucifixion on Jewish authorities - nurturing two millennia of anti-Semitism that bigots insisted was biblically sanctioned.
Some of the bishop’s ideas strike me as more provocative than persuasive, but at least he’s engaged in the debate. When liberals take on conservative Christians, it tends to be with insults - by deriding them as jihadists and fleeing the field. That’s a mistake. It’s entirely possible to honor Christian conservatives for their first-rate humanitarian work treating the sick in Africa or fighting sex trafficking in Asia, and still do battle with them over issues like gay rights.
Liberals can and should confront Bible-thumping preachers on their own terms, for the scriptural emphasis on justice and compassion gives the left plenty of ammunition. After all, the Bible depicts Jesus as healing lepers, not slashing Medicaid.”
Entire article
So here's the classic answer: "Because the Church from apostolic times has taught that gentile Christians were not obliged to receive circumcision or to observe the dietary laws, the conclusion is drawn that we are at liberty to discard other requirements in Leviticus. Seeing as the commandment to love neighbor which the gospels cite as one of the two great commandments comes from the book of Leviticus, I gather that that one is up for grabs as well.
The apostolic Jerusalem council seems to have been able to draw a distinction between circumcision and dietary laws (which it did not apply to gentile Christians) and moral law (which it did require of gentile Christians).
And of course, the first promise made in the baptismal covenant is the promise to continue in the apostles’ teaching, which would seem to require that we not only teach that the circumcision and kosher are not required, but that morality, including the biblical notion that sexual intimacy is appropriate only between a man and a woman in the context of their marriage to each other, is expected."
Read the whole thread and get up to speed on your favorite human words!
Shrimp here: Silly human people, when will you stop these words, words, words about what God said or never said! Too many human words about Divine Word! Stop it!
We have warning that there was yet another foul attempt at using the Shellfish argument.
I will answer one more time: Paul said Christians can eat whatever they want, and Jesus said it is not what goes into a body but what comes out that makes one unclean. OK. That is the answer. That's as much unfolding Truth as you get! No more question, OK?
However, some human people just do not read very widely, I guess.
OK, one more time but that's it.
So, look at fresh offense, look at classic answer, and then look back to a world series classic exchange of both sides arguing but good.
First, fresh offense in NY Times (hello!):
5/15/2005
Liberal Bible-Thumping
by Nicholas Kristof
“Bishop Spong particularly denounces preachers who selectively quote Scripture against homosexuality. He also cites various textual reasons for concluding (not very persuasively) that St. Paul was “a frightened gay man condemning other gay people so that he can keep his own homosexuality inside the rigid discipline of his faith.”
The bishop also tries to cast doubt on the idea that Judas betrayed Jesus. He notes that the earliest New Testament writings, of Paul and the source known as Q, don’t mention a betrayal by Judas. Bishop Spong contends that after the destruction of Jewish Jerusalem in A.D. 70, early Christians curried favor with Roman gentiles by blaming the Crucifixion on Jewish authorities - nurturing two millennia of anti-Semitism that bigots insisted was biblically sanctioned.
Some of the bishop’s ideas strike me as more provocative than persuasive, but at least he’s engaged in the debate. When liberals take on conservative Christians, it tends to be with insults - by deriding them as jihadists and fleeing the field. That’s a mistake. It’s entirely possible to honor Christian conservatives for their first-rate humanitarian work treating the sick in Africa or fighting sex trafficking in Asia, and still do battle with them over issues like gay rights.
Liberals can and should confront Bible-thumping preachers on their own terms, for the scriptural emphasis on justice and compassion gives the left plenty of ammunition. After all, the Bible depicts Jesus as healing lepers, not slashing Medicaid.”
Entire article
So here's the classic answer: "Because the Church from apostolic times has taught that gentile Christians were not obliged to receive circumcision or to observe the dietary laws, the conclusion is drawn that we are at liberty to discard other requirements in Leviticus. Seeing as the commandment to love neighbor which the gospels cite as one of the two great commandments comes from the book of Leviticus, I gather that that one is up for grabs as well.
The apostolic Jerusalem council seems to have been able to draw a distinction between circumcision and dietary laws (which it did not apply to gentile Christians) and moral law (which it did require of gentile Christians).
And of course, the first promise made in the baptismal covenant is the promise to continue in the apostles’ teaching, which would seem to require that we not only teach that the circumcision and kosher are not required, but that morality, including the biblical notion that sexual intimacy is appropriate only between a man and a woman in the context of their marriage to each other, is expected."
Read the whole thread and get up to speed on your favorite human words!
The Inadequacy of "Yes" Theology
If saying "no" makes me narrow, so be it.
by Ben Patterson, contributing editor
Terror seized me by the throat a few months into my engagement to be married. Ardor turned to horror. Hot pursuit suddenly got cold feet. This came with a fundamental realization: If I had this woman, I couldn't have any of the others. If I said "yes" to one, I was saying "no" to millions. Not that this was the breadth of my options, mind you—but whatever options I might have had before I said my vows, they were no more after I said them.
I gingerly raised some of these concerns with the woman who nevertheless became my wife. That was many years ago. She's forgiven me, I think.
Every yes contains a no. And if you can't learn to say one, you won't learn to say the other. (Maybe that's why we put up with two-year-olds.) It certainly describes the way Christians and churches can drift into heresy and confusion.
I know of a church whose new pastor has led it into serious, even fatal, theological error. The mystery is that his predecessor, a thoroughly orthodox, godly and beloved man, had pastored the church for more than three decades and had never preached anything but the gospel truth. How could this happen?
I asked a friend who knew the church. She explained, "He told them the truth all those years. What he didn't tell them was what wasn't the truth." He said the yes, but he never said the no, and because he didn't, his people never really heard the yes. They weren't so thoroughly taught after all.
But I empathize with my colleague. It takes intellectual rigor to understand the yes well enough to know the no. It taxes the mind, and it can put a strain on relationships. I once preached on Jesus' command for the rich young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor. Encouraged by some remarks I read by Tony Campolo, I asked my upscale congregation, rhetorically, "May a Christian own a BMW?" Maybe I should have been content just to tell my people that one cannot follow Christ and be a slave to riches. Maybe not. Whatever the case, from the calls and mail I received, I could tell that the message was memorable, if not popular.
Learning to say the yes and the no: Few issues portend so much for the future of the church, because none carries so much potential to fly in the face of the spirit of the age. I speak of the infatuation with pluralism and inclusivism and certain brands of multiculturalism; the belief in the egalitarianism of opinions and feelings—that it is not only wrong, but rude and bigoted to this that some people's ideas and feelings may not be as good or as valid as others. It's the "Who's to Say?" syndrome: Who's to say what is right? The answer is everyone, or no one, or both. Whatever. It's cool.
Faithful stewards of the household of God must practice the discipline of saying both yes and no. It's hard, it's not fun, and it doesn't usually preach to packed houses. But believers in every age have had to learn it or lose the faith. It wasn't enough for Nicea to say that Christ was begotten of the Father. It had to say, "begotten, not made." It wasn't enough for the signers of the Barmen Declaration to declare that Christ was Lord; they had to add that Hitler was not.
Without declaring the no, we become the church that Machen observed in his day: "conservative in an ignorant, non-polemic, sweetness-and-light kind of way, which is just meat for the wolves."
Saying no is part of the nature of our faith, a faith that Alan Watts, the Anglican-turned-Hindu, found to be "a contentious faith … uncompromising, ornery, militant, rigorous, imperious, and invincibly self-righteous." So be it. But its narrowness is the narrowness of the birth canal, or of a path between two precipices—or of a lifetime spent loving one woman.
Ben Patterson is campus pastor at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California.
by Ben Patterson, contributing editor
Terror seized me by the throat a few months into my engagement to be married. Ardor turned to horror. Hot pursuit suddenly got cold feet. This came with a fundamental realization: If I had this woman, I couldn't have any of the others. If I said "yes" to one, I was saying "no" to millions. Not that this was the breadth of my options, mind you—but whatever options I might have had before I said my vows, they were no more after I said them.
I gingerly raised some of these concerns with the woman who nevertheless became my wife. That was many years ago. She's forgiven me, I think.
Every yes contains a no. And if you can't learn to say one, you won't learn to say the other. (Maybe that's why we put up with two-year-olds.) It certainly describes the way Christians and churches can drift into heresy and confusion.
I know of a church whose new pastor has led it into serious, even fatal, theological error. The mystery is that his predecessor, a thoroughly orthodox, godly and beloved man, had pastored the church for more than three decades and had never preached anything but the gospel truth. How could this happen?
I asked a friend who knew the church. She explained, "He told them the truth all those years. What he didn't tell them was what wasn't the truth." He said the yes, but he never said the no, and because he didn't, his people never really heard the yes. They weren't so thoroughly taught after all.
But I empathize with my colleague. It takes intellectual rigor to understand the yes well enough to know the no. It taxes the mind, and it can put a strain on relationships. I once preached on Jesus' command for the rich young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor. Encouraged by some remarks I read by Tony Campolo, I asked my upscale congregation, rhetorically, "May a Christian own a BMW?" Maybe I should have been content just to tell my people that one cannot follow Christ and be a slave to riches. Maybe not. Whatever the case, from the calls and mail I received, I could tell that the message was memorable, if not popular.
Learning to say the yes and the no: Few issues portend so much for the future of the church, because none carries so much potential to fly in the face of the spirit of the age. I speak of the infatuation with pluralism and inclusivism and certain brands of multiculturalism; the belief in the egalitarianism of opinions and feelings—that it is not only wrong, but rude and bigoted to this that some people's ideas and feelings may not be as good or as valid as others. It's the "Who's to Say?" syndrome: Who's to say what is right? The answer is everyone, or no one, or both. Whatever. It's cool.
Faithful stewards of the household of God must practice the discipline of saying both yes and no. It's hard, it's not fun, and it doesn't usually preach to packed houses. But believers in every age have had to learn it or lose the faith. It wasn't enough for Nicea to say that Christ was begotten of the Father. It had to say, "begotten, not made." It wasn't enough for the signers of the Barmen Declaration to declare that Christ was Lord; they had to add that Hitler was not.
Without declaring the no, we become the church that Machen observed in his day: "conservative in an ignorant, non-polemic, sweetness-and-light kind of way, which is just meat for the wolves."
Saying no is part of the nature of our faith, a faith that Alan Watts, the Anglican-turned-Hindu, found to be "a contentious faith … uncompromising, ornery, militant, rigorous, imperious, and invincibly self-righteous." So be it. But its narrowness is the narrowness of the birth canal, or of a path between two precipices—or of a lifetime spent loving one woman.
Ben Patterson is campus pastor at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California.
Conflict over gay clergy challenges core beliefs
Conflict over gay clergy challenges core beliefs
By David C. Steinmetz | Special to the Sentinel
Posted May 17, 2005
Christians have fought with each other over a great many issues since the apostles Peter and Paul disagreed publicly over the place of the Jewish rite of circumcision in a church that baptized uncircumcised Gentiles.
Some conflicts seem in retrospect fairly trivial -- questions such as when Easter should be celebrated, how one should make the sign of the cross, or whether one should kneel when receiving the eucharist.
Other controversies seem more important by comparison. When early Christians asked whether they worshipped one God or three and debated whether Jesus was human or divine (or both), they were arguing over matters so central to their faith that they were inescapable.
Which is why it seems so odd that mainline churches have been pushed to the brink of schism by an argument over sex. Not that Christians have failed to argue over sex in the past. In the 16th century, Protestants argued vigorously for lifting the Catholic ban on married clergy and allowing divorce with the possibility of remarriage.
But Protestants and Catholics would never have split western Christendom if sexual matters were the only issues on the table. Far more important for both were fundamental questions concerning the relative authority of Scripture, tradition and bishops in defining matters of human salvation. After all, one cannot talk usefully about sex until one has established the moral frame of reference in which to do it.
Which may be why the current debate over the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions is so intense. In the end, it is not just about sex. It is about the moral and religious framework within which sexual issues can be decided. For liberals and conservatives alike, sex is the concrete and visible sign of a series of theoretical and less obvious disagreements over central matters of faith.
Conservatives have argued from the beginning that the crucial issue for them is the authority of Scripture. Liberals have replied that the issue is not whether Scripture is authoritative but how it is read. Both positions are, of course, correct. How you read a biblical text depends on what you think of it and what you think of it is influenced by how you read it.
Any Christian who reads the Bible has a reading strategy -- what theologians call a hermeneutic. No one thinks it "unbiblical" to apply such a strategy to the Bible, even when, by doing so, one ignores or modifies what seems on the face of it to be a clear biblical injunction.
For example, the penalty in the Bible for adultery is death by stoning. But not even the rigorous Protestant reformer, John Calvin, was eager to enforce marital virtue by such draconian means. Christians concluded a very long time ago that some rules apply to ancient Israel but not to the church (like keeping a kosher table) or to the early church but not to the church throughout the ages (like naming church leaders apostles). The tricky question is how one distinguishes the timeless from the transient in the teaching of the Bible.
Tradition clearly plays a role. When Christian tradition repeats the biblical prohibition of gay sex, it confirms for conservatives their conviction that the issue is not in doubt. The ban belongs to what is timeless and unchangeable in Christian sexual ethics rather than to what is timebound and mutable. Which means that the consecration by Episcopalians of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire is a dramatic symbol to conservatives of a church gone terribly wrong.
Liberals disagree. In their view, Jesus preached an inclusive message that embraced the outcasts and marginalized of his society. This inclusive message of God's love is the timeless good news that renders ancient prohibitions obsolete. For liberals, the consecration of an openly gay bishop is the prophetic act of a church accepting the full implications of its gospel.
In short, conservatives and liberals differ in their strategies for reading the Bible, their conception of religious authority, their grasp of the central tenets of the Christian gospel and their image of the essential nature of the church. Religious disagreements among Christians don't get more serious than this.
Moderates would like to find a safe middle ground between these two competing positions.
Unfortunately, there isn't one.
David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of the History of Christianity at the Divinity School of Duke University in Durham, N.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
By David C. Steinmetz | Special to the Sentinel
Posted May 17, 2005
Christians have fought with each other over a great many issues since the apostles Peter and Paul disagreed publicly over the place of the Jewish rite of circumcision in a church that baptized uncircumcised Gentiles.
Some conflicts seem in retrospect fairly trivial -- questions such as when Easter should be celebrated, how one should make the sign of the cross, or whether one should kneel when receiving the eucharist.
Other controversies seem more important by comparison. When early Christians asked whether they worshipped one God or three and debated whether Jesus was human or divine (or both), they were arguing over matters so central to their faith that they were inescapable.
Which is why it seems so odd that mainline churches have been pushed to the brink of schism by an argument over sex. Not that Christians have failed to argue over sex in the past. In the 16th century, Protestants argued vigorously for lifting the Catholic ban on married clergy and allowing divorce with the possibility of remarriage.
But Protestants and Catholics would never have split western Christendom if sexual matters were the only issues on the table. Far more important for both were fundamental questions concerning the relative authority of Scripture, tradition and bishops in defining matters of human salvation. After all, one cannot talk usefully about sex until one has established the moral frame of reference in which to do it.
Which may be why the current debate over the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions is so intense. In the end, it is not just about sex. It is about the moral and religious framework within which sexual issues can be decided. For liberals and conservatives alike, sex is the concrete and visible sign of a series of theoretical and less obvious disagreements over central matters of faith.
Conservatives have argued from the beginning that the crucial issue for them is the authority of Scripture. Liberals have replied that the issue is not whether Scripture is authoritative but how it is read. Both positions are, of course, correct. How you read a biblical text depends on what you think of it and what you think of it is influenced by how you read it.
Any Christian who reads the Bible has a reading strategy -- what theologians call a hermeneutic. No one thinks it "unbiblical" to apply such a strategy to the Bible, even when, by doing so, one ignores or modifies what seems on the face of it to be a clear biblical injunction.
For example, the penalty in the Bible for adultery is death by stoning. But not even the rigorous Protestant reformer, John Calvin, was eager to enforce marital virtue by such draconian means. Christians concluded a very long time ago that some rules apply to ancient Israel but not to the church (like keeping a kosher table) or to the early church but not to the church throughout the ages (like naming church leaders apostles). The tricky question is how one distinguishes the timeless from the transient in the teaching of the Bible.
Tradition clearly plays a role. When Christian tradition repeats the biblical prohibition of gay sex, it confirms for conservatives their conviction that the issue is not in doubt. The ban belongs to what is timeless and unchangeable in Christian sexual ethics rather than to what is timebound and mutable. Which means that the consecration by Episcopalians of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire is a dramatic symbol to conservatives of a church gone terribly wrong.
Liberals disagree. In their view, Jesus preached an inclusive message that embraced the outcasts and marginalized of his society. This inclusive message of God's love is the timeless good news that renders ancient prohibitions obsolete. For liberals, the consecration of an openly gay bishop is the prophetic act of a church accepting the full implications of its gospel.
In short, conservatives and liberals differ in their strategies for reading the Bible, their conception of religious authority, their grasp of the central tenets of the Christian gospel and their image of the essential nature of the church. Religious disagreements among Christians don't get more serious than this.
Moderates would like to find a safe middle ground between these two competing positions.
Unfortunately, there isn't one.
David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of the History of Christianity at the Divinity School of Duke University in Durham, N.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
How Will The Sex Study Turn Out? Turns out Lutheran Commentator was prophetic. See this article from 2001
Used to think the Lutheran Commentator was a bunch of cranks and it went quickly in the round file. Around ten years ago I started reading it. Now I'm angry because I left the last issue laying downstairs at the church and someone took it home. How things change. They nailed it four years ago:
"What Will The New Presiding Bishop Be Like? Do you think he will call the church back to its roots? Preach God’s Word as law and gospel? Uhopia!
Mark Hanson, the new presiding bishop of the ELCA (probably for two terms, that is, 12 years), will lead the national church as he has led the St. Paul Area Synod. He is a seasoned politician who projects a warm public persona. It sells. His relaxed manner, however, masks a steely determination to steer all things leftward. For example, after his election Hanson was asked his opinion on homosexual behavior, Abut refused, suggesting taking sides would be divisive and >not helpful to the church or to my leadership’" (Mpls Tribune, 8/19/01, B9).
This humble, pious answer masks a career of aggressively promoting the gay/lesbian agenda. Hanson attended the 1997 lesbian wedding reception of his close friend Anita Hill, who was irregularly ordained this past April. He has aggressively promoted Hill’s ordination for years, bending rules and manipulating procedures. For example, in June 1996 Anita’s candidacy was presented B without prior notice B in the middle of a candidacy committee meeting. The committee took a vote on this irregular procedure. Hanson voted against deferring consideration of Hill’s candidacy. When the majority of the committee voted to defer consideration, Hanson himself, not the committee head, promptly called a special meeting solely to reconsider Anita’s candidacy.
Frustrated by the candidacy committee in his first years as bishop, Hanson used his influence to make sure that pro-gay individuals were gradually added to the candidacy committee until pro-gay forces dominated the committee. From then on he appealed to the candidacy committee’s recommendation.
A "Creative" Listener. Hanson has described his own leadership style as bringing "everyone to the table" (Mpls. Trib. 8/18/01, B1). The problem is that out of this babble of voices, the one that dominates is an echo of Hanson’s own voice. For example, both in 1997 and 1999 the St. Paul Area Synod Assembly voted strongly against CCM. Hanson heard everyone’s pain. He invited people to talk to him. He listened. He wrote long synod letters saying he felt everyone’s pain. Then he turned around and voted for CCM in both 1997 and 1999.
After his election as presiding bishop, Hanson called Frank Griswold, the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, to assure him of "my commitment to the integrity" of the full communion agreement. CCM is a binding commitment requiring the two churches to "grow together" (CCM #14) until they have "fully interchangeable" (#14) historic catholic episcopates.
A "Creative" Wordsmith. Hanson frequently states he is "for mission." What does he mean by "mission"? The good news of the triumph of the cross over sin, death, and the law? Rather, as Greg Egertson, national co-chairman of the independent Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries, said of Hanson, "His main focus is mission. We understand the whole issue of gay and lesbian people in the church as a matter of justice and a matter of mission" (Mpls Tribune, p. A9, 8/21/01).
"Mission" for Hanson is more than pro-gay advocacy. After his election he expressed the hope that the homosexual debate would not overshadow other issues such as poverty. Among his goals, he said, was "nothing less than helping to end poverty" (MpTb. 8/19/01).
How Will The Sex Study Turn Out? Do you think the new study on homosexuality will be conducted fairly? Will the ELCA conclude that sex is for marriage, and marriage is the union of a man and a woman? Uhopia!
The assembly voted (899-115) for developing a study document on homosexuality by 2005, complete with a plan and time line for a decision on approving the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians. There is no doubt about how this study will turn out: Everyone will be brought to the table. Everyone will be listened to. Everyone’s pain will be heard. Then in 2005 the ELCA will revise its standards for ministry so that practicing gays and lesbians may be "ordained to place," as Mark Hanson has already recommended. The ELCA will allow a "local option" so that congregations may choose to have practicing gay/lesbian pastors, as some already do.
Practicing Gays Continue to Serve. The assembly made no attempt to discipline bishops, pastors, or congregations that already ordain practicing gays and lesbians. The Extraordinary Candidacy project boasts that 12 of the 17 practicing homosexuals on its roster are already serving in ELCA churches! ELCA standards are currently being disregarded by the growing number of pro-gay bishops, without consequences...
Liberal Forces Consolidate Power. With Mark Hanson as presiding bishop, money and staff allocated for a pro-gay study, and bishops steering seminary graduates into the sacramental episcopate, it’s easy to see the centralizing and pro-gay forces have a momentum that will govern the ELCA for years to come."
Read it here (and see the great cartoon).
"What Will The New Presiding Bishop Be Like? Do you think he will call the church back to its roots? Preach God’s Word as law and gospel? Uhopia!
Mark Hanson, the new presiding bishop of the ELCA (probably for two terms, that is, 12 years), will lead the national church as he has led the St. Paul Area Synod. He is a seasoned politician who projects a warm public persona. It sells. His relaxed manner, however, masks a steely determination to steer all things leftward. For example, after his election Hanson was asked his opinion on homosexual behavior, Abut refused, suggesting taking sides would be divisive and >not helpful to the church or to my leadership’" (Mpls Tribune, 8/19/01, B9).
This humble, pious answer masks a career of aggressively promoting the gay/lesbian agenda. Hanson attended the 1997 lesbian wedding reception of his close friend Anita Hill, who was irregularly ordained this past April. He has aggressively promoted Hill’s ordination for years, bending rules and manipulating procedures. For example, in June 1996 Anita’s candidacy was presented B without prior notice B in the middle of a candidacy committee meeting. The committee took a vote on this irregular procedure. Hanson voted against deferring consideration of Hill’s candidacy. When the majority of the committee voted to defer consideration, Hanson himself, not the committee head, promptly called a special meeting solely to reconsider Anita’s candidacy.
Frustrated by the candidacy committee in his first years as bishop, Hanson used his influence to make sure that pro-gay individuals were gradually added to the candidacy committee until pro-gay forces dominated the committee. From then on he appealed to the candidacy committee’s recommendation.
A "Creative" Listener. Hanson has described his own leadership style as bringing "everyone to the table" (Mpls. Trib. 8/18/01, B1). The problem is that out of this babble of voices, the one that dominates is an echo of Hanson’s own voice. For example, both in 1997 and 1999 the St. Paul Area Synod Assembly voted strongly against CCM. Hanson heard everyone’s pain. He invited people to talk to him. He listened. He wrote long synod letters saying he felt everyone’s pain. Then he turned around and voted for CCM in both 1997 and 1999.
After his election as presiding bishop, Hanson called Frank Griswold, the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, to assure him of "my commitment to the integrity" of the full communion agreement. CCM is a binding commitment requiring the two churches to "grow together" (CCM #14) until they have "fully interchangeable" (#14) historic catholic episcopates.
A "Creative" Wordsmith. Hanson frequently states he is "for mission." What does he mean by "mission"? The good news of the triumph of the cross over sin, death, and the law? Rather, as Greg Egertson, national co-chairman of the independent Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries, said of Hanson, "His main focus is mission. We understand the whole issue of gay and lesbian people in the church as a matter of justice and a matter of mission" (Mpls Tribune, p. A9, 8/21/01).
"Mission" for Hanson is more than pro-gay advocacy. After his election he expressed the hope that the homosexual debate would not overshadow other issues such as poverty. Among his goals, he said, was "nothing less than helping to end poverty" (MpTb. 8/19/01).
How Will The Sex Study Turn Out? Do you think the new study on homosexuality will be conducted fairly? Will the ELCA conclude that sex is for marriage, and marriage is the union of a man and a woman? Uhopia!
The assembly voted (899-115) for developing a study document on homosexuality by 2005, complete with a plan and time line for a decision on approving the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians. There is no doubt about how this study will turn out: Everyone will be brought to the table. Everyone will be listened to. Everyone’s pain will be heard. Then in 2005 the ELCA will revise its standards for ministry so that practicing gays and lesbians may be "ordained to place," as Mark Hanson has already recommended. The ELCA will allow a "local option" so that congregations may choose to have practicing gay/lesbian pastors, as some already do.
Practicing Gays Continue to Serve. The assembly made no attempt to discipline bishops, pastors, or congregations that already ordain practicing gays and lesbians. The Extraordinary Candidacy project boasts that 12 of the 17 practicing homosexuals on its roster are already serving in ELCA churches! ELCA standards are currently being disregarded by the growing number of pro-gay bishops, without consequences...
Liberal Forces Consolidate Power. With Mark Hanson as presiding bishop, money and staff allocated for a pro-gay study, and bishops steering seminary graduates into the sacramental episcopate, it’s easy to see the centralizing and pro-gay forces have a momentum that will govern the ELCA for years to come."
Read it here (and see the great cartoon).
Dance anyone?
Reconciling in Christ's primary mission is not to gain tolerance, not even to achieve acceptance, but to change Christianity. Their mission statement:
"Freed by God's grace, the body of Christ on earth leads a joyous dance of transformation, integrating sexuality and spirituality, justice and mercy. Through continuous reformation, the Church embraces in holiness and into wholeness people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, strengthening us for authentic, visible, faithful lives. Dedicated to radical reconciliation, the Church falls into the heart of God's passionate intent, co-creating a world without outcasts, calling all to serve as guests and hosts at God's table of blessing and power."
Shrimp is going to sit that dance out!
For more transformative revelations here.
"Freed by God's grace, the body of Christ on earth leads a joyous dance of transformation, integrating sexuality and spirituality, justice and mercy. Through continuous reformation, the Church embraces in holiness and into wholeness people of all sexual orientations and gender identities, strengthening us for authentic, visible, faithful lives. Dedicated to radical reconciliation, the Church falls into the heart of God's passionate intent, co-creating a world without outcasts, calling all to serve as guests and hosts at God's table of blessing and power."
Shrimp is going to sit that dance out!
For more transformative revelations here.
Monday, May 16, 2005
"I’m still very much learning in this area"
Last year the Rev. Dr. Ralph Klein, commenting on Scripture that addresses homosexuality, "I’m still very much learning in this area. But that is my provisional judgment."
Apparently he passed the provisional stage when he signed the Lutheran theologians petition supporting the Task Force Report and Recommendations.
From Last year:
The ELCA has decided to address the issue of homosexuality. What guidance does the Bible give on this question?
I’m glad you asked. The answer is complicated. First of all, the biblical passages that speak about this question are few in number. Jesus never mentions the subject, one way or another. And where the Bible does discuss it, there are always issues of interpretation or other extenuating circumstances. We are faced with many challenges in deciding what these passages meant and what they might mean today.
But does not the Bible condemn Sodom precisely because of homosexuality? That’s why certain homosexual actions are called Sodomy.
God told Abraham that the sin of Sodom was very grave, without going into details (Gen 18:20), and much later the prophet Ezekiel accused Sodom of pride, excess of food, prosperous ease and failure to take care of the poor and needy (16:49). When the two angels visited Lot in Sodom, all the men of the city threatened them with homosexual rape. That’s why God struck them with blindness. Clearly, homosexual and heterosexual rape are wrong and sinful, perhaps expressing violence as much as lust. No one ever claimed that heterosexual rape made heterosexual sex wrong. That’s why this story doesn’t address modern homosexuality, which we assume is participated in by consenting adults.
I know Leviticus deals with details of the sacrificial system and a kosher diet that don’t apply to Gentile Christians, but doesn’t it discuss homosexuality and aren’t its ethical words normative even for us?
Leviticus 18 deals with forbidden sexual relations, such as with one’s father’s wife, one’s sister, daughter-in-law or with both a woman and her daughter. And then, within a paragraph consisting of vv. 19-23, it exhorts: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.”
Isn’t that clear enough?
The trouble is, that paragraph mentions two other issues. First, it says that a husband and wife should not sleep together during a woman’s menstrual period. While that is understandable in antiquity, when both semen and blood made a person ritually unclean, few modern couples consider this an ethical question. We recognize it as a culturally conditioned, time-bound prohibition. Couples today decide on esthetic or other considerations whether to make love during a woman’s period. Secondly, the paragraph also rules out sexual relations between a human being and an animal. Here the believing community and the wider society are in absolute agreement. We recognize such sex as ultimately selfish and exploitative. People who do such actions are wrong—we would probably either arrest them or require extensive counseling for them.
But what does this have to do with homosexuality?
I mentioned two other actions were discussed in this paragraph from Leviticus: the prohibition about a couple sleeping together during a woman’s period is now considered by us as time-bound, almost irrelevant; the prohibition about sleeping with an animal is totally endorsed by us. My question: is the prohibition against homosexuality more like the first case (sex during menstruation), or more like the second case (sex with an animal)? If a person is free to disregard the first prohibition, could not a person in principle consider the prohibition against homosexual actions similarly outdated?
But doesn’t Paul forbid both male and female homosexual actions in Romans 1?
Yes, but, once again, it’s a complicated issue and deserves more space than I have here. In Romans 1-3 Paul argues that both the Gentiles and the Jews have rejected God and need the salvation offered by Christ. He finds the sin of the Gentiles to lie in their idolatry, for which God has consigned them to the lusts of their hearts, to the degrading of their bodies….
That is, to homosexual actions?
Yes, but, there are at least three extenuating circumstances that call the direct applicability of this passage into some question. First, Paul speaks of people’s “passions.” Some scholars have proposed that Paul and many ancients thought that everything, sex included, should be done within limits, without excessive passion. Paul infers that homosexual persons surrender to their excessive passions. We might call them sexual addicts today. Did not Luther himself say that whatever we fear, love and trust is our god? All of us, gay and straight, could turn sex into our god.
O.K. That’s one point. But doesn’t Paul consider homosexual actions “unnatural”?
Yes, but, what does he mean by unnatural? Does he mean that male and female genital organs just naturally fit together? Does he mean that natural sex is about reproduction? Paul’s understanding of what is natural and our understanding of what is natural are not necessarily the same thing. In 1 Cor 11:14, Paul argues that nature itself teaches that if a man wears long hair it is degrading and if a woman wears long hair it is her glory. Look around your congregation. There are a lot of long-haired men and a lot of short-haired women. We don’t consider that unnatural at all; “nature” teaches us something different. Could Paul’s observations about nature and homosexuality also be time-bound?
But doesn’t he condemn people for choosing to be homosexual? Paul says they “exchanged” one form of intercourse for another.
Yes, but, since the late 19th century, Western science has observed that some people are primarily or even exclusively attracted sexually only to people of their same gender. We call this “sexual orientation.” No one fully understands the reasons for this: Is orientation the result of nature (genetics) or nurture (upbringing) or a combination of both nature and nurture and other things? Whatever the reason for their orientation, people do not choose to be gay or lesbian; they simply are that.
But shouldn’t such people just be celibate?
Some of them will no doubt choose to be so, just as some heterosexual people never have sexual relations with another person. Long-term sexual abstinence for religious reasons is called celibacy. But Lutherans have long observed that celibacy is a gift received only by a few and should not be required of clergy or of others. Is it not logical that the majority of homosexual people would not have the gift of celibacy?
Granted that we haven’t looked at every passage, but you seem to be saying that with every passage in Scripture relating to homosexuality, there are extenuating circumstances or contextual reasons to question its applicability to the modern discussion?
Indeed. I’m still very much learning in this area. But that is my provisional judgment.
Sounds Confusionist to me. I'm looking for clarity. Something like, I don't know, Sola Scriptura!
the document
Apparently he passed the provisional stage when he signed the Lutheran theologians petition supporting the Task Force Report and Recommendations.
From Last year:
The ELCA has decided to address the issue of homosexuality. What guidance does the Bible give on this question?
I’m glad you asked. The answer is complicated. First of all, the biblical passages that speak about this question are few in number. Jesus never mentions the subject, one way or another. And where the Bible does discuss it, there are always issues of interpretation or other extenuating circumstances. We are faced with many challenges in deciding what these passages meant and what they might mean today.
But does not the Bible condemn Sodom precisely because of homosexuality? That’s why certain homosexual actions are called Sodomy.
God told Abraham that the sin of Sodom was very grave, without going into details (Gen 18:20), and much later the prophet Ezekiel accused Sodom of pride, excess of food, prosperous ease and failure to take care of the poor and needy (16:49). When the two angels visited Lot in Sodom, all the men of the city threatened them with homosexual rape. That’s why God struck them with blindness. Clearly, homosexual and heterosexual rape are wrong and sinful, perhaps expressing violence as much as lust. No one ever claimed that heterosexual rape made heterosexual sex wrong. That’s why this story doesn’t address modern homosexuality, which we assume is participated in by consenting adults.
I know Leviticus deals with details of the sacrificial system and a kosher diet that don’t apply to Gentile Christians, but doesn’t it discuss homosexuality and aren’t its ethical words normative even for us?
Leviticus 18 deals with forbidden sexual relations, such as with one’s father’s wife, one’s sister, daughter-in-law or with both a woman and her daughter. And then, within a paragraph consisting of vv. 19-23, it exhorts: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.”
Isn’t that clear enough?
The trouble is, that paragraph mentions two other issues. First, it says that a husband and wife should not sleep together during a woman’s menstrual period. While that is understandable in antiquity, when both semen and blood made a person ritually unclean, few modern couples consider this an ethical question. We recognize it as a culturally conditioned, time-bound prohibition. Couples today decide on esthetic or other considerations whether to make love during a woman’s period. Secondly, the paragraph also rules out sexual relations between a human being and an animal. Here the believing community and the wider society are in absolute agreement. We recognize such sex as ultimately selfish and exploitative. People who do such actions are wrong—we would probably either arrest them or require extensive counseling for them.
But what does this have to do with homosexuality?
I mentioned two other actions were discussed in this paragraph from Leviticus: the prohibition about a couple sleeping together during a woman’s period is now considered by us as time-bound, almost irrelevant; the prohibition about sleeping with an animal is totally endorsed by us. My question: is the prohibition against homosexuality more like the first case (sex during menstruation), or more like the second case (sex with an animal)? If a person is free to disregard the first prohibition, could not a person in principle consider the prohibition against homosexual actions similarly outdated?
But doesn’t Paul forbid both male and female homosexual actions in Romans 1?
Yes, but, once again, it’s a complicated issue and deserves more space than I have here. In Romans 1-3 Paul argues that both the Gentiles and the Jews have rejected God and need the salvation offered by Christ. He finds the sin of the Gentiles to lie in their idolatry, for which God has consigned them to the lusts of their hearts, to the degrading of their bodies….
That is, to homosexual actions?
Yes, but, there are at least three extenuating circumstances that call the direct applicability of this passage into some question. First, Paul speaks of people’s “passions.” Some scholars have proposed that Paul and many ancients thought that everything, sex included, should be done within limits, without excessive passion. Paul infers that homosexual persons surrender to their excessive passions. We might call them sexual addicts today. Did not Luther himself say that whatever we fear, love and trust is our god? All of us, gay and straight, could turn sex into our god.
O.K. That’s one point. But doesn’t Paul consider homosexual actions “unnatural”?
Yes, but, what does he mean by unnatural? Does he mean that male and female genital organs just naturally fit together? Does he mean that natural sex is about reproduction? Paul’s understanding of what is natural and our understanding of what is natural are not necessarily the same thing. In 1 Cor 11:14, Paul argues that nature itself teaches that if a man wears long hair it is degrading and if a woman wears long hair it is her glory. Look around your congregation. There are a lot of long-haired men and a lot of short-haired women. We don’t consider that unnatural at all; “nature” teaches us something different. Could Paul’s observations about nature and homosexuality also be time-bound?
But doesn’t he condemn people for choosing to be homosexual? Paul says they “exchanged” one form of intercourse for another.
Yes, but, since the late 19th century, Western science has observed that some people are primarily or even exclusively attracted sexually only to people of their same gender. We call this “sexual orientation.” No one fully understands the reasons for this: Is orientation the result of nature (genetics) or nurture (upbringing) or a combination of both nature and nurture and other things? Whatever the reason for their orientation, people do not choose to be gay or lesbian; they simply are that.
But shouldn’t such people just be celibate?
Some of them will no doubt choose to be so, just as some heterosexual people never have sexual relations with another person. Long-term sexual abstinence for religious reasons is called celibacy. But Lutherans have long observed that celibacy is a gift received only by a few and should not be required of clergy or of others. Is it not logical that the majority of homosexual people would not have the gift of celibacy?
Granted that we haven’t looked at every passage, but you seem to be saying that with every passage in Scripture relating to homosexuality, there are extenuating circumstances or contextual reasons to question its applicability to the modern discussion?
Indeed. I’m still very much learning in this area. But that is my provisional judgment.
Sounds Confusionist to me. I'm looking for clarity. Something like, I don't know, Sola Scriptura!
the document
Let's see, worship Jesus or Sophia, hmmm ....
"At the Re-imagining Conference, as each speaker took the podium, she received a chanted blessing from the entire assembly. The women chanted, "Bless Sophia, dream the vision, share the wisdom dwelling deep within."
Those who promulgate Sophia-worship claim that they are using "Sophia" as just another name for God, and that they are simply trying to show that there is a female side to God. From their point of view, God must no longer be referred to by male names alone. Speaker Barbara Lundblad raised a few eyebrows when she declared that she "did not need Jesus" as long as she had Sophia."
Time to revisit this?
Those who promulgate Sophia-worship claim that they are using "Sophia" as just another name for God, and that they are simply trying to show that there is a female side to God. From their point of view, God must no longer be referred to by male names alone. Speaker Barbara Lundblad raised a few eyebrows when she declared that she "did not need Jesus" as long as she had Sophia."
Time to revisit this?
It's not rocket science
"Prior to the UMW Assembly, an e-mail from controversial speaker Barbara Lundblad was posted to the UMW web site. In this e-mail, Ms. Lundblad denied the meaning attributed to her words spoken at the 1993 Re-Imagining conference, “We did not last night name the name of Jesus. Nor have we done anything in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (laughter and cheers). She claimed her statement set the context of what had occurred the night before in contrast to her intention to teach about Jesus in that morning’s session, and did not demean the Trinity.
However, Ms. Lundblad’s remarks in 1993 that immediately followed this quote convey a view of Jesus and His atoning death that greatly contrasts with the Christian perspective. Speaking of the “gasp” from women when they hear of the sacrificial death of Christ, Ms. Lundblad said, “feminists and womanists have really dared to hear that collective gasping of women who cannot bear the easy explanation that Jesus had to die for our salvation…” Rather than gasping, Christians should be humbled and grateful for the salvation provided for them through the sacrificial death of God’s Son, Jesus.
Ms. Lundblad also quoted heavily from Elizabeth Johnson who says of Jesus, “in his brief ministry, Jesus appears as the prophet and child of Sophia sent to announce that God is the God of all inclusive love who wills the wholeness and humanity of everyone, especially the poor and heavy burdened. Jesus is sent to gather all the outcasts under the wings of their gracious Sophia-god and bring them to shalom.” Christian women do not find affinity with this “Sophia-god,” but rather with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ms. Lundblad’s e-mail and 1993 and 1998 Re-Imagining remarks acknowledge her commitment to the homosexual cause. The invitation by the Women’s Division for Ms. Lundblad to speak at the Assembly was in blatant disregard of the current position in the Discipline.
In light of Barbara Lundblad’s statements at two different Re-Imagining gatherings, her e-mail explanation rings hollow. Regardless of the content of her UMW Assembly presentation in April, Ms. Lundblad’s position on radical feminism and homosexual activity is clear."
The controversy Lunblad created in Methodist circles in 2002.
However, Ms. Lundblad’s remarks in 1993 that immediately followed this quote convey a view of Jesus and His atoning death that greatly contrasts with the Christian perspective. Speaking of the “gasp” from women when they hear of the sacrificial death of Christ, Ms. Lundblad said, “feminists and womanists have really dared to hear that collective gasping of women who cannot bear the easy explanation that Jesus had to die for our salvation…” Rather than gasping, Christians should be humbled and grateful for the salvation provided for them through the sacrificial death of God’s Son, Jesus.
Ms. Lundblad also quoted heavily from Elizabeth Johnson who says of Jesus, “in his brief ministry, Jesus appears as the prophet and child of Sophia sent to announce that God is the God of all inclusive love who wills the wholeness and humanity of everyone, especially the poor and heavy burdened. Jesus is sent to gather all the outcasts under the wings of their gracious Sophia-god and bring them to shalom.” Christian women do not find affinity with this “Sophia-god,” but rather with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ms. Lundblad’s e-mail and 1993 and 1998 Re-Imagining remarks acknowledge her commitment to the homosexual cause. The invitation by the Women’s Division for Ms. Lundblad to speak at the Assembly was in blatant disregard of the current position in the Discipline.
In light of Barbara Lundblad’s statements at two different Re-Imagining gatherings, her e-mail explanation rings hollow. Regardless of the content of her UMW Assembly presentation in April, Ms. Lundblad’s position on radical feminism and homosexual activity is clear."
The controversy Lunblad created in Methodist circles in 2002.
The leader of Lutheran gay Christian movement
Barbara Lundblad, an ordained pastor in the ELCA, is associate professor of preaching at Union Theological Seminary and has taught preaching at Yale, Princeton, and Hebrew Union College. She has been one of the Lutheran preachers on the Protestant Hour Radio program. She is the author of Transforming the Stone: Preaching through Resistance to Change.
"Turning Letters into Laws"
by Barbara K. Lundblad
"During the season of Epiphany, we received a letter---Paul's letter to the Corinthian church. The lectionary brought the letter to us, but we did not start at the beginning. We jumped right into the middle of the sixth chapter. It was on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, after reading about food and fornication, that the lector at Advent Lutheran Church in Manhattan looked up and said, "May God give us some understanding of that word."
People seemed uncertain whether they should say, "Thanks be to God!" The next Sunday the lectionary dropped us once again right into the middle of the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians without much background: "from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none." (1 Cor. 7:29-31). Well that was startling news to the people at Advent, especially the newlyweds. What does it mean for husbands to live as though they have no wives? How should they act and what should they do? Note that Paul didn’t say, "let even those who have husbands be as though they had none." This seems to set up a perplexing situation: the wives still think they have husbands but the husbands will be living as though they have no wives! (well, you have to understand Paul’s context.) Or consider Paul's words earlier in this same chapter: "to the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am." So if you are coming to church hoping to find an eligible partner, forget it! Stay single -- like Paul. Of course he does add, "It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (but again, we have to understand Paul's context.)
In recent publications, in meetings organized to oppose the work of the ELCA taskforce for studies on sexuality, and in letters to the Lutheran, someone almost always says, "we don’t need this study. The Bible is completely clear about sex and marriage. We dare not overturn what the church has taught for over 2000 years." are they thinking about 1 Corinthians 7 when they say such things? If so, perhaps Paul's advice to the Corinthian church will become part of the document adopted by the ELCA assembly in 2005: "as St. Paul writes, "from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none," (of course this is silly, I am taking Paul out of context.)Some hear 1 Corinthians 7 as one more reason to stop reading Paul all together. Others say, "It’s confusing, but it's in the bible and that's all I need to know."
Both positions fail to listen closely enough to what Paul is saying in this letter. It is clear there are problems in Corinth. In the first chapter, Paul says he has received word about quarrels within the young church –some say, "I belong to Paul" others, "I belong to Apollos, or Peter," or, "I belong to Christ." (this was long before people said "I belong to the Network," or, “I" belong to Word Alone.") Paul cares about these people. He is concerned about this young church in this bustling harbor city." I'm not writing this to make you ashamed" he says, "but to admonish you as my beloved children." when we get to chapter seven, Paul begins to respond not to verbal reports brought by Chloe's people, but to specific questions that had come to him in a letter: "now concerning the matters about which you wrote" he begins… and the whole chapter is about sex. He quotes from their letter: "it is well for a man not to touch a woman." Paul won't let that stand. Though he is not too positive about either sex or marriage, he argues with those who claimed that Christians had become completely spiritual people, that they were now living Christ's resurrection. Paul answers by making it clear that he has heard such teachings, but... "because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."
Paul seems to be saying that the only good thing about marriage is to keep a man or woman from sinning; that is, there's nothing good in marriage itself. However, to those who taught that a man should never touch a woman under any circumstances, Paul affirms, or at least allows for, sexual expression within marriage: the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband…do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor. 7:3, 5).
Now we might want to say more positive things about sexuality and marriage besides curbing temptation, but Paul was responding to the Corinthians' letter. Not ours. This is a very important distinction. Paul was not trying to answer our questions. He was not writing systematic theology or a social statement on Christian sexual ethics. He was writing a letter, a letter addressed to particular concerns of Corinthian believers, who were struggling to live their lives in light of the good news of Jesus Christ. Paul admits that he doesn't have all the answers. That is what is so disarming about Paul in this chapter. We can hear his struggle in the verses that come just before today's reading. He turns to another question they have asked him. "Now concerning virgins," he says, "I have no command from the lord, but I give my opinion." I have no command from the lord, but I give my opinion.
Bishop Krister Stendahl once said, "I think Paul was the last preacher in Christendom who had the guts to say that." We often confuse our opinions with divine authority. It may be far more honest to say, with Paul," I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion" -- "the thought of two men in bed together makes me sick." "Why would a woman want to make love with another woman?" "What do they do?" "I don't even want to talk about sex. It's too embarrassing" "Other boys in school call me a fag and I'll do anything to prove them wrong." "If our church approves same-sex blessings that demeans my marriage." -- it would be wonderful if people could say, "these are my opinions."
That could be a healthy place to begin. It is clear that Paul's opinions were shaped by his sense of urgency. He fully expected Jesus to return within his lifetime. His answers to the Corinthians' questions about sex and marriage were shaped by his sense that the time was short: "are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that." (1 Cor. 7:27-28). This sense of urgency continues in the next verse: "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none." He goes on to say the same about those who mourn, those who rejoice, those who have possessions. Live as though this present age is passing away.
It is impossible to know what Paul would say in answer to our questions 2000 years later. He was not answering our questions, but the questions and concerns of particular churches in the century after Jesus' resurrection. If we take Paul's letters as definitive statements on sex and marriage, we misuse the particularity of his letters by turning them into universal, timeless propositions. If we dismiss Paul all together, we miss his concern for the real-life dilemmas faced by Christians in a culture that offered myriad competing claims and values. If we can read his letters as letters, we can learn a great deal about what it means to be Christ’s church in each particular time and place, including our own. The problem comes when we turn letters into laws.
That same week of Epiphany, I received a copy of another letter, this one to Lutheran Christians in St. Paul---but not by St. Paul. That letter came from Peter Rogness, bishop of the St. Paul area synod. He wrote to tell people that he was removing the sanctions against two congregations in the synod. St. Paul-Reformation and Hosanna Lutheran churches had been censured for failing to follow church policies in ordaining pastors. Hosanna, a suburban congregation, had called and ordained people on its staff as pastors without the approval of the ELCA. St. Paul- reformation, an urban congregation, had called and ordained Anita Hill as their pastor after she had served as their "pastoral minister" for several years. While fully qualified for ordination, pastor hill is not endorsed by the ELCA because she is living in a committed relationship with another woman.
Sanctions were imposed on both congregations. These sanctions precluded members from serving on synod council or boards, as officers, or on any task forces of the synod. Yet, both congregations continued to be actively involved in the synod, giving generously to the larger church and reaching out to their communities. Nothing had changed in official church policy, but Bishop Rogness believed that sanctions against these congregations had become only punitive, without any larger purpose.
Like the apostle Paul centuries before him, Bishop Rogness was responding to particular situations within the Christian community: I believe we need to recognize that the occasional church which steps out of the box may, in the long run, be contributing to the life of the church in ways more constructive than destructive… flexibility and diversity are needed for effectiveness in mission in a changing world. I believe it is time to recognize anew that what binds us together as Christ's church is far more central…than are the constitutional infractions of past actions.…it is time to make clear that our relationship with these congregations is a relationship focused on mission and ministry and not on rules…with affirmation of the life we share and the faithfulness of the god who continues to call us into life together in this church, we pray for the continued guidance of the spirit as we move confidently into the future.
I think Paul would understand. Bishop Rogness was responding to questions and concerns raised in this time and place. Of course some will surely remind him -- and me -- that Paul wrote other words that seem to argue against any decision that allows a lesbian woman to serve as pastor. Paul's words in Romans 1 are often lifted up as the definitive word regarding homosexual relationships, though Paul had never heard of the word "homosexual" when people speak about the bible and homosexuality, the argument often goes something like this: even if we set aside passages in Leviticus and other parts of the holiness codes, we must take Romans 1:26-27 as authoritative teaching on sexuality for all time. But what happened to context and particularity?
Well, it is possible to see context as important or irrelevant depending on our” opinions. I think this is true for all of us. Those who affirm Paul’s prohibitions of homosexuality will acknowledge that his strange teachings in 1 Corinthians 7 need to be taken "in context" but that Romans 1:26-27 is true for all time. Those who read Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 7 as demeaning or absurd advice for single and married people alike will read that chapter as confirmation that everything Paul said about sexual ethics has to be taken "in context" including Romans 1:26-27. Of course, Paul did more than give his opinions in 1 Corinthians 7: "to the married I give this command; not I but the lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11).
Paul is very clear here, as clear as Jesus was when he talked about divorce and remarriage in the gospels. Yet, as a church, we do not prohibit divorced women and men from being ordained, nor do we "remove them from the roster" if they divorce following ordination. Taking Paul and Jesus seriously, should we then amend ELCA documents concerning ordination?
--Resolved: to amend vision and expectations by addition before the last sentence in section iii: persons who are divorced and remarried are prohibited from ordination in this church.
I don't plan to introduce such a memorial at the next ELCA assembly; however, such a resolution would be consistent with scripture and with the teachings of the church for 2000 years. I don't know whether Paul would draft such a resolution. He would probably be surprised that Christians were still waiting for Christ's return. My guess is that he would get more than a little impatient with parliamentary procedures.
I think he would opt for writing a few more letters to congregations struggling to be faithful in confusing times. He would, no doubt, have some opinions about the issues before us, but he might be shocked to find that we had turned his letters into laws. Most of all, I think Paul would assure Bishop Rogness and those who belong to the network and those who belong to word alone and those who belong to congregations throughout the ELCA, that we all belong to Christ. He would remind us of what he said long ago to a church he had never even visited: for I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of god in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38-39)." –THE END
It is tempting to "fisk" Lundblad's sermon. Perhaps someone will. It would be easy enough.
She is writing in a newsletter (though it feels like a sermon she has preached before) of the organization she was vice president of, so she is just laying out her argument and empowering her activist network.
It must all seems so reasonable to many people. However, I don't think one has to have a mind poisoned by prejudice to begin to see that how if all Lutherans would use her hermeneutic we would have no Lutheranism left!
Lundblad is in essence, what I call a "Confusionist." She has found a way to disregard anything that is in conflict with what she thinks God probably means. Rather than build a strong case for what we should be doing, she says we really can't know from scripture.
This is the real insidiousness of the gay hermeneutic (not just gay liberation but any hermeneutic that denies biblical clarity). In attempting to neutralize the opposition, the accompanying side effect will be confusion about everything. The people of god will return again to the time of, "in those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)
We are on our way to a time when god is not king, but the autonomous self will sit on the throne. We are on our way to a time when we will become like Lundblad, not really a Lutheran any longer because we deny too many of the reformation principles. Sola Scriptura means that scripture has clarity. Brilliant Confusionists like Barbara Lundblad will lead us into a brave new Lutheran world in which the ELCA will be just another liberal Protestant Mainline denomination wrecked on the rocks of culture.
"Turning Letters into Laws"
by Barbara K. Lundblad
"During the season of Epiphany, we received a letter---Paul's letter to the Corinthian church. The lectionary brought the letter to us, but we did not start at the beginning. We jumped right into the middle of the sixth chapter. It was on the second Sunday after the Epiphany, after reading about food and fornication, that the lector at Advent Lutheran Church in Manhattan looked up and said, "May God give us some understanding of that word."
People seemed uncertain whether they should say, "Thanks be to God!" The next Sunday the lectionary dropped us once again right into the middle of the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians without much background: "from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none." (1 Cor. 7:29-31). Well that was startling news to the people at Advent, especially the newlyweds. What does it mean for husbands to live as though they have no wives? How should they act and what should they do? Note that Paul didn’t say, "let even those who have husbands be as though they had none." This seems to set up a perplexing situation: the wives still think they have husbands but the husbands will be living as though they have no wives! (well, you have to understand Paul’s context.) Or consider Paul's words earlier in this same chapter: "to the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am." So if you are coming to church hoping to find an eligible partner, forget it! Stay single -- like Paul. Of course he does add, "It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (but again, we have to understand Paul's context.)
In recent publications, in meetings organized to oppose the work of the ELCA taskforce for studies on sexuality, and in letters to the Lutheran, someone almost always says, "we don’t need this study. The Bible is completely clear about sex and marriage. We dare not overturn what the church has taught for over 2000 years." are they thinking about 1 Corinthians 7 when they say such things? If so, perhaps Paul's advice to the Corinthian church will become part of the document adopted by the ELCA assembly in 2005: "as St. Paul writes, "from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none," (of course this is silly, I am taking Paul out of context.)Some hear 1 Corinthians 7 as one more reason to stop reading Paul all together. Others say, "It’s confusing, but it's in the bible and that's all I need to know."
Both positions fail to listen closely enough to what Paul is saying in this letter. It is clear there are problems in Corinth. In the first chapter, Paul says he has received word about quarrels within the young church –some say, "I belong to Paul" others, "I belong to Apollos, or Peter," or, "I belong to Christ." (this was long before people said "I belong to the Network," or, “I" belong to Word Alone.") Paul cares about these people. He is concerned about this young church in this bustling harbor city." I'm not writing this to make you ashamed" he says, "but to admonish you as my beloved children." when we get to chapter seven, Paul begins to respond not to verbal reports brought by Chloe's people, but to specific questions that had come to him in a letter: "now concerning the matters about which you wrote" he begins… and the whole chapter is about sex. He quotes from their letter: "it is well for a man not to touch a woman." Paul won't let that stand. Though he is not too positive about either sex or marriage, he argues with those who claimed that Christians had become completely spiritual people, that they were now living Christ's resurrection. Paul answers by making it clear that he has heard such teachings, but... "because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."
Paul seems to be saying that the only good thing about marriage is to keep a man or woman from sinning; that is, there's nothing good in marriage itself. However, to those who taught that a man should never touch a woman under any circumstances, Paul affirms, or at least allows for, sexual expression within marriage: the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband…do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor. 7:3, 5).
Now we might want to say more positive things about sexuality and marriage besides curbing temptation, but Paul was responding to the Corinthians' letter. Not ours. This is a very important distinction. Paul was not trying to answer our questions. He was not writing systematic theology or a social statement on Christian sexual ethics. He was writing a letter, a letter addressed to particular concerns of Corinthian believers, who were struggling to live their lives in light of the good news of Jesus Christ. Paul admits that he doesn't have all the answers. That is what is so disarming about Paul in this chapter. We can hear his struggle in the verses that come just before today's reading. He turns to another question they have asked him. "Now concerning virgins," he says, "I have no command from the lord, but I give my opinion." I have no command from the lord, but I give my opinion.
Bishop Krister Stendahl once said, "I think Paul was the last preacher in Christendom who had the guts to say that." We often confuse our opinions with divine authority. It may be far more honest to say, with Paul," I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion" -- "the thought of two men in bed together makes me sick." "Why would a woman want to make love with another woman?" "What do they do?" "I don't even want to talk about sex. It's too embarrassing" "Other boys in school call me a fag and I'll do anything to prove them wrong." "If our church approves same-sex blessings that demeans my marriage." -- it would be wonderful if people could say, "these are my opinions."
That could be a healthy place to begin. It is clear that Paul's opinions were shaped by his sense of urgency. He fully expected Jesus to return within his lifetime. His answers to the Corinthians' questions about sex and marriage were shaped by his sense that the time was short: "are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that." (1 Cor. 7:27-28). This sense of urgency continues in the next verse: "I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none." He goes on to say the same about those who mourn, those who rejoice, those who have possessions. Live as though this present age is passing away.
It is impossible to know what Paul would say in answer to our questions 2000 years later. He was not answering our questions, but the questions and concerns of particular churches in the century after Jesus' resurrection. If we take Paul's letters as definitive statements on sex and marriage, we misuse the particularity of his letters by turning them into universal, timeless propositions. If we dismiss Paul all together, we miss his concern for the real-life dilemmas faced by Christians in a culture that offered myriad competing claims and values. If we can read his letters as letters, we can learn a great deal about what it means to be Christ’s church in each particular time and place, including our own. The problem comes when we turn letters into laws.
That same week of Epiphany, I received a copy of another letter, this one to Lutheran Christians in St. Paul---but not by St. Paul. That letter came from Peter Rogness, bishop of the St. Paul area synod. He wrote to tell people that he was removing the sanctions against two congregations in the synod. St. Paul-Reformation and Hosanna Lutheran churches had been censured for failing to follow church policies in ordaining pastors. Hosanna, a suburban congregation, had called and ordained people on its staff as pastors without the approval of the ELCA. St. Paul- reformation, an urban congregation, had called and ordained Anita Hill as their pastor after she had served as their "pastoral minister" for several years. While fully qualified for ordination, pastor hill is not endorsed by the ELCA because she is living in a committed relationship with another woman.
Sanctions were imposed on both congregations. These sanctions precluded members from serving on synod council or boards, as officers, or on any task forces of the synod. Yet, both congregations continued to be actively involved in the synod, giving generously to the larger church and reaching out to their communities. Nothing had changed in official church policy, but Bishop Rogness believed that sanctions against these congregations had become only punitive, without any larger purpose.
Like the apostle Paul centuries before him, Bishop Rogness was responding to particular situations within the Christian community: I believe we need to recognize that the occasional church which steps out of the box may, in the long run, be contributing to the life of the church in ways more constructive than destructive… flexibility and diversity are needed for effectiveness in mission in a changing world. I believe it is time to recognize anew that what binds us together as Christ's church is far more central…than are the constitutional infractions of past actions.…it is time to make clear that our relationship with these congregations is a relationship focused on mission and ministry and not on rules…with affirmation of the life we share and the faithfulness of the god who continues to call us into life together in this church, we pray for the continued guidance of the spirit as we move confidently into the future.
I think Paul would understand. Bishop Rogness was responding to questions and concerns raised in this time and place. Of course some will surely remind him -- and me -- that Paul wrote other words that seem to argue against any decision that allows a lesbian woman to serve as pastor. Paul's words in Romans 1 are often lifted up as the definitive word regarding homosexual relationships, though Paul had never heard of the word "homosexual" when people speak about the bible and homosexuality, the argument often goes something like this: even if we set aside passages in Leviticus and other parts of the holiness codes, we must take Romans 1:26-27 as authoritative teaching on sexuality for all time. But what happened to context and particularity?
Well, it is possible to see context as important or irrelevant depending on our” opinions. I think this is true for all of us. Those who affirm Paul’s prohibitions of homosexuality will acknowledge that his strange teachings in 1 Corinthians 7 need to be taken "in context" but that Romans 1:26-27 is true for all time. Those who read Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 7 as demeaning or absurd advice for single and married people alike will read that chapter as confirmation that everything Paul said about sexual ethics has to be taken "in context" including Romans 1:26-27. Of course, Paul did more than give his opinions in 1 Corinthians 7: "to the married I give this command; not I but the lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11).
Paul is very clear here, as clear as Jesus was when he talked about divorce and remarriage in the gospels. Yet, as a church, we do not prohibit divorced women and men from being ordained, nor do we "remove them from the roster" if they divorce following ordination. Taking Paul and Jesus seriously, should we then amend ELCA documents concerning ordination?
--Resolved: to amend vision and expectations by addition before the last sentence in section iii: persons who are divorced and remarried are prohibited from ordination in this church.
I don't plan to introduce such a memorial at the next ELCA assembly; however, such a resolution would be consistent with scripture and with the teachings of the church for 2000 years. I don't know whether Paul would draft such a resolution. He would probably be surprised that Christians were still waiting for Christ's return. My guess is that he would get more than a little impatient with parliamentary procedures.
I think he would opt for writing a few more letters to congregations struggling to be faithful in confusing times. He would, no doubt, have some opinions about the issues before us, but he might be shocked to find that we had turned his letters into laws. Most of all, I think Paul would assure Bishop Rogness and those who belong to the network and those who belong to word alone and those who belong to congregations throughout the ELCA, that we all belong to Christ. He would remind us of what he said long ago to a church he had never even visited: for I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of god in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38-39)." –THE END
It is tempting to "fisk" Lundblad's sermon. Perhaps someone will. It would be easy enough.
She is writing in a newsletter (though it feels like a sermon she has preached before) of the organization she was vice president of, so she is just laying out her argument and empowering her activist network.
It must all seems so reasonable to many people. However, I don't think one has to have a mind poisoned by prejudice to begin to see that how if all Lutherans would use her hermeneutic we would have no Lutheranism left!
Lundblad is in essence, what I call a "Confusionist." She has found a way to disregard anything that is in conflict with what she thinks God probably means. Rather than build a strong case for what we should be doing, she says we really can't know from scripture.
This is the real insidiousness of the gay hermeneutic (not just gay liberation but any hermeneutic that denies biblical clarity). In attempting to neutralize the opposition, the accompanying side effect will be confusion about everything. The people of god will return again to the time of, "in those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)
We are on our way to a time when god is not king, but the autonomous self will sit on the throne. We are on our way to a time when we will become like Lundblad, not really a Lutheran any longer because we deny too many of the reformation principles. Sola Scriptura means that scripture has clarity. Brilliant Confusionists like Barbara Lundblad will lead us into a brave new Lutheran world in which the ELCA will be just another liberal Protestant Mainline denomination wrecked on the rocks of culture.
two groups are fighting for sanity: WordAlone and Solid Rock Lutherans. From Solid Rock:
The following letter was sent to Churchwide Assembly Voting Members last week. It is the third letter that they have received from Solid Rock Lutherans. The first letter was sent last September and the second was sent in February of this year. Only through the prayers, hard work, and generous contributions of our supporters can we reach so many people.
Thank you!
Roy Harrisville III
May 4, 2005
Dear (first name),
As a Churchwide Assembly Voting Member you have a responsibility to understand all sides of the issues facing the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and their practical effect upon our church. We write with the hope that you will consider our views - the views of a solid majority of ELCA members - as you decide how to vote on a potentially momentous change in our church's understanding of sexual conduct.
Our organization, Solid Rock Lutherans, is an umbrella group representing the many individuals and groups within the ELCA that uphold our current biblical and confessional standards on sexual conduct and ordination. We believe that the Word of God affirms the union of woman and man in the bonds of marriage and that only those who are guided by this Word should be considered for ordination.
A little while ago, the ELCA Church Council approved three recommendations for consideration in Orlando that would "permit exceptions to the expectations regarding sexual conduct for gay and lesbian candidates [for the ordained ministry]." (We've enclosed copies of these recommendations for your review.) A vote at the Churchwide Assembly in favor of these recommendations would be a vote to polarize the ELCA, belittle marriage, and mislead ourselves about what we are doing.
Granting exceptions to biblical moral standards that have received approval for over 2,000 years would confuse believers and create division. Adoption of these recommendations would split the ELCA into two different moral camps. Most of us are aware of the teaching of Matthew 12:25: "No city or house divided against itself will stand." And yet we're being asked to believe that a church that embraces two diametrically opposing views of sexual behavior will endure.If the Churchwide Assembly voted to pass these recommendations, it would mean that marriage is of no importance when considering a person for ordination in the ELCA. We would be sanctioning common law relationships for homosexuals. But the Church Council did not talk about changing any policies for heterosexuals, which state that "This church is committed to the sanctity of marriage and the enhancement of family life. Ordained ministers of this church, whether married or single, are expected to uphold Christian ideals of marriage in their public ministry as well as in their private life.
Any departure from this normative behavior may be considered conduct incompatible with the character of the ministerial office." (Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, p. 4) "Ordained ministers, whether married or single, are expected to uphold an understanding of marriage in their public ministry as well as in private life that is biblically informed and consistent with the teachings of this church.
Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life." (Vision and Expectations: Ordained Ministers in the ELCA, III. The Ordained Minister as Person and Example)Unless we completely change these policies and allowed all ordained ministers to live in common law relationships without the benefit of marriage, passage of these ELCA Church Council recommendations would create an unacceptable double standard.
And then there's the matter of misleading information. These recommendations attempt to present this drastic change in policy as a matter of small compromise, going so far as to claim that these recommendations actually "affirm Vision & Expectations (V&E)." This is wrong and misleading. Adopting these recommendations would allow for unlimited exceptions for practicing "partnered" gay clergy and would quickly be followed by unlimited transfers between congregations and synods once they are on the clergy roster. These recommendations do not affirm V&E; they overturn the policies that are quoted above.
What was most troubling to us was the manner in which the Church Council debated this issue. We were in the room during the two and a half days that our ELCA Church Council debated what recommendations to put forward to the Assembly on this topic. Not once did the Council discuss maintaining the current standards. Not once did any council member ask the question, "Is there biblical justification for such a change?" No biblical or theological justification is being made for such a drastic change in church doctrine - and there certainly isn't one in the language of the recommendations you now have in front of you. There are many references in this debate to studies of the Bible ("Journey Together Faithfully: Part Two" for example), but only silence as to what those studies reveal. That's because no one can find any biblical support for this change.
Do not let a small group of people who are out of touch with the church polarize the ELCA, belittle marriage, and then tell us that none of this is really happening. We believe that we can compassionately minister to those with alternative sexual lifestyles with no changes to our current polices and practices. We pray that you believe this too.
In faith,
Rev. Roy A. Harrisville III, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Thank you!
Roy Harrisville III
May 4, 2005
Dear (first name),
As a Churchwide Assembly Voting Member you have a responsibility to understand all sides of the issues facing the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and their practical effect upon our church. We write with the hope that you will consider our views - the views of a solid majority of ELCA members - as you decide how to vote on a potentially momentous change in our church's understanding of sexual conduct.
Our organization, Solid Rock Lutherans, is an umbrella group representing the many individuals and groups within the ELCA that uphold our current biblical and confessional standards on sexual conduct and ordination. We believe that the Word of God affirms the union of woman and man in the bonds of marriage and that only those who are guided by this Word should be considered for ordination.
A little while ago, the ELCA Church Council approved three recommendations for consideration in Orlando that would "permit exceptions to the expectations regarding sexual conduct for gay and lesbian candidates [for the ordained ministry]." (We've enclosed copies of these recommendations for your review.) A vote at the Churchwide Assembly in favor of these recommendations would be a vote to polarize the ELCA, belittle marriage, and mislead ourselves about what we are doing.
Granting exceptions to biblical moral standards that have received approval for over 2,000 years would confuse believers and create division. Adoption of these recommendations would split the ELCA into two different moral camps. Most of us are aware of the teaching of Matthew 12:25: "No city or house divided against itself will stand." And yet we're being asked to believe that a church that embraces two diametrically opposing views of sexual behavior will endure.If the Churchwide Assembly voted to pass these recommendations, it would mean that marriage is of no importance when considering a person for ordination in the ELCA. We would be sanctioning common law relationships for homosexuals. But the Church Council did not talk about changing any policies for heterosexuals, which state that "This church is committed to the sanctity of marriage and the enhancement of family life. Ordained ministers of this church, whether married or single, are expected to uphold Christian ideals of marriage in their public ministry as well as in their private life.
Any departure from this normative behavior may be considered conduct incompatible with the character of the ministerial office." (Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline, p. 4) "Ordained ministers, whether married or single, are expected to uphold an understanding of marriage in their public ministry as well as in private life that is biblically informed and consistent with the teachings of this church.
Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life." (Vision and Expectations: Ordained Ministers in the ELCA, III. The Ordained Minister as Person and Example)Unless we completely change these policies and allowed all ordained ministers to live in common law relationships without the benefit of marriage, passage of these ELCA Church Council recommendations would create an unacceptable double standard.
And then there's the matter of misleading information. These recommendations attempt to present this drastic change in policy as a matter of small compromise, going so far as to claim that these recommendations actually "affirm Vision & Expectations (V&E)." This is wrong and misleading. Adopting these recommendations would allow for unlimited exceptions for practicing "partnered" gay clergy and would quickly be followed by unlimited transfers between congregations and synods once they are on the clergy roster. These recommendations do not affirm V&E; they overturn the policies that are quoted above.
What was most troubling to us was the manner in which the Church Council debated this issue. We were in the room during the two and a half days that our ELCA Church Council debated what recommendations to put forward to the Assembly on this topic. Not once did the Council discuss maintaining the current standards. Not once did any council member ask the question, "Is there biblical justification for such a change?" No biblical or theological justification is being made for such a drastic change in church doctrine - and there certainly isn't one in the language of the recommendations you now have in front of you. There are many references in this debate to studies of the Bible ("Journey Together Faithfully: Part Two" for example), but only silence as to what those studies reveal. That's because no one can find any biblical support for this change.
Do not let a small group of people who are out of touch with the church polarize the ELCA, belittle marriage, and then tell us that none of this is really happening. We believe that we can compassionately minister to those with alternative sexual lifestyles with no changes to our current polices and practices. We pray that you believe this too.
In faith,
Rev. Roy A. Harrisville III, Ph.D.
Executive Director
The wall is no more
Dear Human Lutheran People;
Shrimp get letters and Shrimp on list servs so even though me on bottom of the sea have pretty good idea what going on in ELCA. Many synods telling Churchwide NO WAY. Be happy that synods like the one in Florida joined in NO WAY.
If you have synod coming up, take heart and go to mike and say NO WAY!
Following from Minnesota. Good words to chew on:
"Dear friends;
"The surest sign of disunity is scheduling a vote on unity…"
At our synod assembly last weekend in SE MN, we had the opportunity to ask questions of both the STF chair, Bishop M. Payne and a local member of the ELCA Church Council. I addressed them in the Q&A and challenged them on the first recommendation. I led off with the above quote that a dissenting member of the task force gave me.
I then pointed out all this emphasis I hear calling us to "unity" from each of those three units (STF, HoB, and CC). I mentioned the extreme number of references to unity I found in the bishops statement: "12 times" (Even though they had NO UNITY in being able to make any recommendations).
I then read the following scripture, Ezekiel 13:10-16: 10. Because, in truth, because they have misled my people, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace; and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear whitewash on it. 11. Say to those who smear whitewash on it that it shall fall. There will be a deluge of rain, great hailstones will fall, and a stormy wind will break out. 12. When the wall falls, will it not be said to you, "Where is the whitewash you smeared on it?"
I followed up with the comment and question: Is all this talk about "unity" just "whitewash?"
There was silence in the room.
Their responses were lost in the moment. But I think they got my point. I missed the actual debate later over the Church Council's recommendations, but I understand that the first recommendation was the one they got hung up on… I think this talk about unity may be their own undoing! Because it is simply a lie, and they know it is…
The mood seems to have shifted away from that first recommendation, it has become the most dangerous one! Someone even told me ahead of time that it was causing a lot of trouble for them - the one they thought would be "easy" (soften us up for the other two) I really want to thank Lou Hesse for challenging them on that whole unity thing in the first place, refusing from the beginning to support that first recommendation (as well as the other two). Bless him!
Why perpetuate a lie - "peace peace, when there is no peace…" The wall they have built supporting homosexual behavior/scriptural application is weak wall that will not endure the storm. "Where will all the whitewash be then?
Hey, let's go take a vote on unity!!!
"The wall is no more, nor those who smeared it-- (v 16) the prophets of Israel who prophesied concerning Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for it, when there was no peace, says the Lord God."
The full passage from Ezekiel 13 is below.
1. The word of the Lord came to me: 2. Mortal, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are prophesying; say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: "Hear the word of the Lord!" 3. Thus says the Lord God, Alas for the senseless prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 4. Your prophets have been like jackals among ruins, O Israel. 5. You have not gone up into the breaches, or repaired a wall for the house of Israel, so that it might stand in battle on the day of the Lord. 6. They have envisioned falsehood and lying divination; they say, "Says the Lord," when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they wait for the fulfillment of their word! 7. Have you not seen a false vision or uttered a lying divination, when you have said, "Says the Lord," even though I did not speak? 8. Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you have uttered falsehood and envisioned lies, I am against you, says the Lord God. 9. My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations; they shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel; and you shall know that I am the Lord God. 10. Because, in truth, because they have misled my people, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace; and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear whitewash on it. 11. Say to those who smear whitewash on it that it shall fall. There will be a deluge of rain, great hailstones will fall, and a stormy wind will break out. 12. When the wall falls, will it not be said to you, "Where is the whitewash you smeared on it?" 13. Therefore thus says the Lord God: In my wrath I will make a stormy wind break out, and in my anger there shall be a deluge of rain, and hailstones in wrath to destroy it. 14. I will break down the wall that you have smeared with whitewash, and bring it to the ground, so that its foundation will be laid bare; when it falls, you shall perish within it; and you shall know that I am the Lord. 15. Thus I will spend my wrath upon the wall, and upon those who have smeared it with whitewash; and I will say to you, The wall is no more, nor those who smeared it-- 16. the prophets of Israel who prophesied concerning Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for it, when there was no peace, says the Lord God. 17. As for you, mortal, set your face against the daughters of your people, who prophesy out of their own imagination; prophesy against them 18. and say, Thus says the Lord God: Woe to the women who sew bands on all wrists, and make veils for the heads of persons of every height, in the hunt for human lives! Will you hunt down lives among my people, and maintain your own lives? 19. You have profaned me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, putting to death persons who should not die and keeping alive persons who should not live, by your lies to my people, who listen to lies. 20. Therefore thus says the Lord God: I am against your bands with which you hunt lives; I will tear them from your arms, and let the lives go free, the lives that you hunt down like birds. 21. I will tear off your veils, and save my people from your hands; they shall no longer be prey in your hands; and you shall know that I am the Lord. 22. Because you have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not disheartened them, and you have encouraged the wicked not to turn from their wicked way and save their lives; 23. therefore you shall no longer see false visions or practice divination; I will save my people from your hand. Then you will know that I am the Lord."
Shrimp get letters and Shrimp on list servs so even though me on bottom of the sea have pretty good idea what going on in ELCA. Many synods telling Churchwide NO WAY. Be happy that synods like the one in Florida joined in NO WAY.
If you have synod coming up, take heart and go to mike and say NO WAY!
Following from Minnesota. Good words to chew on:
"Dear friends;
"The surest sign of disunity is scheduling a vote on unity…"
At our synod assembly last weekend in SE MN, we had the opportunity to ask questions of both the STF chair, Bishop M. Payne and a local member of the ELCA Church Council. I addressed them in the Q&A and challenged them on the first recommendation. I led off with the above quote that a dissenting member of the task force gave me.
I then pointed out all this emphasis I hear calling us to "unity" from each of those three units (STF, HoB, and CC). I mentioned the extreme number of references to unity I found in the bishops statement: "12 times" (Even though they had NO UNITY in being able to make any recommendations).
I then read the following scripture, Ezekiel 13:10-16: 10. Because, in truth, because they have misled my people, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace; and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear whitewash on it. 11. Say to those who smear whitewash on it that it shall fall. There will be a deluge of rain, great hailstones will fall, and a stormy wind will break out. 12. When the wall falls, will it not be said to you, "Where is the whitewash you smeared on it?"
I followed up with the comment and question: Is all this talk about "unity" just "whitewash?"
There was silence in the room.
Their responses were lost in the moment. But I think they got my point. I missed the actual debate later over the Church Council's recommendations, but I understand that the first recommendation was the one they got hung up on… I think this talk about unity may be their own undoing! Because it is simply a lie, and they know it is…
The mood seems to have shifted away from that first recommendation, it has become the most dangerous one! Someone even told me ahead of time that it was causing a lot of trouble for them - the one they thought would be "easy" (soften us up for the other two) I really want to thank Lou Hesse for challenging them on that whole unity thing in the first place, refusing from the beginning to support that first recommendation (as well as the other two). Bless him!
Why perpetuate a lie - "peace peace, when there is no peace…" The wall they have built supporting homosexual behavior/scriptural application is weak wall that will not endure the storm. "Where will all the whitewash be then?
Hey, let's go take a vote on unity!!!
"The wall is no more, nor those who smeared it-- (v 16) the prophets of Israel who prophesied concerning Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for it, when there was no peace, says the Lord God."
The full passage from Ezekiel 13 is below.
1. The word of the Lord came to me: 2. Mortal, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are prophesying; say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: "Hear the word of the Lord!" 3. Thus says the Lord God, Alas for the senseless prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 4. Your prophets have been like jackals among ruins, O Israel. 5. You have not gone up into the breaches, or repaired a wall for the house of Israel, so that it might stand in battle on the day of the Lord. 6. They have envisioned falsehood and lying divination; they say, "Says the Lord," when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they wait for the fulfillment of their word! 7. Have you not seen a false vision or uttered a lying divination, when you have said, "Says the Lord," even though I did not speak? 8. Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you have uttered falsehood and envisioned lies, I am against you, says the Lord God. 9. My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations; they shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel; and you shall know that I am the Lord God. 10. Because, in truth, because they have misled my people, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace; and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear whitewash on it. 11. Say to those who smear whitewash on it that it shall fall. There will be a deluge of rain, great hailstones will fall, and a stormy wind will break out. 12. When the wall falls, will it not be said to you, "Where is the whitewash you smeared on it?" 13. Therefore thus says the Lord God: In my wrath I will make a stormy wind break out, and in my anger there shall be a deluge of rain, and hailstones in wrath to destroy it. 14. I will break down the wall that you have smeared with whitewash, and bring it to the ground, so that its foundation will be laid bare; when it falls, you shall perish within it; and you shall know that I am the Lord. 15. Thus I will spend my wrath upon the wall, and upon those who have smeared it with whitewash; and I will say to you, The wall is no more, nor those who smeared it-- 16. the prophets of Israel who prophesied concerning Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for it, when there was no peace, says the Lord God. 17. As for you, mortal, set your face against the daughters of your people, who prophesy out of their own imagination; prophesy against them 18. and say, Thus says the Lord God: Woe to the women who sew bands on all wrists, and make veils for the heads of persons of every height, in the hunt for human lives! Will you hunt down lives among my people, and maintain your own lives? 19. You have profaned me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, putting to death persons who should not die and keeping alive persons who should not live, by your lies to my people, who listen to lies. 20. Therefore thus says the Lord God: I am against your bands with which you hunt lives; I will tear them from your arms, and let the lives go free, the lives that you hunt down like birds. 21. I will tear off your veils, and save my people from your hands; they shall no longer be prey in your hands; and you shall know that I am the Lord. 22. Because you have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not disheartened them, and you have encouraged the wicked not to turn from their wicked way and save their lives; 23. therefore you shall no longer see false visions or practice divination; I will save my people from your hand. Then you will know that I am the Lord."
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Homosexuality Normalised, then ....
God loves everyone we say. We know God loves gay people. I know if gay people read this blog, they may not think Shrimp love them. I do, and I want them to know they need to read the following, too.
Shrimp kind of sorry to have to post the following. Mainly sorry because it is so unseemly. Sorry because for some it is true. Most gay people not into children, but it seems, in more and more countries gay people are working for lowering the age of consent.
What are we as a society doing to our children? One out of three girls are sexually molested and one out of six boys.
From the net:
Homosexuality Normalised - Paedophilia Next
In little more than a generation, flowing from the sexual permissiveness of the 60’s, the moral fiber and growth of Western Civilisation, tamed over centuries by the Christian morality, is relapsing back into its pagan hedonistic roots. Sex has been separated from marriage and family with promiscuity now considered a recreational activity. Homosexuality, in parallel, is also receiving societal acceptance; either by common persuasion, under the duress of political correctness or regarded, by law, as an alternative lifestyle. The homosexual agenda1 (first documented in 1972–see Table below)has made astonishing advances.
Greco-Roman Homosexuality.
In the ancient world human sexuality was divided between the penetrator and the penetrated. Women, other than courtesans and temple prostitutes, were relegated to their role as gestator mother and home keeper. Homosexuality and pederasty provided for the insatiable male sexual appetite. Pederasty, throughout the social elite of Rome, was common place. It is still graphically recorded on many an earthen vessel found in museums of the world. Edward Gibbon, in his ‘History and Decline of the Roman Empire’, records that Julius Caesar was every woman’s man and every man’s woman and of 15 emperors of Rome, Claudius was the only one whose tastes in ‘love’ were entirely correct (i.e. not homosexual). This was the environment confronting the Biblical message which had declared homosexual behaviour obscene. Firstly according the instructions of Judaism and later reinforced by the Christian message.
Homosexual Advancement.
Contemporary resurgence of permissive sexual practices and the advancing growth of the homosexual lifestyle can be traced to the fraudulent evaluation of Male sexuality first launched in 1948 by the Indiana University Zoologist – Alfred C. Kinsey. Until 1972, when the militant homosexual agenda was drafted, homosexual behaviour was regarded mainly as a human dysfunction. However, responding to constant intimidation2 the American Psychiatry Association [APA] in 1973, removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. (In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders)
Other behaviours such as pederasty (paedophilia) and sadomasochism were then listed as paraphilias on a list of some 24 sexual orientations.
Homosexual Activist Agenda–Abridged Summary
1. All sex acts between consenting adults to be decriminalised.
2. Homosexuals or Gays to be provided, by special laws if necessary, free access to media and other forms of public expression.
3. Gays assured of protection of (human) rights, through formal equal opportunity and anti-discrimination, legislation.
4. Gays (& lesbians) to be given the equal rights of marriage and parenting (incl. child custody, adoption etc)
5. Gays (& lesbians) are to be afforded protection, under law, from all forms of harassment and expressions of intolerance. (eg. hate crime legislation or homophobia)
6. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
The above kinds of strategy were first proposed by gay activist Dennis Altman as recorded in his book The Homosexualization of America. Later they were debated in a ‘Gay Council of War’ of 175 leading gay activists in Warrenton; Virginia near Washington DC in 1988. Details of their agenda had previously been documented in the November issue of the Gay Journal Guide by Kirk and Pill* under the title, "The Overhauling of Straight America". (*Erastes Pill was then a pseudonym used by Hunter Madsen)
A detailed account for achieving homosexual goals, as drafted by the activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, are found in their book, After the Ball: How America (& the West) will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s. (New York: Plume 1990) This publication outlines the ‘propaganda campaign’ to normalise homosexuality, as an (acceptable) alternative lifestyle through planned brainwashing on a massive scale. This invasive marketing strategy describes tactics to use the media, to desensitise, to jam and ridicule opposition. To make gays appear victims and to seek high profile media, political and legal office. "Our campaign, should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme."
Exponential advancement toward community and legal acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is evidence of the success of the ‘modus operandi’ proposed by Kirk and Madsen on a global scale.
Mocking any opposition with taunts of bigotry and homophobia has played a large part. And, rather than stand its ground, the Christian Church has succumbed to significant theological revisionism with resultant fragmentation.
Of the many pressures seeking to dismantle stable secure marriages from the bedrock of Western Civilization none is more pervasive than that derived from homosexual activism. Yet, it is society and not individuals that chooses the extent to which homosexuality is to be practiced. Historically wherever/ whenever homosexual lifestyles have been encouraged the greater has been its growth.
Homophobia.
The term homophobia is one of the inventions of gay activism. Before 1973 it was not even recognised as a word in the dictionary. Originally it was part of the psychiatric jargon used to describe a person’s own fear of homosexual inclinations. It has now been inverted as a rhetorical gay taunt; describing all their opponents as possessing an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals. It is used as the semantic equivalent of ‘racist’, implying the notion that to oppose homosexuality is the same as possessing prejudice against racial minorities. One might well ask advocates of the gay lifestyle however, to define homophobia and the distinctive differences between pro- and non-homophobic opposition.
Now Paedophilia
Despite the high profile portrayal of homosexuality in the media, successes within/by government legislation, private corporations and even in mainstream churches, the homosexual activist’s primary aim remains elementary school children and ‘youths confused about their sexuality’. This is assured by the greater (50%) statistical acceptance of homosexuality amongst adolescents compared with less than 15% of people in their 60’s. If gay liberation is to be embraced how soon shall pederasty be reinstated and thus paedophilia normalised? While most homosexual activists denounce paedophilia, there remains a growing segment of the gay’ community that makes no secret of their interest in youth.
Carl Maves in the gay magazine Advocate (5/5/92-p85) affirms that if it were not for their initiation as ‘minors’ (molestation) they would not now enjoy their homosexual orientation. Notwithstanding, David Thorsted (NAMBLA) sees the need to down play paedophilia ‘to sanitize the homosexual image’ and facilitate acceptance.
One gay author has put it this way… "Whoever captures the kids owns the future." The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are even more blatant… "Capture the kids before eight or it’s too late."
Already there exists a corresponding Women’s auxiliary3 to NAMBLA. Their website "Butterfly Kisses" finds links to the Dutch PAIDIKA3 and celebrates erotic relationships between women and young girls.
While the homosexual community does not advertise their tactics they make no secret of the desire to recruit a youthful generation and thereby enlarge the gay community. Lobbying to lower the age of consent has long been on their platform of activities. Furthermore, academic and scientific studies confirm a strong bias toward paedophilia from men identifying as homosexual.
Recently the Western world has been scandalised by the exposure of sexual abuse by Catholic and Anglican clergy in the US, UK and in Australia. A taunting media expose’ of these kinds of sexual misdemeanours in Australia indirectly precipitated the resignation of the Governor General -Peter Hollingworth, formerly Archbishop of Brisbane. Clearly a biased media phalanx gloats over the sexual predilections within the Christian Church because of its traditional condemnation of homosexuality. The tactical response from the gay community however has been to assert that heterosexual abuse remains the more serious problem. Unfortunately, the truth here is stranger than fiction. For, the close ties between (male) homosexuality and paedophilia are well documented and numerous research studies, on child molestation (particularly boys) reveals a disproportionately high number of homosexually oriented men are directly involved. (Figures imply a 6-20 times greater involvement than for heterosexual males).
For over 15 years homosexual advocates, in union with academia, have continued to present articles claiming that ‘sex with children constitutes a common aspect of the gay and lesbian lifestyle’. For instance Prof. John DeCocco-Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, in publishing articles on Male Intergenerational Intimacy suggests "parents should view a paedophile as who loves their son as a partner in the boy’s upbringing and welcome him."
The world over, gay activism is lobbying to lower the age of consent. Furthermore, NAMBLA in affiliation with the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) was once recognised by the UN as a Non-Government Organisation; hosting workshops and passing resolutions to abolish age of consent legislation stating.. ‘Same-sex age of consent laws operate to oppress not protect……. individuals regardless of age have a right to explore and develop his/her sexuality.’ In 1995 the UN rejected ILGA for refusing to sever links with pro-paedophilia associations.
Progressive normalisation of paedophilia, as with contemporary homosexuality, can be traced back to the dubious Kinsey sexuality research. He taught that children are sexual from birth and are hindered from freely engaging in sexual activity with adults only because of the Judeo-Christian repression.
On the international scene, there remains an elite group of scholars known as the Academic Paedophile Advocates who since 19775, have spawned periodic conferences on ‘intergenerational sex’. By 1987 these academicians created their own Journal of Paedophilia. Academic Paedophile Advocates insist that child sexual abuse is less harmful than physical neglect or even verbal abuse; adding … "classifying behaviour as abuse simply because it is viewed as immoral or defined as illegal is problematic."
The influence of these ‘experts’ has, in a manner parallel to that achieved by homosexual lobbyists, recently had the APA affirm that ‘a person can no longer be regarded as emotionally or psychologically disordered simply because he molests children…’
Redefining paedophilia and formerly disregarding it as a mental (and not criminal) disorder opens the door to greater social and legal acceptance.
This is good news says NAMBLA’s Director David Thorstad stating that ‘pederasty (or paedophilia) has, like homosexuality, existed in all societies. Homo-eroticism is an ubiquitous feature of human experience and efforts to repress it merely confirm that a man and a youth have always been attracted to each other and like homosexuality in general, their love is irrepressible’.
The internet is replete with sites and other information demanding greater social acceptance of paedophilia. Some recent titles are:–
• Fear grows over academic efforts to normalise pedophilia.
• Pedophiles seek on line support for societal acceptance.
• Psychiatric association debates lifting pedophilia taboo.
• 3% are sexually attracted to children.
• Pedophilia is going mainstream.
• Deconstructing Pedophilia.
• ‘Pedophilia Chic’ Reconstructed.
Numerous web-sites supported by ‘minor attracted adults’ (MAA’s), as paedophiles prefer to call themselves, function within legal limits. Albeit pining the fact that society stigmatises them as an underserved and misunderstood sexual minority. Some even purport to be Christian.
Harmful to Minors
This book with a subtitle – The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex- by Judith Levine 6,7, and published by the University of Minnesota, is one of the most controversial pro-paedophilia documents open for public scrutiny. In it Levine questions whether there is such a thing as paedophilia and contends that paedophiles are not generally violent. She faults government legislation for defining and making it illegal. She is a founding member of the feminist group No More Nice Girls and a strong advocate for alternative, or group, family structures. She describes her own initial sexual encounter as a minor as ‘perfectly good’.8
Levine attributes much of her commentary to authorities with links to the Dutch Journal of Paedophilia PAIDIKA.3
John Money, a former advisor to the Kinsey Institute, has been called one of the major Deans of Sexology. As a pro-paedophile idealist he is one who has affirmed the idea that homosexual orientation derives from ‘juvenile sexual rehearsal’. He is moreover, an advocate for legalising adult/child (intergenerational) sex. He sees nothing pathological about consensual sexual relationships between a 12 year old boy and older men. It is he who coined the term paraphilia to define various kinds of sexual orientation.
Another key source quoted in Levine’s book-Lawrence A. Stanley-was recently arrested on child porn charges. Other sources cited by Levine can be traced to association with NAMBLA.
In May 2001 the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University discussed the core "uncharted territory" of childhood sexuality and talked about Levine’s book, concluding that one of the biggest dangers to children was ‘fear’ instilled by religious conservatives.
One cannot but wonder about a possible relationship between Judith Levine and Lena Levine, who was a founding leader in 1953 of Planned Parenthood and a keen advocate of sex before marriage. To quote– "Our goal is to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt… we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraception measures available so that they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy."9
Yet another influential academic is Wardell Pomeroy who was a co-author with Alfred Kinsey on Male (1948) and Female (1953) sexuality. He is a co-founder of the Institute on the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) allegedly in receipt of funds derived from the porn industry.
Pomeroy has been an outspoken opponent of repressive Judeo-Christian morals and persistent advocate of basic sexual rights. Namely: – "a recognition by society that every person partnered or un-partnered has a right to pursue a satisfactory consensual socio-sexual life free from political, legal or religious interference….including intergenerational –adult/child sex."
These forgoing comments outline the case being assembled to affirm that society should no longer discriminate or stigmatise adults attracted to children.
Conversion of a new generation.
Gay and lesbian activists are working to strengthen inter-national connections on a global scale. (PlanetOut magazine) In the push to enter schools they are pursuing a thesis in parallel with Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) whose Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: K (kindergarten)-12th Grade follow a philosophy proposed by Dr. Lester Kirkendall which states10– "The purpose of sex education is not... to control and suppress sex expression, as in the past, but to indicate the immense possibilities for human fulfilment that human sexuality offers. The individual must be given sufficient understanding to incorporate sex most fruitfully and most responsibly into his present and future life."
The key groups aiming to promote a positive image for the gay and lesbian life style are respectively the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)11 and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). These organisations contend that students who are inclined toward homosexuality suffer significant bullying and violence. Thus schools must provide a safe, tolerant environment free from harassment. The ‘safe zone’ program emphasises that:–
• Homosexuality is an acceptable and unchangeable identity.
• Society’s emphasis on heterosexuality and traditional marriage is discriminatory.
• Expressions implying that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong must be viewed as bigotry akin to racism.
The efficacy of the global links into schools was highlighted by the –anti-homophobia-questionnaire distributed to students in Wodonga last year. This same questionnaire was distributed earlier in the year at the Newton North High School, Mass. USA by the Gay/Straight Alliance12 (or Gay Clubs)
In Victoria it is sponsored by SSAFE (Same-sex Attracted Friendly Environments) by Family Planning-Victoria together with the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society- LaTrobe University. Furthermore it has been on the Tasmanian Govt. Education Dept. web site, for around 3 years, as "Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Support Material".
Prof Graham Willett of Melbourne Uni. author of ‘Living out Loud’ - ‘A short history of US’ –during 2000, sent pro-homosexual research material to all Victorian secondary schools to, "provide practical assistance to students dealing with same-sex issues in their studies or their personal lives."
GLSEN and PFLAG curricular material13, such as Queering Elementary Education (1999) and Two Teenagers in Twenty, encourages experimentation with homosexuality. Other widely distributed books and pamphlets present gay and lesbian practices and lifestyle in a positive light. Material of this kind is already available to teachers in Australian schools. One example is- Two Weeks with the Queen- about a boy who visits relatives in London. He there meets up with a homosexual couple one of whom is dying of AIDS.
"Heather Has Two Mommies"; "Daddy's Roommate"; "Daddy's Wedding" and other publication from Alyson Publications are a major force in pushing the "diversity" agenda for children.
Wither the Future?
A letter in the Boston Globe 17 October 1997 angrily asserted that current disgust about paedophiles "is the same as was felt against those advocating black/white sexual relations forty years ago or toward homosexuals 25 years ago." ….inter-racial couples and even some homosexuals, may not like the analogy but, the implied time line (now 20 years) until paedophilia is accepted by the elites as a "civil right" should spur society to pre-emptive action.
In his book The American Sex Revolution, Dr. Pitirim Sorokin14 wrote that sexual anarchy occurs when "society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, motherhood and fatherhood, marriage, family and love, itself." The result is "an explosion of socio-political disturbances" which threaten every marriage and every child.
References
1. Agenda provided by www.PlanetOut.com
2. Traditional Values-Special report-Homosexuality 101–A Primer; www.traditionalvalues.org
3. PAIDIKA see also Rotterdam Association for Sexual Reform(RVSH) www.fpc.net; also Martijn-Association for Acceptance of Pedofilia-Amsterdam, & NVSH National Association for Younger/Older Relationships.
4. www.wnd.com/news/articles.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28336
5. www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_IN=16094
6. www.out.com/bookexcerpts.asp?id=1252
7. Robert Stacy; Pro-Pedophile Sources in ‘Harmful to Minors’, The Washington Times, 23April 03
8. Village Voice: 23-29 July 2003
9. Samuel Blumenfeld; Sex Ed and the destruction of American morality; see www.worldnetdaily.com/news/asp?ARTICLE_ID=30561
10. Lester Kirkendall; Ed.; Sexuality and Man, SIECUS; See also Sex Ed and Global Values, www.crossroad.to/text/articles/sexed9-98
11. GLSEN website [www.glsen.org] , claims affiliation of 100,000 students and 2000 schools.
12. MassNews Staff 7 March 2003;
13. www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=8739580;
14. http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_jan98/cod_sexed.html
Bibliography
Comprehensive Referenced Reviews
Gay Rights Secret Agenda; Whistle Blower; 11 No.7; July 2002.
Steve Baldwin;
Child Molestation And The Homosexual
Movement;
REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ; Vol. 14: p267
Also Pro-gay Bias in the Study of Paedophilia.
Judith A. Reisman;
Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth;
REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ; Vol. 14: p. 283
Paul E. Rondeau;
Selling Homosexuality to America;
REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW : Vol. 14 p. 443
Judith A. Reisman;
Crafting "Gay " Children; An Inquiry Into the Abuse of Vulnerable Children
via Establishment Media & The Schoolroom;
Catholic Family Association of America
Michael Swift; Gay Revolutionary, Gay Community News 15-21 Feb. 1987; www.dadi.org/homagnda.htm
Shrimp kind of sorry to have to post the following. Mainly sorry because it is so unseemly. Sorry because for some it is true. Most gay people not into children, but it seems, in more and more countries gay people are working for lowering the age of consent.
What are we as a society doing to our children? One out of three girls are sexually molested and one out of six boys.
From the net:
Homosexuality Normalised - Paedophilia Next
In little more than a generation, flowing from the sexual permissiveness of the 60’s, the moral fiber and growth of Western Civilisation, tamed over centuries by the Christian morality, is relapsing back into its pagan hedonistic roots. Sex has been separated from marriage and family with promiscuity now considered a recreational activity. Homosexuality, in parallel, is also receiving societal acceptance; either by common persuasion, under the duress of political correctness or regarded, by law, as an alternative lifestyle. The homosexual agenda1 (first documented in 1972–see Table below)has made astonishing advances.
Greco-Roman Homosexuality.
In the ancient world human sexuality was divided between the penetrator and the penetrated. Women, other than courtesans and temple prostitutes, were relegated to their role as gestator mother and home keeper. Homosexuality and pederasty provided for the insatiable male sexual appetite. Pederasty, throughout the social elite of Rome, was common place. It is still graphically recorded on many an earthen vessel found in museums of the world. Edward Gibbon, in his ‘History and Decline of the Roman Empire’, records that Julius Caesar was every woman’s man and every man’s woman and of 15 emperors of Rome, Claudius was the only one whose tastes in ‘love’ were entirely correct (i.e. not homosexual). This was the environment confronting the Biblical message which had declared homosexual behaviour obscene. Firstly according the instructions of Judaism and later reinforced by the Christian message.
Homosexual Advancement.
Contemporary resurgence of permissive sexual practices and the advancing growth of the homosexual lifestyle can be traced to the fraudulent evaluation of Male sexuality first launched in 1948 by the Indiana University Zoologist – Alfred C. Kinsey. Until 1972, when the militant homosexual agenda was drafted, homosexual behaviour was regarded mainly as a human dysfunction. However, responding to constant intimidation2 the American Psychiatry Association [APA] in 1973, removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. (In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders)
Other behaviours such as pederasty (paedophilia) and sadomasochism were then listed as paraphilias on a list of some 24 sexual orientations.
Homosexual Activist Agenda–Abridged Summary
1. All sex acts between consenting adults to be decriminalised.
2. Homosexuals or Gays to be provided, by special laws if necessary, free access to media and other forms of public expression.
3. Gays assured of protection of (human) rights, through formal equal opportunity and anti-discrimination, legislation.
4. Gays (& lesbians) to be given the equal rights of marriage and parenting (incl. child custody, adoption etc)
5. Gays (& lesbians) are to be afforded protection, under law, from all forms of harassment and expressions of intolerance. (eg. hate crime legislation or homophobia)
6. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
The above kinds of strategy were first proposed by gay activist Dennis Altman as recorded in his book The Homosexualization of America. Later they were debated in a ‘Gay Council of War’ of 175 leading gay activists in Warrenton; Virginia near Washington DC in 1988. Details of their agenda had previously been documented in the November issue of the Gay Journal Guide by Kirk and Pill* under the title, "The Overhauling of Straight America". (*Erastes Pill was then a pseudonym used by Hunter Madsen)
A detailed account for achieving homosexual goals, as drafted by the activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, are found in their book, After the Ball: How America (& the West) will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s. (New York: Plume 1990) This publication outlines the ‘propaganda campaign’ to normalise homosexuality, as an (acceptable) alternative lifestyle through planned brainwashing on a massive scale. This invasive marketing strategy describes tactics to use the media, to desensitise, to jam and ridicule opposition. To make gays appear victims and to seek high profile media, political and legal office. "Our campaign, should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme."
Exponential advancement toward community and legal acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is evidence of the success of the ‘modus operandi’ proposed by Kirk and Madsen on a global scale.
Mocking any opposition with taunts of bigotry and homophobia has played a large part. And, rather than stand its ground, the Christian Church has succumbed to significant theological revisionism with resultant fragmentation.
Of the many pressures seeking to dismantle stable secure marriages from the bedrock of Western Civilization none is more pervasive than that derived from homosexual activism. Yet, it is society and not individuals that chooses the extent to which homosexuality is to be practiced. Historically wherever/ whenever homosexual lifestyles have been encouraged the greater has been its growth.
Homophobia.
The term homophobia is one of the inventions of gay activism. Before 1973 it was not even recognised as a word in the dictionary. Originally it was part of the psychiatric jargon used to describe a person’s own fear of homosexual inclinations. It has now been inverted as a rhetorical gay taunt; describing all their opponents as possessing an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals. It is used as the semantic equivalent of ‘racist’, implying the notion that to oppose homosexuality is the same as possessing prejudice against racial minorities. One might well ask advocates of the gay lifestyle however, to define homophobia and the distinctive differences between pro- and non-homophobic opposition.
Now Paedophilia
Despite the high profile portrayal of homosexuality in the media, successes within/by government legislation, private corporations and even in mainstream churches, the homosexual activist’s primary aim remains elementary school children and ‘youths confused about their sexuality’. This is assured by the greater (50%) statistical acceptance of homosexuality amongst adolescents compared with less than 15% of people in their 60’s. If gay liberation is to be embraced how soon shall pederasty be reinstated and thus paedophilia normalised? While most homosexual activists denounce paedophilia, there remains a growing segment of the gay’ community that makes no secret of their interest in youth.
Carl Maves in the gay magazine Advocate (5/5/92-p85) affirms that if it were not for their initiation as ‘minors’ (molestation) they would not now enjoy their homosexual orientation. Notwithstanding, David Thorsted (NAMBLA) sees the need to down play paedophilia ‘to sanitize the homosexual image’ and facilitate acceptance.
One gay author has put it this way… "Whoever captures the kids owns the future." The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are even more blatant… "Capture the kids before eight or it’s too late."
Already there exists a corresponding Women’s auxiliary3 to NAMBLA. Their website "Butterfly Kisses" finds links to the Dutch PAIDIKA3 and celebrates erotic relationships between women and young girls.
While the homosexual community does not advertise their tactics they make no secret of the desire to recruit a youthful generation and thereby enlarge the gay community. Lobbying to lower the age of consent has long been on their platform of activities. Furthermore, academic and scientific studies confirm a strong bias toward paedophilia from men identifying as homosexual.
Recently the Western world has been scandalised by the exposure of sexual abuse by Catholic and Anglican clergy in the US, UK and in Australia. A taunting media expose’ of these kinds of sexual misdemeanours in Australia indirectly precipitated the resignation of the Governor General -Peter Hollingworth, formerly Archbishop of Brisbane. Clearly a biased media phalanx gloats over the sexual predilections within the Christian Church because of its traditional condemnation of homosexuality. The tactical response from the gay community however has been to assert that heterosexual abuse remains the more serious problem. Unfortunately, the truth here is stranger than fiction. For, the close ties between (male) homosexuality and paedophilia are well documented and numerous research studies, on child molestation (particularly boys) reveals a disproportionately high number of homosexually oriented men are directly involved. (Figures imply a 6-20 times greater involvement than for heterosexual males).
For over 15 years homosexual advocates, in union with academia, have continued to present articles claiming that ‘sex with children constitutes a common aspect of the gay and lesbian lifestyle’. For instance Prof. John DeCocco-Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, in publishing articles on Male Intergenerational Intimacy suggests "parents should view a paedophile as who loves their son as a partner in the boy’s upbringing and welcome him."
The world over, gay activism is lobbying to lower the age of consent. Furthermore, NAMBLA in affiliation with the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) was once recognised by the UN as a Non-Government Organisation; hosting workshops and passing resolutions to abolish age of consent legislation stating.. ‘Same-sex age of consent laws operate to oppress not protect……. individuals regardless of age have a right to explore and develop his/her sexuality.’ In 1995 the UN rejected ILGA for refusing to sever links with pro-paedophilia associations.
Progressive normalisation of paedophilia, as with contemporary homosexuality, can be traced back to the dubious Kinsey sexuality research. He taught that children are sexual from birth and are hindered from freely engaging in sexual activity with adults only because of the Judeo-Christian repression.
On the international scene, there remains an elite group of scholars known as the Academic Paedophile Advocates who since 19775, have spawned periodic conferences on ‘intergenerational sex’. By 1987 these academicians created their own Journal of Paedophilia. Academic Paedophile Advocates insist that child sexual abuse is less harmful than physical neglect or even verbal abuse; adding … "classifying behaviour as abuse simply because it is viewed as immoral or defined as illegal is problematic."
The influence of these ‘experts’ has, in a manner parallel to that achieved by homosexual lobbyists, recently had the APA affirm that ‘a person can no longer be regarded as emotionally or psychologically disordered simply because he molests children…’
Redefining paedophilia and formerly disregarding it as a mental (and not criminal) disorder opens the door to greater social and legal acceptance.
This is good news says NAMBLA’s Director David Thorstad stating that ‘pederasty (or paedophilia) has, like homosexuality, existed in all societies. Homo-eroticism is an ubiquitous feature of human experience and efforts to repress it merely confirm that a man and a youth have always been attracted to each other and like homosexuality in general, their love is irrepressible’.
The internet is replete with sites and other information demanding greater social acceptance of paedophilia. Some recent titles are:–
• Fear grows over academic efforts to normalise pedophilia.
• Pedophiles seek on line support for societal acceptance.
• Psychiatric association debates lifting pedophilia taboo.
• 3% are sexually attracted to children.
• Pedophilia is going mainstream.
• Deconstructing Pedophilia.
• ‘Pedophilia Chic’ Reconstructed.
Numerous web-sites supported by ‘minor attracted adults’ (MAA’s), as paedophiles prefer to call themselves, function within legal limits. Albeit pining the fact that society stigmatises them as an underserved and misunderstood sexual minority. Some even purport to be Christian.
Harmful to Minors
This book with a subtitle – The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex- by Judith Levine 6,7, and published by the University of Minnesota, is one of the most controversial pro-paedophilia documents open for public scrutiny. In it Levine questions whether there is such a thing as paedophilia and contends that paedophiles are not generally violent. She faults government legislation for defining and making it illegal. She is a founding member of the feminist group No More Nice Girls and a strong advocate for alternative, or group, family structures. She describes her own initial sexual encounter as a minor as ‘perfectly good’.8
Levine attributes much of her commentary to authorities with links to the Dutch Journal of Paedophilia PAIDIKA.3
John Money, a former advisor to the Kinsey Institute, has been called one of the major Deans of Sexology. As a pro-paedophile idealist he is one who has affirmed the idea that homosexual orientation derives from ‘juvenile sexual rehearsal’. He is moreover, an advocate for legalising adult/child (intergenerational) sex. He sees nothing pathological about consensual sexual relationships between a 12 year old boy and older men. It is he who coined the term paraphilia to define various kinds of sexual orientation.
Another key source quoted in Levine’s book-Lawrence A. Stanley-was recently arrested on child porn charges. Other sources cited by Levine can be traced to association with NAMBLA.
In May 2001 the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University discussed the core "uncharted territory" of childhood sexuality and talked about Levine’s book, concluding that one of the biggest dangers to children was ‘fear’ instilled by religious conservatives.
One cannot but wonder about a possible relationship between Judith Levine and Lena Levine, who was a founding leader in 1953 of Planned Parenthood and a keen advocate of sex before marriage. To quote– "Our goal is to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt… we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraception measures available so that they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy."9
Yet another influential academic is Wardell Pomeroy who was a co-author with Alfred Kinsey on Male (1948) and Female (1953) sexuality. He is a co-founder of the Institute on the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) allegedly in receipt of funds derived from the porn industry.
Pomeroy has been an outspoken opponent of repressive Judeo-Christian morals and persistent advocate of basic sexual rights. Namely: – "a recognition by society that every person partnered or un-partnered has a right to pursue a satisfactory consensual socio-sexual life free from political, legal or religious interference….including intergenerational –adult/child sex."
These forgoing comments outline the case being assembled to affirm that society should no longer discriminate or stigmatise adults attracted to children.
Conversion of a new generation.
Gay and lesbian activists are working to strengthen inter-national connections on a global scale. (PlanetOut magazine) In the push to enter schools they are pursuing a thesis in parallel with Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) whose Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: K (kindergarten)-12th Grade follow a philosophy proposed by Dr. Lester Kirkendall which states10– "The purpose of sex education is not... to control and suppress sex expression, as in the past, but to indicate the immense possibilities for human fulfilment that human sexuality offers. The individual must be given sufficient understanding to incorporate sex most fruitfully and most responsibly into his present and future life."
The key groups aiming to promote a positive image for the gay and lesbian life style are respectively the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)11 and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). These organisations contend that students who are inclined toward homosexuality suffer significant bullying and violence. Thus schools must provide a safe, tolerant environment free from harassment. The ‘safe zone’ program emphasises that:–
• Homosexuality is an acceptable and unchangeable identity.
• Society’s emphasis on heterosexuality and traditional marriage is discriminatory.
• Expressions implying that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong must be viewed as bigotry akin to racism.
The efficacy of the global links into schools was highlighted by the –anti-homophobia-questionnaire distributed to students in Wodonga last year. This same questionnaire was distributed earlier in the year at the Newton North High School, Mass. USA by the Gay/Straight Alliance12 (or Gay Clubs)
In Victoria it is sponsored by SSAFE (Same-sex Attracted Friendly Environments) by Family Planning-Victoria together with the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society- LaTrobe University. Furthermore it has been on the Tasmanian Govt. Education Dept. web site, for around 3 years, as "Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Support Material".
Prof Graham Willett of Melbourne Uni. author of ‘Living out Loud’ - ‘A short history of US’ –during 2000, sent pro-homosexual research material to all Victorian secondary schools to, "provide practical assistance to students dealing with same-sex issues in their studies or their personal lives."
GLSEN and PFLAG curricular material13, such as Queering Elementary Education (1999) and Two Teenagers in Twenty, encourages experimentation with homosexuality. Other widely distributed books and pamphlets present gay and lesbian practices and lifestyle in a positive light. Material of this kind is already available to teachers in Australian schools. One example is- Two Weeks with the Queen- about a boy who visits relatives in London. He there meets up with a homosexual couple one of whom is dying of AIDS.
"Heather Has Two Mommies"; "Daddy's Roommate"; "Daddy's Wedding" and other publication from Alyson Publications are a major force in pushing the "diversity" agenda for children.
Wither the Future?
A letter in the Boston Globe 17 October 1997 angrily asserted that current disgust about paedophiles "is the same as was felt against those advocating black/white sexual relations forty years ago or toward homosexuals 25 years ago." ….inter-racial couples and even some homosexuals, may not like the analogy but, the implied time line (now 20 years) until paedophilia is accepted by the elites as a "civil right" should spur society to pre-emptive action.
In his book The American Sex Revolution, Dr. Pitirim Sorokin14 wrote that sexual anarchy occurs when "society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, motherhood and fatherhood, marriage, family and love, itself." The result is "an explosion of socio-political disturbances" which threaten every marriage and every child.
References
1. Agenda provided by www.PlanetOut.com
2. Traditional Values-Special report-Homosexuality 101–A Primer; www.traditionalvalues.org
3. PAIDIKA see also Rotterdam Association for Sexual Reform(RVSH) www.fpc.net; also Martijn-Association for Acceptance of Pedofilia-Amsterdam, & NVSH National Association for Younger/Older Relationships.
4. www.wnd.com/news/articles.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28336
5. www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_IN=16094
6. www.out.com/bookexcerpts.asp?id=1252
7. Robert Stacy; Pro-Pedophile Sources in ‘Harmful to Minors’, The Washington Times, 23April 03
8. Village Voice: 23-29 July 2003
9. Samuel Blumenfeld; Sex Ed and the destruction of American morality; see www.worldnetdaily.com/news/asp?ARTICLE_ID=30561
10. Lester Kirkendall; Ed.; Sexuality and Man, SIECUS; See also Sex Ed and Global Values, www.crossroad.to/text/articles/sexed9-98
11. GLSEN website [www.glsen.org] , claims affiliation of 100,000 students and 2000 schools.
12. MassNews Staff 7 March 2003;
13. www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=8739580;
14. http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_jan98/cod_sexed.html
Bibliography
Comprehensive Referenced Reviews
Gay Rights Secret Agenda; Whistle Blower; 11 No.7; July 2002.
Steve Baldwin;
Child Molestation And The Homosexual
Movement;
REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ; Vol. 14: p267
Also Pro-gay Bias in the Study of Paedophilia.
Judith A. Reisman;
Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth;
REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ; Vol. 14: p. 283
Paul E. Rondeau;
Selling Homosexuality to America;
REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW : Vol. 14 p. 443
Judith A. Reisman;
Crafting "Gay " Children; An Inquiry Into the Abuse of Vulnerable Children
via Establishment Media & The Schoolroom;
Catholic Family Association of America
Michael Swift; Gay Revolutionary, Gay Community News 15-21 Feb. 1987; www.dadi.org/homagnda.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...