A proposed change in the United Methodist Church's 25-year-old stance on homosexual behavior that would condone same-sex marriage "where legally possible" was tabled by a committee at the Council of Bishops meeting this month near Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.The denomination's Book of Discipline says the church "does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider[s] this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." The stance of the worldwide, 11-million-member church has withstood many challenges in past conventions, but the issue is expected to arise again next year. A council subcommittee had recommended replacing the 1972 language with wording saying the church does not condone sexual relationships between people of heterosexual or homosexual orientation "outside the bonds of a faithful, loving and committed relationship between two persons; marriage, where legally possible."The proposed change also declared that the present stance "is based on highly questionable theology and biblical understanding and causes profound hurt to thousands of loyal United Methodist members and potential members."But the bishops' administrative committee voted May 1 to table the recommendation, and the measure never formally went before the Council of Bishops, according to the United Methodist News Service.Had the council approved the recommendation, it would have gone to a committee of the 2008 General Conference for action by 1,000 delegates at the quadrennial meeting in Fort Worth, Texas. Bishops do not have a vote at the General Conference, but they may propose legislation for delegates to consider.Retired bishop Jack Tuell, a former lawyer and onetime president of the Council of Bishops, commented after the tabling action that "almost any thoughtful plan of leadership would be superior to prudent silence." While saying he understood the committee's rejection, Tuell contended that there should be "a better way to express the mind of our United Methodist Church" than the statement's incompatibility clause.An informed source told the Century that Tuell had submitted the proposal to fellow bishops. Another point in the tabled recommendation emphasized that the change would make it clear "that we disapprove of all promiscuous premarital or extramarital sexual relationships, whether practiced by heterosexual persons or homosexual persons."In defending the proposal's shelving, Oklahoma bishop Robert Hayes said that advancing the recommendation would have "proven to be divisive and counterproductive to the unity that currently exists" among the bishops and in the church. Forwarding the recommendation would not advance "the betterment of the church at this time," he added.After the United Methodist News Service on May 8 reported the proposal's tabling, Troy Plummer, executive director of the pro-gay rights Reconciling Ministries Network, commented, "Silence kills. Too many lives are at stake for the bishops to take an ostrich position. The way to unity is justice, not avoidance."
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3383
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Two conflicting memorials any guesses on what will happen to them
Memorials to The Lower Susquehanna Synod
Regarding Official Blessing of Same-Sex Relationships
WHEREAS, the 2005 Churchwide Assembly passed a resolution to “continue to respect the guidance of the 1993 statement of the Conference of Bishops” regarding the blessing of homosexual relationships; and
WHEREAS, the text of the 1993 bishops’ statement states “There is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church's ministry;” and
WHEREAS, former Bishop Kenneth Sauer, the chairperson of the Conference of Bishops at the time of the adoption of the statement in 1993, distinctly recalls the purpose of the statement as being to refuse to approve any ceremony that would appear to give public approval by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to same-sex unions; and
WHEREAS, any ceremony approved by an ELCA synod or congregation is an official action of this church's ministry; and
WHEREAS, any attempt to use the “pastoral care provision” of the 1993 statement as a basis for providing official blessings of same-sex unions would be to use that phrase in an unintended way; and
WHEREAS, the New England Synod has promulgated “Guidelines for the Blessing of Same-sex Unions” that officially endorse the public blessing of homosexual relationships, thereby directly contradicting the 1993 bishops’ statement and the actions of the 2005 Churchwide Assembly to endorse the 1993 Statement; and
WHEREAS, these actions that directly violate the decisions of the 2005 Churchwide Assembly make it more difficult for all of us to heed that assembly's other guidance that all in the ELCA “live together faithfully”; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Lower Susquehanna Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America memorialize the 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to reaffirm that the 1993 bishops’ statement as endorsed by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in 2005 does not approve the “official” blessing of homosexual relationships, which includes any blessing for which approval is given by a synod or congregation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Lower Susquehanna Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America memorialize 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to direct the Church Council and the Office of the Secretary to notify all ELCA Synods and congregations to refrain from public blessings that imply approval of same-sex relationships.
Adopted by the Hanover Conference
April 22, 2007
St. John Lutheran Church, Abbottstown, Pennsylvania
The other is revisionist:
Memorial to
The Lower Susquehanna Synod
Regarding
Encouraging Refraining from Discipline
from
The Harrisuburg Conference
WHEREAS, there is currently no consensus in this church regarding the rostered service of persons in committed same-gender relationships (Report of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, p. 5); and
WHEREAS, the 2005 ELCA Churchwide Assembly urged every part of the ELCA to “concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements, recognizing the God-given mission and communion that we share as members of the Body of Christ;” therefore be it
RESOLVED, that this Synod Assembly submit the following memorial for consideration by the 2007 Churchwide Assembly:
RESOLVED, that in order to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements, synods, synodical bishops, and the Presiding Bishop of this church are encouraged to refrain from disciplining those who – in good conscience and for the sake of outreach, ministry, and commitment to continuing dialogue – call, approve, ordain, commission, or consecrate otherwise-qualified candidates for rostered service who are in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship; and be if further
RESOLVED, that synods, synodical bishops, and the Presiding Bishop of this church are encouraged to refrain from disciplining those rostered leaders in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship who have been thus called, approved, ordained, commissioned, or consecrated.
Regarding Official Blessing of Same-Sex Relationships
WHEREAS, the 2005 Churchwide Assembly passed a resolution to “continue to respect the guidance of the 1993 statement of the Conference of Bishops” regarding the blessing of homosexual relationships; and
WHEREAS, the text of the 1993 bishops’ statement states “There is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship. We, therefore, do not approve such a ceremony as an official action of this church's ministry;” and
WHEREAS, former Bishop Kenneth Sauer, the chairperson of the Conference of Bishops at the time of the adoption of the statement in 1993, distinctly recalls the purpose of the statement as being to refuse to approve any ceremony that would appear to give public approval by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to same-sex unions; and
WHEREAS, any ceremony approved by an ELCA synod or congregation is an official action of this church's ministry; and
WHEREAS, any attempt to use the “pastoral care provision” of the 1993 statement as a basis for providing official blessings of same-sex unions would be to use that phrase in an unintended way; and
WHEREAS, the New England Synod has promulgated “Guidelines for the Blessing of Same-sex Unions” that officially endorse the public blessing of homosexual relationships, thereby directly contradicting the 1993 bishops’ statement and the actions of the 2005 Churchwide Assembly to endorse the 1993 Statement; and
WHEREAS, these actions that directly violate the decisions of the 2005 Churchwide Assembly make it more difficult for all of us to heed that assembly's other guidance that all in the ELCA “live together faithfully”; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Lower Susquehanna Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America memorialize the 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to reaffirm that the 1993 bishops’ statement as endorsed by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in 2005 does not approve the “official” blessing of homosexual relationships, which includes any blessing for which approval is given by a synod or congregation; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Lower Susquehanna Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America memorialize 2007 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to direct the Church Council and the Office of the Secretary to notify all ELCA Synods and congregations to refrain from public blessings that imply approval of same-sex relationships.
Adopted by the Hanover Conference
April 22, 2007
St. John Lutheran Church, Abbottstown, Pennsylvania
The other is revisionist:
Memorial to
The Lower Susquehanna Synod
Regarding
Encouraging Refraining from Discipline
from
The Harrisuburg Conference
WHEREAS, there is currently no consensus in this church regarding the rostered service of persons in committed same-gender relationships (Report of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, p. 5); and
WHEREAS, the 2005 ELCA Churchwide Assembly urged every part of the ELCA to “concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements, recognizing the God-given mission and communion that we share as members of the Body of Christ;” therefore be it
RESOLVED, that this Synod Assembly submit the following memorial for consideration by the 2007 Churchwide Assembly:
RESOLVED, that in order to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements, synods, synodical bishops, and the Presiding Bishop of this church are encouraged to refrain from disciplining those who – in good conscience and for the sake of outreach, ministry, and commitment to continuing dialogue – call, approve, ordain, commission, or consecrate otherwise-qualified candidates for rostered service who are in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship; and be if further
RESOLVED, that synods, synodical bishops, and the Presiding Bishop of this church are encouraged to refrain from disciplining those rostered leaders in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship who have been thus called, approved, ordained, commissioned, or consecrated.
My Conversion to the Lutheran Feminist Faith
by Mike Adams
Monday, April 30, 2007
Just when I thought everything was going so well in the Baptist Church, another church came along and swept me away. In fact, from the moment I logged on to www.HerChurch.org I realized I had to move to San Francisco to join Ebenezer Lutheran Church (ELCA). Now that I’ll no longer be Baptist I can have sex standing up without the fear that people will think I’m dancing.
Another advantage of ELCA is that it dubs itself "A home for women's spirituality” rather than a “house of God” (how boring is that?). It’s a sort of spiritual headquarters for the “Lutheran Feminist/Womanist Movement,” which exists to celebrate the feminine persona of the Goddess and “dimensions of the sacred as expressed in faith, worship, learning, mutual care, and acts of justice.” I assume their discussion of acts of justice omits the fate of places like “Sodom” and “Gomorrah.” Only a male God could be capable of that kind of justice.
I was initially attracted to ELCA because they claim to be “a diverse community.” As a professor at a university, I know that when people claim to be diverse they really mean it. Also, ELCA stands firmly within the Christian tradition in an effort “to re-image the divine” by focusing more on her feminine persona. I’m sick and tired of a God who made me in his image. I want to make up my own God. And I want him to be a chick - preferable a cute lesbian with lots of cute friends.
I also like that ELCA challenges the church’s restrictive language of the past. ELCA pays special attention to “images” and “metaphors” that seek to celebrate “divine fullness” offering a witness of, among other things, “inclusive justice.”
The people at my new church are not joking when they say that a new form of church is happening at Ebenezer Lutheran Church, which, by the way, is located at 678 Portola Drive in San Francisco, California. When people gather at 10:30 A.M. on Sundays for worship, it is lively, engaging, thoroughly inclusive, and feminist in nature. I’m hoping that the first Sunday of every month the church will eventually skip communion and have a pillow fight led by Pastor Stacy Boorn.
But, already, I’m finding that at ELCA the music and readings really reflect a commitment to reclaiming the feminine persona of the divine. Because the philosophy at ELCA is “Come as you are” anyone is sure to find hope, healing, and community. After all, ELCA explicitly says “All are welcome at this table!” Even if you’ve been out all night at a drag show or a gay bath house you can still make it to worship Sunday mornings at 10:30. (I hope that crack about the gay bath house doesn’t “bomb” as badly as my last one).
The ELCA feminist prayers are very inclusive and draw upon a “storehouse of tradition” to bring forth names like Mother, Shaddai, Sophia, Womb, Midwife, Shekinah, and She Who Is. They do so out of “renewed insights” into the nature of the Gospel empowered by the risen Christ-Sophia. These are things my former brothers within the Baptist Church failed to grasp all along.
At ELCA, we even have our own feminist version of the Lord’s Prayer, which goes something like this:
Our Mother who is within us
We celebrate your many names
Your wisdom come
Your will be done
Unfolding from the depths within us
Each day you give us all that we need
You remind us of our limits
And we let go
You support us in our power
And we act with courage
For you are the dwelling place within us
The empowerment around us
And the celebration among us
Now and forever
Amen.
Aside from the sexist “Amen,” which should have been “Amyn,” you have to admit that it was a tear-jerking rendition of the Lord’s Prayer. It certainly beats the hell out of Jesus’ take.
ELCA believes that Christianity continues to “silence the voices and power of women, the divine feminine, and efforts to empower women and support the equality of all peoples.” So we all need to join ELCA and their feminist faith community in order to be agents for change in the church and, most of all, the oppressive patriarchal systems.
It was a big decision to leave the Baptist Church but, fortunately, ELCA gave me the following prayer of meditation to help ease the transition:
Goddess of struggle and blessing
We thank you that you are so willing to meet us in love here and now
As you meet our mothers and fathers, partners and lovers, siblings and children, Friends and strangers on their faith journeys
As you entered our human life in Jesus Christ-Sophia
Help us open our hearts to you in our time of remembrance and celebration
That we may grow in light and love toward you and all people
Through the gentle wind of your Spirit
When I prayed that simple prayer I finally realized that all my critics were right. I’ve been too critical of the gay and feminist movements in America. All they want is to be left alone. It’s not as if they want to overthrow our most sacred institutions.
Goddess Bless them, one and all.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Just when I thought everything was going so well in the Baptist Church, another church came along and swept me away. In fact, from the moment I logged on to www.HerChurch.org I realized I had to move to San Francisco to join Ebenezer Lutheran Church (ELCA). Now that I’ll no longer be Baptist I can have sex standing up without the fear that people will think I’m dancing.
Another advantage of ELCA is that it dubs itself "A home for women's spirituality” rather than a “house of God” (how boring is that?). It’s a sort of spiritual headquarters for the “Lutheran Feminist/Womanist Movement,” which exists to celebrate the feminine persona of the Goddess and “dimensions of the sacred as expressed in faith, worship, learning, mutual care, and acts of justice.” I assume their discussion of acts of justice omits the fate of places like “Sodom” and “Gomorrah.” Only a male God could be capable of that kind of justice.
I was initially attracted to ELCA because they claim to be “a diverse community.” As a professor at a university, I know that when people claim to be diverse they really mean it. Also, ELCA stands firmly within the Christian tradition in an effort “to re-image the divine” by focusing more on her feminine persona. I’m sick and tired of a God who made me in his image. I want to make up my own God. And I want him to be a chick - preferable a cute lesbian with lots of cute friends.
I also like that ELCA challenges the church’s restrictive language of the past. ELCA pays special attention to “images” and “metaphors” that seek to celebrate “divine fullness” offering a witness of, among other things, “inclusive justice.”
The people at my new church are not joking when they say that a new form of church is happening at Ebenezer Lutheran Church, which, by the way, is located at 678 Portola Drive in San Francisco, California. When people gather at 10:30 A.M. on Sundays for worship, it is lively, engaging, thoroughly inclusive, and feminist in nature. I’m hoping that the first Sunday of every month the church will eventually skip communion and have a pillow fight led by Pastor Stacy Boorn.
But, already, I’m finding that at ELCA the music and readings really reflect a commitment to reclaiming the feminine persona of the divine. Because the philosophy at ELCA is “Come as you are” anyone is sure to find hope, healing, and community. After all, ELCA explicitly says “All are welcome at this table!” Even if you’ve been out all night at a drag show or a gay bath house you can still make it to worship Sunday mornings at 10:30. (I hope that crack about the gay bath house doesn’t “bomb” as badly as my last one).
The ELCA feminist prayers are very inclusive and draw upon a “storehouse of tradition” to bring forth names like Mother, Shaddai, Sophia, Womb, Midwife, Shekinah, and She Who Is. They do so out of “renewed insights” into the nature of the Gospel empowered by the risen Christ-Sophia. These are things my former brothers within the Baptist Church failed to grasp all along.
At ELCA, we even have our own feminist version of the Lord’s Prayer, which goes something like this:
Our Mother who is within us
We celebrate your many names
Your wisdom come
Your will be done
Unfolding from the depths within us
Each day you give us all that we need
You remind us of our limits
And we let go
You support us in our power
And we act with courage
For you are the dwelling place within us
The empowerment around us
And the celebration among us
Now and forever
Amen.
Aside from the sexist “Amen,” which should have been “Amyn,” you have to admit that it was a tear-jerking rendition of the Lord’s Prayer. It certainly beats the hell out of Jesus’ take.
ELCA believes that Christianity continues to “silence the voices and power of women, the divine feminine, and efforts to empower women and support the equality of all peoples.” So we all need to join ELCA and their feminist faith community in order to be agents for change in the church and, most of all, the oppressive patriarchal systems.
It was a big decision to leave the Baptist Church but, fortunately, ELCA gave me the following prayer of meditation to help ease the transition:
Goddess of struggle and blessing
We thank you that you are so willing to meet us in love here and now
As you meet our mothers and fathers, partners and lovers, siblings and children, Friends and strangers on their faith journeys
As you entered our human life in Jesus Christ-Sophia
Help us open our hearts to you in our time of remembrance and celebration
That we may grow in light and love toward you and all people
Through the gentle wind of your Spirit
When I prayed that simple prayer I finally realized that all my critics were right. I’ve been too critical of the gay and feminist movements in America. All they want is to be left alone. It’s not as if they want to overthrow our most sacred institutions.
Goddess Bless them, one and all.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Italian Prelate Says He Won't Be Intimidated
GENOA, Italy, APRIL 30, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa said he won't be intimidated after receiving another death threat, seemingly in response to his defense of the family founded on marriage.
The president of the Italian bishops' conference found an envelope in his residence on Friday, containing a bullet and a photo of himself with a swastika drawn on it, the Genoan daily newspaper Il Corriere Mercantile reported.
Armed bodyguards have accompanied the 64-year-old archbishop since the beginning of April, when threatening graffiti were found on the cathedral door and along the streets of Genoa.
The threats came following Archbishop Bagnasco's public declarations in defense of the traditional family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, specifically the Italian bishops' "Note Regarding the Family Founded on Marriage and Legislative Initiatives Concerning Civil Unions."
In the note, the prelates reminded Catholic politicians and lawmakers of their duty not to vote for legislation in favor of civil unions or laws that would favor the legal recognition of homosexual couples.
Stronger and clearer
Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope's vicar for Rome, and the previous president of the Italian episcopal conference, asserted that the Catholic Church in Italy will not be intimidated.
His words were published today in the Italian daily newspaper Corriere della Sera.
"Faced with these attempts at intimidation, we want everyone to know that we will speak, if necessary, in a stronger and clearer way," said the cardinal.
Archbishop Bagnasco has spoken several times about the implicit dangers in legislation adopted by the Italian government Feb. 8, which points to offering legal recognition of de facto unions between homosexual or heterosexual couples.
On March 26, at the beginning of the Italian bishops' permanent council meeting, Archbishop Bagnasco stressed that the prelates are firm in their decision to defend "the utter uniqueness of the family in order to help the family, educate it and value it for the good -- present and future -- of humanity."
He added that they will fight "so that families will not give in under the pressures of those lobbies that are able to negatively influence the legislative process."
The president of the Italian bishops' conference found an envelope in his residence on Friday, containing a bullet and a photo of himself with a swastika drawn on it, the Genoan daily newspaper Il Corriere Mercantile reported.
Armed bodyguards have accompanied the 64-year-old archbishop since the beginning of April, when threatening graffiti were found on the cathedral door and along the streets of Genoa.
The threats came following Archbishop Bagnasco's public declarations in defense of the traditional family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, specifically the Italian bishops' "Note Regarding the Family Founded on Marriage and Legislative Initiatives Concerning Civil Unions."
In the note, the prelates reminded Catholic politicians and lawmakers of their duty not to vote for legislation in favor of civil unions or laws that would favor the legal recognition of homosexual couples.
Stronger and clearer
Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope's vicar for Rome, and the previous president of the Italian episcopal conference, asserted that the Catholic Church in Italy will not be intimidated.
His words were published today in the Italian daily newspaper Corriere della Sera.
"Faced with these attempts at intimidation, we want everyone to know that we will speak, if necessary, in a stronger and clearer way," said the cardinal.
Archbishop Bagnasco has spoken several times about the implicit dangers in legislation adopted by the Italian government Feb. 8, which points to offering legal recognition of de facto unions between homosexual or heterosexual couples.
On March 26, at the beginning of the Italian bishops' permanent council meeting, Archbishop Bagnasco stressed that the prelates are firm in their decision to defend "the utter uniqueness of the family in order to help the family, educate it and value it for the good -- present and future -- of humanity."
He added that they will fight "so that families will not give in under the pressures of those lobbies that are able to negatively influence the legislative process."
Europarliament: Religious Leaders Homophobic
But Cardinal Defends Church, Citing Catechism
APRIL 30, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Church officials criticized a European Parliament resolution that condemns "discriminatory comments" made by political and religious leaders against homosexuals. The resolution, which passed 325-124, with 150 abstentions, condemns the "discriminatory comments formulated by politicians and religious leaders about homosexuals, as fermenting hatred and violence -- even if they were later withdrawn -- and it asks that the hierarchies of the respective organizations condemn them as well."
The European Parliament did refuse to include the proposal of three Italians to publicly condemn Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco for his statements against homosexuals, which were falsely interpreted by the press and then later clarified.The approved resolution invites member states to propose laws "that overcome discriminations suffered by same sex couples" and "reminds all member states that the prohibition of the Gay Pride Parade and the lack of protection offered to its participants are against the principles of the European Convention of human rights."The resolution also proposes that an annual "International Day Against Homophobia" be held on May 17.
Time to settle
Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice and Cardinal Peter Erdo and Monsignor Aldo Giordano, president and secretary-general of the Council of European Bishops' Conferences, respectively, defended the Church against accusations that it doesn't respect homosexual persons. "There is no homophobia in the Catholic Church and it is time that all this ended," Cardinal Scola said on Thursday to the Italian bishops' television network, Sat 2000.
Referring to the European Parliament, he said: "There needs to be more respect for the orientation of our people. There is no need to tell lies." Paolo Bustaffa, director of the Italian bishops' SIR news agency, told Vatican Radio last Thursday: "It is clear that they are suspicious of the Church's thinking in regard to these situations, these people, for whom -- the Catechism of the Catholic Church says -- the Church has a great respect." "Respect for people, however, cannot nullify a problematic aspect," he added. "There must be understanding but in many cases there cannot be justification."
APRIL 30, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Church officials criticized a European Parliament resolution that condemns "discriminatory comments" made by political and religious leaders against homosexuals. The resolution, which passed 325-124, with 150 abstentions, condemns the "discriminatory comments formulated by politicians and religious leaders about homosexuals, as fermenting hatred and violence -- even if they were later withdrawn -- and it asks that the hierarchies of the respective organizations condemn them as well."
The European Parliament did refuse to include the proposal of three Italians to publicly condemn Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco for his statements against homosexuals, which were falsely interpreted by the press and then later clarified.The approved resolution invites member states to propose laws "that overcome discriminations suffered by same sex couples" and "reminds all member states that the prohibition of the Gay Pride Parade and the lack of protection offered to its participants are against the principles of the European Convention of human rights."The resolution also proposes that an annual "International Day Against Homophobia" be held on May 17.
Time to settle
Cardinal Angelo Scola of Venice and Cardinal Peter Erdo and Monsignor Aldo Giordano, president and secretary-general of the Council of European Bishops' Conferences, respectively, defended the Church against accusations that it doesn't respect homosexual persons. "There is no homophobia in the Catholic Church and it is time that all this ended," Cardinal Scola said on Thursday to the Italian bishops' television network, Sat 2000.
Referring to the European Parliament, he said: "There needs to be more respect for the orientation of our people. There is no need to tell lies." Paolo Bustaffa, director of the Italian bishops' SIR news agency, told Vatican Radio last Thursday: "It is clear that they are suspicious of the Church's thinking in regard to these situations, these people, for whom -- the Catechism of the Catholic Church says -- the Church has a great respect." "Respect for people, however, cannot nullify a problematic aspect," he added. "There must be understanding but in many cases there cannot be justification."
GLBTQ Agenda News
www.lcna.org
April 20, 2007
Sierra Pacific Synod passes memorial on policy changeFriday morning, April 20, 2007, the Sierra Pacific Synod of the ELCA voted overwhelmingly to support the goodsoil memorial on policy change. The memorial directs the appropriate units of the church to eliminate the policy precluding partnered gay clergy and to shorten reinstatement procedures for those previously removed from the clergy roster. Since Sierra-Pacific is one of the earliest synod assemblies this season, its deadline for resolutions passed before the memorial on policy change was released by goodsoil. The goodsoil legislative strategy was delayed until receipt of the decision of the Hearing Committee in the disciplinary action against Pastor Bradley Schmeling. Since the deadline had passed, a motion to put the memorial on the floor of the Sierra-Pacific synod assembly for discussion required a 2/3 supermajority of the voting members present. The motion to consider the memorial passed easily.In previous years, primary support for goodsoil memorials came from Bay Area pastors and lay voting members. According to Steven Krefting, co-chair of the goodsoil Legislative team and himself a member of the Sierra Pacific Synod, this time, positive debate on the memorial came from all over the synod. Sierra Pacific covers most of Northern California including more rural areas. Moving stories were told by pastors and laity alike. Steve said the memorial appeared to pass by a margin of more than 2 to 1. Co-chair of LC/NA, Jeannine Janson who hails from San Francisco said, "Sierra Pacific is not always a slam dunk on these things, so this vote is particularly gratifying."LC/NA thanks members of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter, the synod's robust RIC community, and its many allied pastors for their efforts in organizing for this synod assembly. Prayers are requested for three additional synod assemblies happening this weekend, Arkansas Oklahoma, Western Iowa, and Southwest Minnesota.
April 20, 2007
Sierra Pacific Synod passes memorial on policy changeFriday morning, April 20, 2007, the Sierra Pacific Synod of the ELCA voted overwhelmingly to support the goodsoil memorial on policy change. The memorial directs the appropriate units of the church to eliminate the policy precluding partnered gay clergy and to shorten reinstatement procedures for those previously removed from the clergy roster. Since Sierra-Pacific is one of the earliest synod assemblies this season, its deadline for resolutions passed before the memorial on policy change was released by goodsoil. The goodsoil legislative strategy was delayed until receipt of the decision of the Hearing Committee in the disciplinary action against Pastor Bradley Schmeling. Since the deadline had passed, a motion to put the memorial on the floor of the Sierra-Pacific synod assembly for discussion required a 2/3 supermajority of the voting members present. The motion to consider the memorial passed easily.In previous years, primary support for goodsoil memorials came from Bay Area pastors and lay voting members. According to Steven Krefting, co-chair of the goodsoil Legislative team and himself a member of the Sierra Pacific Synod, this time, positive debate on the memorial came from all over the synod. Sierra Pacific covers most of Northern California including more rural areas. Moving stories were told by pastors and laity alike. Steve said the memorial appeared to pass by a margin of more than 2 to 1. Co-chair of LC/NA, Jeannine Janson who hails from San Francisco said, "Sierra Pacific is not always a slam dunk on these things, so this vote is particularly gratifying."LC/NA thanks members of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter, the synod's robust RIC community, and its many allied pastors for their efforts in organizing for this synod assembly. Prayers are requested for three additional synod assemblies happening this weekend, Arkansas Oklahoma, Western Iowa, and Southwest Minnesota.
Monday, April 09, 2007
You Shall Not Lie with a Male: Standards for Churchly Decision-Making on Homosexuality
Reprinted from Lutheran Forum Vol. 30, No. 1 February, 1996
All rights reserved.
Can love be sin? The whole tradition of Christian teaching answers yes; there is distorted, perverse love. Humans are created for love, as creatures of the God who is love, but this human destiny is perverted where it turns away from God. This is universal because of the fall, in that people love other things more than God. So Jesus says, "Whoever loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:3). Even when it is a matter of that love for parents which is the subject of the Fourth Commandment, love toward God must have priority. The will ofGod - or to put it in the terms of Jesus' proclamation, the lordship of God over our life - must be the pole star of our self-determination in the conduct of our loving.
What this means in the area of sexual relationships is made clear from Jesus' words about divorce. In his answer to the question of the Pharisees concerning the permissibility of divorce Jesus reaches back to the creation of human beings, in which he sees God's intention for his creation expressed: From the creation until now God has made humankind male and female. Therefore it is said that a man shall leave his father and mother to be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Then follows Jesus' word that the inviolability of the community of husband and wife is the goal of God's creative will for humanity. The indissoluble marital community is therefore the purpose of the creation of humankind as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9).
This word of Jesus forms the foundation and the criterion for all Christian reflection on the question of sexuality. It deals not just with marriage as a unique issue but more comprehensively with the designation of humans as sexual beings from their creation onward. According to the word of Jesus human sexuality as male and female is established on the indissoluble community of marriage. That is the standard for determining Christian teaching over the whole range of sexual relationships.
Jesus' view of things conforms to the whole and entire Jewish tradition, although in stressing the indissolubility of marriage Jesus exceeds the stipulation of Jewish Law, which entertained the possibility of divorce. (Deuteronomy 24:1)
It was the common Jewish conviction that human sexuality was established for marital community. Already in the Old Testament, judgment about departures from this norm of sexual relations is thus grounded, as much for unchastity and adultery as for homosexuality.
Biblical judgments about homosexual behavior are unequivocal in their more or less sharp rejection, and all biblical comments on this subject without exception agree. The Holiness Code in Leviticus states apodictically, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) The twentieth chapter of this book pronounces such behavior a crime worthy of death (Leviticus 20:13), every bit as much as adultery a few verses earlier (20:10). The Jews understood that in these questions they were to be distinguished from the surrounding peoples. Likewise the New Testament position on the matter of homosexuality agrees in contrast to the Hellenistic culture which took no offense at homosexual relations. In Romans Paul regards homosexual relations as a consequence of human turning away from God (Romans 1:2~, and in the first letter to the Corinthians homosexual activity is judged along with unchastity, adultery, idolatry, witchcraft, drunkenness, theft, and robbery to be one of those behaviors which exclude from the Kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9ff.). Paul intends that Christians are made free from ensnarement in all such modes of behavior through Baptism (6:11).
There is not a single testimony in the New Testament that stands against this Pauline assertion to offer a favorable judgment on homosexual activity. In the entirety of the biblical witness, therefore and without exception, homosexual practice is determined to be a mode of behavior in which the turning away of humanity from God is blatantly expressed. This finding establishes very narrow boundaries for discretion for any church bound to the authority of Scripture. At the same time the biblical assertions on this theme depict the negative counterpart to the positive view of that sexual character of humanity is grounded in creation, such that it by no means has to do with mere marginal judgments that can be neglected without serious damage to the whole Christian message. The biblical claims about homosexuality will accordingly not admit of any relativizing, such that one might regard them as an expression of a cultural and historical situation that modern people have overcome. This is rather a matter which the biblical witnesses from the beginning understood in opposition to the dominant attitude of the surrounding world, precisely because of faith in the God of Israel as it regarded the destiny he bestowed on humanity in creation.
Today we hear recommendations for a change in the Church's judgment concerning homosexuality, a change which the biblical witnesses had been unable to consider but which has been achieved through modern anthropological awareness, namely, that homosexuality so-called is a "given" of the psychological and physiological nature of homosexual persons apart from any corresponding sexual behavior. One should therefore speak of a clear distinction between homosexual acts and a homophile orientation. In addition it is said that such orientation is restricted to a certain minority of people only in its intensity. As one factor among others in human sexuality it is much more widespread. It is in fact characteristicaIly human that sexual urges are not restricted to one limited range of relationships but pervade all human behavior in the full range of affections. Relations with persons of one's own sex fit this pattern. Moreover, since erotic motives play a role in all human relationships, the task for us is to integrate them into the entirety of a way of life. The fact of homophile inclinations need not lead automatically to homosexual acts. It can be integrated into a way of life in which.it is subordinated to relations with the opposite sex and in which the theme of sexual activity need not become so much the center of human existence that it dominates all others. The accomplishment of marriage as an institution lies, as the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly said, not least in that it restrains human sexuality within tasks and purposes that transcend it.
The fact of homosexual inclinations therefore need not be denied and also may not be condemned. The question is only how to deal with the human task of self determination in relationships. That is the real problem, and this is where the judgment that homosexual actions area deviation from the norm God has given humans for their sexual conduct has its place. In the judgment of the church this applies not only to homosexuality but also to every sexual activity between men and women that is not oriented toward marriage, above all to adultery. The Church must live with the reality that deviations from the norm in this area of life as in others are common enough, but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. The Church must approach the persons concerned with tolerance and understanding, but she must also call them to repentance. She cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and conduct that departs from it.
Here stands the boundary for any Christian Church which knows itself bound by Scripture. Those who would press the Church to change the norm of her teaching in this question must understand that they press the Church toward schism. For a Church which allows itself to be to be pushed to regard homosexual activity as no longer a departure from the biblical norm and to recognize homosexual partnerships as a form of personal relationship equivalent to marriage would no longer stand on the foundation of the Scripture but rather in opposition to its unanimous witness. A church that takes such a step has thereby ceased to be an evangelical church in the tradition of the Lutheran Reformation.
This article was first printed in the journal Zeitwende, January, 1994. The translation is by Leonard Klein, with the assistance of Christian D. von Dehsen.
All rights reserved.
Can love be sin? The whole tradition of Christian teaching answers yes; there is distorted, perverse love. Humans are created for love, as creatures of the God who is love, but this human destiny is perverted where it turns away from God. This is universal because of the fall, in that people love other things more than God. So Jesus says, "Whoever loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:3). Even when it is a matter of that love for parents which is the subject of the Fourth Commandment, love toward God must have priority. The will ofGod - or to put it in the terms of Jesus' proclamation, the lordship of God over our life - must be the pole star of our self-determination in the conduct of our loving.
What this means in the area of sexual relationships is made clear from Jesus' words about divorce. In his answer to the question of the Pharisees concerning the permissibility of divorce Jesus reaches back to the creation of human beings, in which he sees God's intention for his creation expressed: From the creation until now God has made humankind male and female. Therefore it is said that a man shall leave his father and mother to be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Then follows Jesus' word that the inviolability of the community of husband and wife is the goal of God's creative will for humanity. The indissoluble marital community is therefore the purpose of the creation of humankind as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9).
This word of Jesus forms the foundation and the criterion for all Christian reflection on the question of sexuality. It deals not just with marriage as a unique issue but more comprehensively with the designation of humans as sexual beings from their creation onward. According to the word of Jesus human sexuality as male and female is established on the indissoluble community of marriage. That is the standard for determining Christian teaching over the whole range of sexual relationships.
Jesus' view of things conforms to the whole and entire Jewish tradition, although in stressing the indissolubility of marriage Jesus exceeds the stipulation of Jewish Law, which entertained the possibility of divorce. (Deuteronomy 24:1)
It was the common Jewish conviction that human sexuality was established for marital community. Already in the Old Testament, judgment about departures from this norm of sexual relations is thus grounded, as much for unchastity and adultery as for homosexuality.
Biblical judgments about homosexual behavior are unequivocal in their more or less sharp rejection, and all biblical comments on this subject without exception agree. The Holiness Code in Leviticus states apodictically, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) The twentieth chapter of this book pronounces such behavior a crime worthy of death (Leviticus 20:13), every bit as much as adultery a few verses earlier (20:10). The Jews understood that in these questions they were to be distinguished from the surrounding peoples. Likewise the New Testament position on the matter of homosexuality agrees in contrast to the Hellenistic culture which took no offense at homosexual relations. In Romans Paul regards homosexual relations as a consequence of human turning away from God (Romans 1:2~, and in the first letter to the Corinthians homosexual activity is judged along with unchastity, adultery, idolatry, witchcraft, drunkenness, theft, and robbery to be one of those behaviors which exclude from the Kingdom of God (I Corinthians 6:9ff.). Paul intends that Christians are made free from ensnarement in all such modes of behavior through Baptism (6:11).
There is not a single testimony in the New Testament that stands against this Pauline assertion to offer a favorable judgment on homosexual activity. In the entirety of the biblical witness, therefore and without exception, homosexual practice is determined to be a mode of behavior in which the turning away of humanity from God is blatantly expressed. This finding establishes very narrow boundaries for discretion for any church bound to the authority of Scripture. At the same time the biblical assertions on this theme depict the negative counterpart to the positive view of that sexual character of humanity is grounded in creation, such that it by no means has to do with mere marginal judgments that can be neglected without serious damage to the whole Christian message. The biblical claims about homosexuality will accordingly not admit of any relativizing, such that one might regard them as an expression of a cultural and historical situation that modern people have overcome. This is rather a matter which the biblical witnesses from the beginning understood in opposition to the dominant attitude of the surrounding world, precisely because of faith in the God of Israel as it regarded the destiny he bestowed on humanity in creation.
Today we hear recommendations for a change in the Church's judgment concerning homosexuality, a change which the biblical witnesses had been unable to consider but which has been achieved through modern anthropological awareness, namely, that homosexuality so-called is a "given" of the psychological and physiological nature of homosexual persons apart from any corresponding sexual behavior. One should therefore speak of a clear distinction between homosexual acts and a homophile orientation. In addition it is said that such orientation is restricted to a certain minority of people only in its intensity. As one factor among others in human sexuality it is much more widespread. It is in fact characteristicaIly human that sexual urges are not restricted to one limited range of relationships but pervade all human behavior in the full range of affections. Relations with persons of one's own sex fit this pattern. Moreover, since erotic motives play a role in all human relationships, the task for us is to integrate them into the entirety of a way of life. The fact of homophile inclinations need not lead automatically to homosexual acts. It can be integrated into a way of life in which.it is subordinated to relations with the opposite sex and in which the theme of sexual activity need not become so much the center of human existence that it dominates all others. The accomplishment of marriage as an institution lies, as the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly said, not least in that it restrains human sexuality within tasks and purposes that transcend it.
The fact of homosexual inclinations therefore need not be denied and also may not be condemned. The question is only how to deal with the human task of self determination in relationships. That is the real problem, and this is where the judgment that homosexual actions area deviation from the norm God has given humans for their sexual conduct has its place. In the judgment of the church this applies not only to homosexuality but also to every sexual activity between men and women that is not oriented toward marriage, above all to adultery. The Church must live with the reality that deviations from the norm in this area of life as in others are common enough, but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. The Church must approach the persons concerned with tolerance and understanding, but she must also call them to repentance. She cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and conduct that departs from it.
Here stands the boundary for any Christian Church which knows itself bound by Scripture. Those who would press the Church to change the norm of her teaching in this question must understand that they press the Church toward schism. For a Church which allows itself to be to be pushed to regard homosexual activity as no longer a departure from the biblical norm and to recognize homosexual partnerships as a form of personal relationship equivalent to marriage would no longer stand on the foundation of the Scripture but rather in opposition to its unanimous witness. A church that takes such a step has thereby ceased to be an evangelical church in the tradition of the Lutheran Reformation.
This article was first printed in the journal Zeitwende, January, 1994. The translation is by Leonard Klein, with the assistance of Christian D. von Dehsen.
Friday, March 23, 2007
New ball game?
Ecumenical News International Daily News Service
By Peter Kenny Lund,
Sweden,
23 March
(ENI)--Blessings for people living in same-sex relationships triggered heated debate at a meeting ofthe main governing body of the Lutheran World Federation in the southern Swedish city of Lund, this week.The LWF, which first met in Lund 60 years ago with a Europe in ruins and recovering from the devastation of the Second WorldWar, on 22 March found divisions rearing that have torn apart the Anglican Communion and created discord in other Christian denominations.
The disagreements hinge mainly on attitudes to homosexuality within the Church. In the Lutheran grouping, churches in the North tend to be more accepting of homosexuals in partnerships,with most of the opposition coming from the global South, including African countries, as is the case in the Anglican Communion.
Leaders of Lutheran churches from around the world, and members of the LWF council, the group's main governing body, heard some church representatives, especially from Africa, speak out strongly about the dangers of giving blessings to people in same-sex relationships. "If God had wanted people from the same sex to have relationships he would have created Adam and Adam, not Adam and Eve," said Satou Marthe, a woman delegate from Cameroon. Still, while African speakers warned that there should be open debate on the issues, they refrained from using the word homosexuality.
In order not to focus on the issues of human sexuality alone, the council of the LWF appointed a task force in September 2004 to review research from member churches, and "to propose guidelines and processes for dialogue by which respectful discussion can be pursued" on "marriage, family and human sexuality". Archbishop Janis Vanags of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, however, noted, "Our church does not see it as helpful when homosexuality is discussed with family and marriage." He said that in his church homosexuality was considered a sin, and the church believed that people should repent of their sins and seek forgiveness, just as Martin Luther had said they should do.
African participants congratulated the Latvian archbishop after his speech for his forthrightness, and as a lone European voice on the issue.
The day before the debate, the Church of Sweden announced at a media conference that matrimony should be reserved for heterosexual couples, but that the church would give blessings to same sex couples in committed, faithful relationships. The church thereby went against a recommendation by a Swedish government commission that proposed changing the law in order to accept both same-sex and heterosexual relationships within the legal framework of marriage.
Bishop Munib Younan, the leader of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Jordan and the Holy Land, hinted that life could be made difficult for Christian leaders in the Middle East, a region with different norms on partnerships, through decisions such as the one by the Swedish church on same-sex blessings."We need to have more debate on what we mean by the family," saidYounan. He said the issue could cause an ecumenical crisis.
LWF general secretary, the Rev Ishmael Noko, said the federation does not have a stand on the issue yet, and he urged members tol isten to one another in tolerance. A lack of time, however, meant that the proposed guidelines for discussing the issue of human sexuality did not succeed ingetting full acceptance. LWF president, US Bishop Mark Hanson,who chaired the debate, said the report would be raised later during the 20 to 27 March council meeting, and discussed in regional meetings.
By Peter Kenny Lund,
Sweden,
23 March
(ENI)--Blessings for people living in same-sex relationships triggered heated debate at a meeting ofthe main governing body of the Lutheran World Federation in the southern Swedish city of Lund, this week.The LWF, which first met in Lund 60 years ago with a Europe in ruins and recovering from the devastation of the Second WorldWar, on 22 March found divisions rearing that have torn apart the Anglican Communion and created discord in other Christian denominations.
The disagreements hinge mainly on attitudes to homosexuality within the Church. In the Lutheran grouping, churches in the North tend to be more accepting of homosexuals in partnerships,with most of the opposition coming from the global South, including African countries, as is the case in the Anglican Communion.
Leaders of Lutheran churches from around the world, and members of the LWF council, the group's main governing body, heard some church representatives, especially from Africa, speak out strongly about the dangers of giving blessings to people in same-sex relationships. "If God had wanted people from the same sex to have relationships he would have created Adam and Adam, not Adam and Eve," said Satou Marthe, a woman delegate from Cameroon. Still, while African speakers warned that there should be open debate on the issues, they refrained from using the word homosexuality.
In order not to focus on the issues of human sexuality alone, the council of the LWF appointed a task force in September 2004 to review research from member churches, and "to propose guidelines and processes for dialogue by which respectful discussion can be pursued" on "marriage, family and human sexuality". Archbishop Janis Vanags of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia, however, noted, "Our church does not see it as helpful when homosexuality is discussed with family and marriage." He said that in his church homosexuality was considered a sin, and the church believed that people should repent of their sins and seek forgiveness, just as Martin Luther had said they should do.
African participants congratulated the Latvian archbishop after his speech for his forthrightness, and as a lone European voice on the issue.
The day before the debate, the Church of Sweden announced at a media conference that matrimony should be reserved for heterosexual couples, but that the church would give blessings to same sex couples in committed, faithful relationships. The church thereby went against a recommendation by a Swedish government commission that proposed changing the law in order to accept both same-sex and heterosexual relationships within the legal framework of marriage.
Bishop Munib Younan, the leader of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Jordan and the Holy Land, hinted that life could be made difficult for Christian leaders in the Middle East, a region with different norms on partnerships, through decisions such as the one by the Swedish church on same-sex blessings."We need to have more debate on what we mean by the family," saidYounan. He said the issue could cause an ecumenical crisis.
LWF general secretary, the Rev Ishmael Noko, said the federation does not have a stand on the issue yet, and he urged members tol isten to one another in tolerance. A lack of time, however, meant that the proposed guidelines for discussing the issue of human sexuality did not succeed ingetting full acceptance. LWF president, US Bishop Mark Hanson,who chaired the debate, said the report would be raised later during the 20 to 27 March council meeting, and discussed in regional meetings.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Memorials for 2007 Churchwide Assembly
Now that we have received the unprecedented decision in the Schmeling disciplinary hearing which suggests outright policy change through synodical and churchwide action, the legislative team of goodsoil.org has prepared the memorial package for the 2007 synod assembly season.
Below please find links to templates for the three memorials that we hope will be passed by a significant number of synod assemblies and therefore reach the floor of the Churchwide Assembly, August 6-12, in Chicago. The memorial templates are listed in order of the most change to the least change. The legislative team will provide a fact sheet, talking points, and strategies as requested.
The first memorial is in direct response to the Decision of the Discipline Hearing Committee (the Committee) in the Schmeling case. The memorial contains very precise and specific language that reflects the Committee’s suggestions. The legislative team has carefully researched the language of this memorial. Try to avoid amendments and substitutions that may cause the resolution to be ruled out of order by the chair of your synod assembly. We have used the word “direct” because, as it states in the “whereas” section, that is the precise instruction of the Secretary of the ELCA. This is the most critical resolution to pass. If you need strategies to address proposed changes to this resolution or have other questions about this template, contact the legislative team at legislation@goodsoil.org.
The second and third templates, one to encourage refraining from discipline and the other endorsing restraint in the use of discipline are also precise in their intent, but have less specific language. These memorials call for less change and the third simply endorses the latitude already granted in the discipline process as noted in chapter 20 of the ELCA Constitution. Versions of the third memorial have already been passed as synodical policies by the assemblies of over half a dozen synods in 2006.
Some members of the goodsoil.org legislative team will be available to attend synod assemblies as requested and as their schedules allow. The team is committed to providing assistance to the best of our abilities in the midst of our other full time responsibilities. We share your passion for justice to prevail in our church and are deeply grateful for your commitment to inclusion and the full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
Steven Krefting and the Rev. Jayne ThompsonGoodsoil Legislative Team Co-Chairs
Below please find links to templates for the three memorials that we hope will be passed by a significant number of synod assemblies and therefore reach the floor of the Churchwide Assembly, August 6-12, in Chicago. The memorial templates are listed in order of the most change to the least change. The legislative team will provide a fact sheet, talking points, and strategies as requested.
The first memorial is in direct response to the Decision of the Discipline Hearing Committee (the Committee) in the Schmeling case. The memorial contains very precise and specific language that reflects the Committee’s suggestions. The legislative team has carefully researched the language of this memorial. Try to avoid amendments and substitutions that may cause the resolution to be ruled out of order by the chair of your synod assembly. We have used the word “direct” because, as it states in the “whereas” section, that is the precise instruction of the Secretary of the ELCA. This is the most critical resolution to pass. If you need strategies to address proposed changes to this resolution or have other questions about this template, contact the legislative team at legislation@goodsoil.org.
The second and third templates, one to encourage refraining from discipline and the other endorsing restraint in the use of discipline are also precise in their intent, but have less specific language. These memorials call for less change and the third simply endorses the latitude already granted in the discipline process as noted in chapter 20 of the ELCA Constitution. Versions of the third memorial have already been passed as synodical policies by the assemblies of over half a dozen synods in 2006.
Some members of the goodsoil.org legislative team will be available to attend synod assemblies as requested and as their schedules allow. The team is committed to providing assistance to the best of our abilities in the midst of our other full time responsibilities. We share your passion for justice to prevail in our church and are deeply grateful for your commitment to inclusion and the full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
Steven Krefting and the Rev. Jayne ThompsonGoodsoil Legislative Team Co-Chairs
How to Change the ELCA
How to Change the ELCA
Here are some concrete steps that you can take to move the ELCA forward. If you have actions to add to this list or if you are working with a local group to move the church forward, please share your work with the goodsoil community. Send emaill to change_the_elca@goodsoil.org.
You are invited to prayerfully consider where you can enter into the support process. This list is based on recommendations from the Mission Development Committee of Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries. For more information about your role in making the ELCA a more inclusive church, please send email to placement@llgm.org.
Worship: -- Invite an ECP pastor to preach and preside at your church and do an educational forum afterwards.
Reconciling in Christ: -- Invite your congregation to make an Affirmation of Welcome and join the Reconciling in Christ program.
Supply Opportunities: -- Invite an ECP pastor to be your supply pastor when your pastor is on vacation.
Internships: -- Have an ECP seminary candidate do an intern year at your church.
Blessings: -- Start doing blessings for GLBT relationships. There is NO policy against this and your bishop has no grounds to discipline pastors or congregations for blessing GLBT relationships.
Associate Pastors: -- Call an associate pastor from the ECP roster.
Get Ready: -- Do the ground work so your congregation can call an ECP pastor when they are in their next pastoral search. Don't wait until the last minute. Make the decision now to open your next call process to ECP candidates. Contact placement@llgm.org for more information.
Support Mission Development: -- Have your congregation make a financial comment to LLGM, either through a one time fund raising event, through a special offering or as a budgeted outreach ministry
Organize: -- Gather other straight ally pastors together and as a large group renounce your signing of V&E (or even remove your self from the ELCA roster and form a resistance roster).
Here are some concrete steps that you can take to move the ELCA forward. If you have actions to add to this list or if you are working with a local group to move the church forward, please share your work with the goodsoil community. Send emaill to change_the_elca@goodsoil.org.
You are invited to prayerfully consider where you can enter into the support process. This list is based on recommendations from the Mission Development Committee of Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries. For more information about your role in making the ELCA a more inclusive church, please send email to placement@llgm.org.
Worship: -- Invite an ECP pastor to preach and preside at your church and do an educational forum afterwards.
Reconciling in Christ: -- Invite your congregation to make an Affirmation of Welcome and join the Reconciling in Christ program.
Supply Opportunities: -- Invite an ECP pastor to be your supply pastor when your pastor is on vacation.
Internships: -- Have an ECP seminary candidate do an intern year at your church.
Blessings: -- Start doing blessings for GLBT relationships. There is NO policy against this and your bishop has no grounds to discipline pastors or congregations for blessing GLBT relationships.
Associate Pastors: -- Call an associate pastor from the ECP roster.
Get Ready: -- Do the ground work so your congregation can call an ECP pastor when they are in their next pastoral search. Don't wait until the last minute. Make the decision now to open your next call process to ECP candidates. Contact placement@llgm.org for more information.
Support Mission Development: -- Have your congregation make a financial comment to LLGM, either through a one time fund raising event, through a special offering or as a budgeted outreach ministry
Organize: -- Gather other straight ally pastors together and as a large group renounce your signing of V&E (or even remove your self from the ELCA roster and form a resistance roster).
Was it Something I Said? Continuing to Think About Homosexuality
From Al Mohler's blog:
Well, never doubt the power of the media. My recent article on homosexuality ignited a firestorm in the public square. Why? We may never know -- but the controversy represents both a challenge and an opportunity.
Several thoughts:
I must admit much frustration about the way many in the media have handled the issue. Headlines proclaimed "Seminary President Says Babies Born Gay" -- something I neither believe nor said. Other articles and reports claimed that I suggested that homosexuality may be genetic in origin and that genetic therapies should be used to create customized and corrected babies. I never even mentioned genetic therapies or germ-line experiments, and I am adamantly opposed to genetic therapies of such a sort -- real or hypothetical. Reading these reports and headlines was a painful and exasperating experience. If I believed those things attributed to me, I would not agree with myself and would condemn myself.
I am even more frustrated with many conservative Christians who read the secular headlines without even bothering to read my article. They jumped to conclusions that I do not hold and castigated me for advocating things I have opposed all my life. I have received a great deal of hate mail from those identifying themselves as homosexuals outraged that I believe homosexual acts to be unconditionally sinful. But I also received mail that can only be described as hateful from those who identified themselves as Christians -- people who clearly had never read my article and simply jumped to conclusions or accepted misrepresentations. Furthermore, some who identified themselves as Christians spoke of homosexuality and homosexuals with hate-filled language that literally made me shudder. Do we really love sinners? Do we not understand ourselves to be sinners saved by grace?
I have been gratified by those who have articulated serious concerns, but who later, after reading my actual article, expressed gratitude for a serious attempt to think through these urgent issues from a biblical perspective.
There is no way that I can answer the avalanche of questions and issues individually, but here are a few thoughts that might help us think together.
To my fellow evangelical Christians:
1. Let's get this straight -- God's condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God's Word. The Bible could not be more clear -- all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator's rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God's express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God's verdict.
2. There is no conclusive research that indicates any biological basis for sexual orientation. But -- and this is a big "if" here -- if science were ever to discover a correlation or causation with biological factors, Christians should not be surprised. We believe in the catastrophic and comprehensive effects of the Fall and God's judgment upon sin.
3. Such a discovery, if it were to be accepted, would not change God's condemnation of all forms of homosexual behavior, nor would it mean that this represents the inviolable "identity" of any individual. As I argued previously, moral responsibility does not require absolute moral choice. A soldier in battle may not have chosen to be in a situation of moral anguish, but he is still absolutely responsible for his decisions and actions. Those who commit homosexual acts, whoever they are and whatever their biological profile, are absolutely responsible for their sin. Regardless of any actual or hypothetical orientation, those who commit same-sex acts are responsible for the choice to commit the sinful act. Those who claim that they did not choose their sexual attraction are nevertheless fully responsible for choosing to perform sexual acts the Bible condemns as sin -- period.
4. Some Christians seem absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as sexual orientation. There is a point to be made here. No "orientation" can alter the sinful status of sinful acts. Some have written me to say that there is no such reality as a homosexual, only those who perform homosexual acts. This flies in the face of the Bible, however, which speaks of those who commit such sins by their sin -- murderers, liars, adulterers, gossips, etc. It does not help to deny this. But, even though no "orientation" can alter the moral status of actions, the fact remains that some persons are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex while the majority are sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. There are other terms to use here, ranging from "sexual attraction pattern" to "sexual arousal profile," but sexual orientation seems a bit less explicit and is generally understood within the culture.
5. Research into the human genome and the possibility of germ-line therapies raises all kinds of moral concerns, ranging from the creation of designer babies to the redefinition of humanity. In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies -- or any other therapy of this type. The hypothetical question I addressed had nothing to do with genetic factors at all. Furthermore, genetic factors are likely to be so complex and inter-related that no single genetic factor or set of factors is likely to be found to cause anything as complex as sexual attraction.
6. Caring Christians will be aware of the fact that many persons who struggle with homosexuality -- males and females -- testify as Christian believers or as those troubled in conscience that they simply have no idea where same-sex desire originated in their lives. They do know that they did not choose this pattern of attraction. Again, that does not reduce their moral responsibility in any way or to any degree. But caring Christians, fully committed to the sole authority of the Bible, must want to help persons to understand and deal with this specific temptation to sin.
7. The causes of same-sex attraction are likely to be very complex. The research of Joseph Nicolosi and others points to specific social and environmental factors as a prime cause. Boys who do not identify themselves with Dad by age two are clearly at risk. Dr. James Dobson addresses many of these factors in his book, Bringing Up Boys. Given the devastating impact of the Fall, we should not be shaken to our foundations if other causative factors are found. In any event, Christian compassion must lead us to want to know how this would happen in order that we can help those struggling with this sin. We should be thankful for those who, through biblical counsel and guidance, are helping homosexuals to find victory in Christ.
8. Let's remember that all of us are born with a huge moral defect -- we are sinners from the start. Christians who have responded with claims that God would not allow a person to be born with a bent toward sin miss the clear biblical teaching that all of us are born with a bent toward sin and with a sin nature. We are born marked by Adam's sin and already under God's just condemnation for that sin.
9. The only cure for sin itself is the cross of Christ. No therapy will cleanse us of sin, no treatment will atone. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ will save, and salvation is found in Him alone.
10. Thanks are due to all who wrote or contacted me about these issues. That is not an easy thing to write, given the caustic tone of many communications and the fact that so many did not even bother to read my article. Nevertheless, I learned from your responses, and I am sure that God intended them for my good. I also want to be humble in asking fellow believers to join me in thinking about these crucial questions. If I have missed something, point it out. If I have violated Scripture in any way, bring this to my attention. If I am confused in any way, point to clarification.
We must be committed to being relentless in seeking to ground our thinking in biblical truth. The issues we face are daunting. The issue of homosexuality will not go away. Bromides and careless thinking will not serve the church well.
Christian families are struggling with sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and a myriad of others who are themselves struggling with this sin or caught in its grasp. Many homosexual persons are waiting anxiously to see if Christians really love the sinner even as we hate the sin. When it comes to homosexuality, the Christian church has often violated its Gospel by appearing to hate both this sin and the sinners who involve themselves in homosexuality.
Here is a haunting question to consider. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 the Apostle Paul condemns an entire list of sins, including explicit references to homosexuality. Then he reminds the church, "such were some of you." The complete text reads: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11]. God brings glory to himself through the salvation of sinners -- and Paul includes homosexuality in that list. Why do we not see more redeemed sinners testifying to the grace of God in bringing them out of the sin of homosexuality? Could it be because many churches would rather just isolate themselves from persons in this category of sin?
As John Newton, author of the hymn "Amazing Grace," once testified: "I know that I am a great sinner and that Jesus is a great Savior." We should seek the glory of God in the salvation of sinners -- sinners of every type and temptation.
To those identifying themselves as homosexuals:
Again, I am thankful for your communications. Some were filled with hate and with language that is unrepeatable here. Some of you consider any claim that homosexual acts are sinful to be hateful. Others would insist that declaring heterosexual marriage to be a resolute norm is hateful. Many claim that trying to help a person out of homosexuality is hateful.
I do not expect that anything I can say or write will change that determined response. All I can do is be clear about what the Bible reveals about God's verdict on all homosexual acts. Christians are called to love homosexual persons, but we cannot love homosexuality. That is simply not an option. We cannot mislead you by telling you anything other than what the Bible says about homosexuality. The greatest act of compassion a biblical Christian can offer is to tell the truth about our sin, and point all persons to redemption through faith in Christ.
Furthermore, I have heard from so many persons who struggle in their consciences with homosexuality -- persons who claim with obvious sincerity of heart that they do not know the origin of this temptation and deny that they consciously chose it. I am trying to take this into serious account and not to misrepresent what you say and know about yourselves.
From a biblical perspective, it makes no sense to say that homosexuality is normative supposedly because God "makes" people that way. God does not allow any of us to escape his righteous judgment on our sin, whatever the biological, environmental, social, or historical factors that we may claim as explanatory factors.
My purpose in writing my previous article was, in the main, to draw attention to a very real threat to human dignity that lurks as a possibility on our horizon -- a possibility explicitly described in the Radar magazine article. This is the possibility that, if a biological marker (real or not) is ever claimed to mark homosexuality in prenatal testing, widespread abortion of such babies might well follow. As the author of the magazine article I cited explained, the liberal commitment to unrestricted abortion rights might well run into direct conflict with liberal commitment to the normalization of homosexuality. In that event, hypothetical in the present time, it will be biblical Christians, opposed to all elective abortions, who will stand for the full human dignity of all human beings, born and unborn.
Keep the communications coming. As I said to my evangelical brothers and sisters, I am sure God means for me to learn much from what you say.
Well, never doubt the power of the media. My recent article on homosexuality ignited a firestorm in the public square. Why? We may never know -- but the controversy represents both a challenge and an opportunity.
Several thoughts:
I must admit much frustration about the way many in the media have handled the issue. Headlines proclaimed "Seminary President Says Babies Born Gay" -- something I neither believe nor said. Other articles and reports claimed that I suggested that homosexuality may be genetic in origin and that genetic therapies should be used to create customized and corrected babies. I never even mentioned genetic therapies or germ-line experiments, and I am adamantly opposed to genetic therapies of such a sort -- real or hypothetical. Reading these reports and headlines was a painful and exasperating experience. If I believed those things attributed to me, I would not agree with myself and would condemn myself.
I am even more frustrated with many conservative Christians who read the secular headlines without even bothering to read my article. They jumped to conclusions that I do not hold and castigated me for advocating things I have opposed all my life. I have received a great deal of hate mail from those identifying themselves as homosexuals outraged that I believe homosexual acts to be unconditionally sinful. But I also received mail that can only be described as hateful from those who identified themselves as Christians -- people who clearly had never read my article and simply jumped to conclusions or accepted misrepresentations. Furthermore, some who identified themselves as Christians spoke of homosexuality and homosexuals with hate-filled language that literally made me shudder. Do we really love sinners? Do we not understand ourselves to be sinners saved by grace?
I have been gratified by those who have articulated serious concerns, but who later, after reading my actual article, expressed gratitude for a serious attempt to think through these urgent issues from a biblical perspective.
There is no way that I can answer the avalanche of questions and issues individually, but here are a few thoughts that might help us think together.
To my fellow evangelical Christians:
1. Let's get this straight -- God's condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God's Word. The Bible could not be more clear -- all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator's rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God's express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God's verdict.
2. There is no conclusive research that indicates any biological basis for sexual orientation. But -- and this is a big "if" here -- if science were ever to discover a correlation or causation with biological factors, Christians should not be surprised. We believe in the catastrophic and comprehensive effects of the Fall and God's judgment upon sin.
3. Such a discovery, if it were to be accepted, would not change God's condemnation of all forms of homosexual behavior, nor would it mean that this represents the inviolable "identity" of any individual. As I argued previously, moral responsibility does not require absolute moral choice. A soldier in battle may not have chosen to be in a situation of moral anguish, but he is still absolutely responsible for his decisions and actions. Those who commit homosexual acts, whoever they are and whatever their biological profile, are absolutely responsible for their sin. Regardless of any actual or hypothetical orientation, those who commit same-sex acts are responsible for the choice to commit the sinful act. Those who claim that they did not choose their sexual attraction are nevertheless fully responsible for choosing to perform sexual acts the Bible condemns as sin -- period.
4. Some Christians seem absolutely convinced that there is no such thing as sexual orientation. There is a point to be made here. No "orientation" can alter the sinful status of sinful acts. Some have written me to say that there is no such reality as a homosexual, only those who perform homosexual acts. This flies in the face of the Bible, however, which speaks of those who commit such sins by their sin -- murderers, liars, adulterers, gossips, etc. It does not help to deny this. But, even though no "orientation" can alter the moral status of actions, the fact remains that some persons are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex while the majority are sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. There are other terms to use here, ranging from "sexual attraction pattern" to "sexual arousal profile," but sexual orientation seems a bit less explicit and is generally understood within the culture.
5. Research into the human genome and the possibility of germ-line therapies raises all kinds of moral concerns, ranging from the creation of designer babies to the redefinition of humanity. In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies -- or any other therapy of this type. The hypothetical question I addressed had nothing to do with genetic factors at all. Furthermore, genetic factors are likely to be so complex and inter-related that no single genetic factor or set of factors is likely to be found to cause anything as complex as sexual attraction.
6. Caring Christians will be aware of the fact that many persons who struggle with homosexuality -- males and females -- testify as Christian believers or as those troubled in conscience that they simply have no idea where same-sex desire originated in their lives. They do know that they did not choose this pattern of attraction. Again, that does not reduce their moral responsibility in any way or to any degree. But caring Christians, fully committed to the sole authority of the Bible, must want to help persons to understand and deal with this specific temptation to sin.
7. The causes of same-sex attraction are likely to be very complex. The research of Joseph Nicolosi and others points to specific social and environmental factors as a prime cause. Boys who do not identify themselves with Dad by age two are clearly at risk. Dr. James Dobson addresses many of these factors in his book, Bringing Up Boys. Given the devastating impact of the Fall, we should not be shaken to our foundations if other causative factors are found. In any event, Christian compassion must lead us to want to know how this would happen in order that we can help those struggling with this sin. We should be thankful for those who, through biblical counsel and guidance, are helping homosexuals to find victory in Christ.
8. Let's remember that all of us are born with a huge moral defect -- we are sinners from the start. Christians who have responded with claims that God would not allow a person to be born with a bent toward sin miss the clear biblical teaching that all of us are born with a bent toward sin and with a sin nature. We are born marked by Adam's sin and already under God's just condemnation for that sin.
9. The only cure for sin itself is the cross of Christ. No therapy will cleanse us of sin, no treatment will atone. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ will save, and salvation is found in Him alone.
10. Thanks are due to all who wrote or contacted me about these issues. That is not an easy thing to write, given the caustic tone of many communications and the fact that so many did not even bother to read my article. Nevertheless, I learned from your responses, and I am sure that God intended them for my good. I also want to be humble in asking fellow believers to join me in thinking about these crucial questions. If I have missed something, point it out. If I have violated Scripture in any way, bring this to my attention. If I am confused in any way, point to clarification.
We must be committed to being relentless in seeking to ground our thinking in biblical truth. The issues we face are daunting. The issue of homosexuality will not go away. Bromides and careless thinking will not serve the church well.
Christian families are struggling with sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and a myriad of others who are themselves struggling with this sin or caught in its grasp. Many homosexual persons are waiting anxiously to see if Christians really love the sinner even as we hate the sin. When it comes to homosexuality, the Christian church has often violated its Gospel by appearing to hate both this sin and the sinners who involve themselves in homosexuality.
Here is a haunting question to consider. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 the Apostle Paul condemns an entire list of sins, including explicit references to homosexuality. Then he reminds the church, "such were some of you." The complete text reads: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11]. God brings glory to himself through the salvation of sinners -- and Paul includes homosexuality in that list. Why do we not see more redeemed sinners testifying to the grace of God in bringing them out of the sin of homosexuality? Could it be because many churches would rather just isolate themselves from persons in this category of sin?
As John Newton, author of the hymn "Amazing Grace," once testified: "I know that I am a great sinner and that Jesus is a great Savior." We should seek the glory of God in the salvation of sinners -- sinners of every type and temptation.
To those identifying themselves as homosexuals:
Again, I am thankful for your communications. Some were filled with hate and with language that is unrepeatable here. Some of you consider any claim that homosexual acts are sinful to be hateful. Others would insist that declaring heterosexual marriage to be a resolute norm is hateful. Many claim that trying to help a person out of homosexuality is hateful.
I do not expect that anything I can say or write will change that determined response. All I can do is be clear about what the Bible reveals about God's verdict on all homosexual acts. Christians are called to love homosexual persons, but we cannot love homosexuality. That is simply not an option. We cannot mislead you by telling you anything other than what the Bible says about homosexuality. The greatest act of compassion a biblical Christian can offer is to tell the truth about our sin, and point all persons to redemption through faith in Christ.
Furthermore, I have heard from so many persons who struggle in their consciences with homosexuality -- persons who claim with obvious sincerity of heart that they do not know the origin of this temptation and deny that they consciously chose it. I am trying to take this into serious account and not to misrepresent what you say and know about yourselves.
From a biblical perspective, it makes no sense to say that homosexuality is normative supposedly because God "makes" people that way. God does not allow any of us to escape his righteous judgment on our sin, whatever the biological, environmental, social, or historical factors that we may claim as explanatory factors.
My purpose in writing my previous article was, in the main, to draw attention to a very real threat to human dignity that lurks as a possibility on our horizon -- a possibility explicitly described in the Radar magazine article. This is the possibility that, if a biological marker (real or not) is ever claimed to mark homosexuality in prenatal testing, widespread abortion of such babies might well follow. As the author of the magazine article I cited explained, the liberal commitment to unrestricted abortion rights might well run into direct conflict with liberal commitment to the normalization of homosexuality. In that event, hypothetical in the present time, it will be biblical Christians, opposed to all elective abortions, who will stand for the full human dignity of all human beings, born and unborn.
Keep the communications coming. As I said to my evangelical brothers and sisters, I am sure God means for me to learn much from what you say.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Sexualization of Girls
Report Chronicles Damage Caused
By Father John Flynn
ROME, FEB. 26, 2007 (Zenit.org).
- An unhealthy sexualization is putting young and adolescent girls increasingly at risk, concludes a report published Feb. 19 by the American Psychological Association. Entitled "Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls," the study is the result of research on the content and effects of diverse forms of media: television, music videos, music lyrics, magazines, movies, video games and the Internet.The task force also examined product merchandising and advertising campaigns aimed at girls."We have ample evidence to conclude that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and healthy sexual development," said Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen, head of the task force and associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in a press release accompanying the report.Sexualization causes difficulties at all ages, the report says, but adds that it is especially problematic when it happens at a younger age. Achieving sexual maturity for adolescents is not an easy process, the study acknowledges, but says that when young girls and teens are encouraged to be sexy, without even knowing enough about what it means, the process is further complicated.Media saturationThe report cited a number of studies detailing the large amount of time spent in contact with the media. According to the data, the average child or teen watches three hours of television per day. However, when the total number of hours spent with all types of media is calculated, it turns out that children are exposed to some type of media -- television, video games, music, etc. -- for some six and a half hours a day.One study carried out in 2003 reported that 68% of children have a television in their bedroom, and that 51% of girls play interactive games on their computers and video game consoles. Both girls and boys average about an hour a day on their computers, visiting Web sites, listening to music, frequenting chat rooms, playing games and sending messages to friends.The American Psychological Association report observed: "On television, young viewers encounter a world that is disproportionately male, especially in youth-oriented programs, and one in which female characters are significantly more likely than male characters to be attractive and provocatively dressed."A large percentage of music videos contain sexual imagery, and women are frequently presented in provocative and revealing clothing. The report also noted that female artists are presented in such a way that the main focus is not on her talent or music, but rather on her body and sexuality. Thus, the report concludes, viewers receive the message that success comes from being an attractive sexual object.Regarding the lyrics of songs themselves, the APA researchers lamented that there is no recent content analysis on their sexual content. In their report, however, they cited a number of examples of how the words of some recent popular songs sexualize women, or refer to them in highly degrading ways.When it comes to the big screen, the report commented on the lack of female characters in the top-grossing motion pictures, and in G-rated movies. One study of the 101 top-grossing G-rated films from 1990 to 2004 revealed that of the more than 4,000 characters in these films, 75% overall were male, 83% of characters in crowds were male, 83% of narrators were male, and 72% of speaking characters were male. "This gross under-representation of women or girls in films with family-friendly content reflects a missed opportunity to present a broad spectrum of girls and women in roles that are non-sexualized," the APA report noted.Dubious influencesTeen magazines are another important influence on young girls and adolescents. The reported cited a number of studies on the content of the magazines, and revealed that one of the central messages of the publications is that "presenting oneself as sexually desirable, and thereby gaining the attention of men, is, and should be, the focal goal for women."It's difficult to assess the enormously varied content available via the Internet, but the APA researchers cited one study on sites that often attracts girls -- the fan Web sites of male and female celebrities. An analysis of their content found that female celebrities were far more likely than male celebrities to be represented by sexualized images, regardless of whether the site was official or produced by fans.Advertising is another prime area where women are often sexualized. Moreover, the study notes that research shows that the tendency to display women in decorative or exploitative ways in ads is increasing. This has reached the point, it added, to where girls in seductive poses are being used to attract adult audiences.Recently, a number of commentators have remarked that the toy market is also being affected by the trend toward sexualization. The APA researchers declared that they were worried when popular dolls for girls in the 4-8 age bracket are often dressed in sexually provocative clothing.The same is happening with clothing. Girls at increasingly younger ages are invited to wear clothes designed to highlight female sexuality. Cosmetics are also being marketed to younger girls.All of these influences combine to occasion a series of problems for girls. The APA report stated that sexualization is linked with three of the most common mental health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.The researches added that evidence also exists showing that the sexualization of girls, and the resultant negative feelings about their own body, ultimately may lead to sexual problems in adulthood. They said another problem is related to the idealization of youth as being the only good and beautiful stage of life. The current boom in anti-aging products and cosmetic surgery is a result of this imposed beauty standard.Cell phone victoryResisting the hyper-sexualization trend is not easy, but last week in Canada, decency won a round in the battle.In January, Canada's second largest phone company, Telus, started offering pornographic photos and videos to customers. The Vancouver-based company was strongly criticized by Archbishop Raymond Roussin. "Telus's decision is disappointing and disturbing," he declared in a Feb. 12 statement.In another statement published four days later, the archbishop of Vancouver accused the company of damaging society in its search for a share of the lucrative profits to be obtained in the porn industry.The archbishop called for a pornography-free mobile phone service. He also declared that he was directing Catholic churches and schools to not renew their mobile phone contracts with Telus. In addition, he called on all Catholics and other concerned Canadians to contact mobile phone companies to express concerns over the proliferation of pornography through mobile phones.On Feb. 21, Telus announced that it was canceling its "adult content" service. According to a report in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, the company said that it had received hundreds of complaints from customers.Archbishop Roussin welcomed the move in a statement released later that day. "We are just beginning to fully appreciate how serious the issue of sex and pornography addiction really is," he commented.Concern over the effect of popular culture was also expressed recently by Benedict XVI. In his message for World Communications Day, to be held May 20, the Pope noted the tendency toward the exaltation of violence and the trivialization of sexuality.The Pontiff wrote: "Beauty, a kind of mirror of the divine, inspires and vivifies young hearts and minds, while ugliness and coarseness have a depressing impact on attitudes and behavior" (no. 2).The Church has often been falsely accused of being obsessed with sex by the champions of modern culture. In truth, it is contemporary society that suffers from this obsession, while the Church continues to defend the dignity, and beauty, of the human person.
ZE07022628
email this article: http://www.zenit.org/english/send_friend/index.phtml?sid=103628
By Father John Flynn
ROME, FEB. 26, 2007 (Zenit.org).
- An unhealthy sexualization is putting young and adolescent girls increasingly at risk, concludes a report published Feb. 19 by the American Psychological Association. Entitled "Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls," the study is the result of research on the content and effects of diverse forms of media: television, music videos, music lyrics, magazines, movies, video games and the Internet.The task force also examined product merchandising and advertising campaigns aimed at girls."We have ample evidence to conclude that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and healthy sexual development," said Dr. Eileen Zurbriggen, head of the task force and associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in a press release accompanying the report.Sexualization causes difficulties at all ages, the report says, but adds that it is especially problematic when it happens at a younger age. Achieving sexual maturity for adolescents is not an easy process, the study acknowledges, but says that when young girls and teens are encouraged to be sexy, without even knowing enough about what it means, the process is further complicated.Media saturationThe report cited a number of studies detailing the large amount of time spent in contact with the media. According to the data, the average child or teen watches three hours of television per day. However, when the total number of hours spent with all types of media is calculated, it turns out that children are exposed to some type of media -- television, video games, music, etc. -- for some six and a half hours a day.One study carried out in 2003 reported that 68% of children have a television in their bedroom, and that 51% of girls play interactive games on their computers and video game consoles. Both girls and boys average about an hour a day on their computers, visiting Web sites, listening to music, frequenting chat rooms, playing games and sending messages to friends.The American Psychological Association report observed: "On television, young viewers encounter a world that is disproportionately male, especially in youth-oriented programs, and one in which female characters are significantly more likely than male characters to be attractive and provocatively dressed."A large percentage of music videos contain sexual imagery, and women are frequently presented in provocative and revealing clothing. The report also noted that female artists are presented in such a way that the main focus is not on her talent or music, but rather on her body and sexuality. Thus, the report concludes, viewers receive the message that success comes from being an attractive sexual object.Regarding the lyrics of songs themselves, the APA researchers lamented that there is no recent content analysis on their sexual content. In their report, however, they cited a number of examples of how the words of some recent popular songs sexualize women, or refer to them in highly degrading ways.When it comes to the big screen, the report commented on the lack of female characters in the top-grossing motion pictures, and in G-rated movies. One study of the 101 top-grossing G-rated films from 1990 to 2004 revealed that of the more than 4,000 characters in these films, 75% overall were male, 83% of characters in crowds were male, 83% of narrators were male, and 72% of speaking characters were male. "This gross under-representation of women or girls in films with family-friendly content reflects a missed opportunity to present a broad spectrum of girls and women in roles that are non-sexualized," the APA report noted.Dubious influencesTeen magazines are another important influence on young girls and adolescents. The reported cited a number of studies on the content of the magazines, and revealed that one of the central messages of the publications is that "presenting oneself as sexually desirable, and thereby gaining the attention of men, is, and should be, the focal goal for women."It's difficult to assess the enormously varied content available via the Internet, but the APA researchers cited one study on sites that often attracts girls -- the fan Web sites of male and female celebrities. An analysis of their content found that female celebrities were far more likely than male celebrities to be represented by sexualized images, regardless of whether the site was official or produced by fans.Advertising is another prime area where women are often sexualized. Moreover, the study notes that research shows that the tendency to display women in decorative or exploitative ways in ads is increasing. This has reached the point, it added, to where girls in seductive poses are being used to attract adult audiences.Recently, a number of commentators have remarked that the toy market is also being affected by the trend toward sexualization. The APA researchers declared that they were worried when popular dolls for girls in the 4-8 age bracket are often dressed in sexually provocative clothing.The same is happening with clothing. Girls at increasingly younger ages are invited to wear clothes designed to highlight female sexuality. Cosmetics are also being marketed to younger girls.All of these influences combine to occasion a series of problems for girls. The APA report stated that sexualization is linked with three of the most common mental health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.The researches added that evidence also exists showing that the sexualization of girls, and the resultant negative feelings about their own body, ultimately may lead to sexual problems in adulthood. They said another problem is related to the idealization of youth as being the only good and beautiful stage of life. The current boom in anti-aging products and cosmetic surgery is a result of this imposed beauty standard.Cell phone victoryResisting the hyper-sexualization trend is not easy, but last week in Canada, decency won a round in the battle.In January, Canada's second largest phone company, Telus, started offering pornographic photos and videos to customers. The Vancouver-based company was strongly criticized by Archbishop Raymond Roussin. "Telus's decision is disappointing and disturbing," he declared in a Feb. 12 statement.In another statement published four days later, the archbishop of Vancouver accused the company of damaging society in its search for a share of the lucrative profits to be obtained in the porn industry.The archbishop called for a pornography-free mobile phone service. He also declared that he was directing Catholic churches and schools to not renew their mobile phone contracts with Telus. In addition, he called on all Catholics and other concerned Canadians to contact mobile phone companies to express concerns over the proliferation of pornography through mobile phones.On Feb. 21, Telus announced that it was canceling its "adult content" service. According to a report in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, the company said that it had received hundreds of complaints from customers.Archbishop Roussin welcomed the move in a statement released later that day. "We are just beginning to fully appreciate how serious the issue of sex and pornography addiction really is," he commented.Concern over the effect of popular culture was also expressed recently by Benedict XVI. In his message for World Communications Day, to be held May 20, the Pope noted the tendency toward the exaltation of violence and the trivialization of sexuality.The Pontiff wrote: "Beauty, a kind of mirror of the divine, inspires and vivifies young hearts and minds, while ugliness and coarseness have a depressing impact on attitudes and behavior" (no. 2).The Church has often been falsely accused of being obsessed with sex by the champions of modern culture. In truth, it is contemporary society that suffers from this obsession, while the Church continues to defend the dignity, and beauty, of the human person.
ZE07022628
email this article: http://www.zenit.org/english/send_friend/index.phtml?sid=103628
Friday, February 16, 2007
Resolution?
Get your goodsoil templates here.
Amazing how it is simply verbatim from the Atlanta disciplinary hearing report. Almost like an offical body of the ELCA wrote it. Gee, that's really something, isn't it?
Amazing how it is simply verbatim from the Atlanta disciplinary hearing report. Almost like an offical body of the ELCA wrote it. Gee, that's really something, isn't it?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
disciplinary committee challenges church policy
Shrimp here: You human people funny. You write 16 page decision on pastor who breaks church law and never mention Scripture, never mention historical Lutheran Confessions in your constitution, never mention fact that he lied. What you say is "He good pastor becasue 100 people join his church." You say, "Change the law." What jury changes law? I tell you what jury. Human jury putting God on trial. You still telling trying to tell God what he think? Funny people. You probably deserve the unpleasantness coming in Chicago. You think Orlando bad with assembly interrupted by protest? Chicago have big gay community, big media. Welcome to Episcohellian!
In a decision made public today, the hearing committee in the disciplinary action against Pastor Bradley Schmeling overwhelmingly affirmed the ministry of Pastor Schmeling and challenged the validity of the policy precluding pastors in same-gender relationships saying it is "at least bad policy, and very well may violate the constitution and bylaws of this church." The hearing committee called for the removal of the policy giving two pathways to do so: through the judicial process of the committee on appeals or through the legislative process of the churchwide assembly. Consequently, the hearing committee delayed the effective date of a decision to remove Pastor Schmeling until after the next ELCA Churchwide Assembly.
Emily Eastwood, Executive Director of Lutherans Concerned / North America, said "This decision is courageous and unprecedented in the history of the ELCA. For an official judicial body of the church to call for removal of the discriminatory policy marks a tremendous shift in the ongoing struggle for equality. Pastor Schmeling and St. John's presented a compelling case. Peter met Cornelius and the Holy Spirit became the wind of change. The hearing committee of elected and faithful Lutherans heard the witness and acted accordingly within its purview. While seven of the committee members felt that they did not have the authority to set new policy, the group was nearly unanimous in calling for swift and complete removal of the old. The decision has taken the case of one fine pastor in the deep south to the national stage. Unintended advocates, Pastor Schmeling and St. John's now stand squarely at the center of the ongoing conversation. LC/NA continues to accompany and support them in this process."
As a result of this decision, two tracks of action will proceed immediately. Pastor Schmeling has 30 days to decide to submit an appeal. Within 24 hours LC/NA and its collaborative partners under the banner of goodsoil.org will release the legislative package requested by the hearing committee in its decision. LC/NA calls on its members and RIC churches to answer the call of the hearing committee and bring the recommended motions to their conference and synodical assemblies. Organizing for the ELCA Churchwide Convention, August 6–12, 2007 at Navy Pier in Chicago, is already underway.
The full text of the decision of the Hearing Committee can be found on St John's website. [The decision is also available as a PDF file on the LC/NA website.]
In a decision made public today, the hearing committee in the disciplinary action against Pastor Bradley Schmeling overwhelmingly affirmed the ministry of Pastor Schmeling and challenged the validity of the policy precluding pastors in same-gender relationships saying it is "at least bad policy, and very well may violate the constitution and bylaws of this church." The hearing committee called for the removal of the policy giving two pathways to do so: through the judicial process of the committee on appeals or through the legislative process of the churchwide assembly. Consequently, the hearing committee delayed the effective date of a decision to remove Pastor Schmeling until after the next ELCA Churchwide Assembly.
Emily Eastwood, Executive Director of Lutherans Concerned / North America, said "This decision is courageous and unprecedented in the history of the ELCA. For an official judicial body of the church to call for removal of the discriminatory policy marks a tremendous shift in the ongoing struggle for equality. Pastor Schmeling and St. John's presented a compelling case. Peter met Cornelius and the Holy Spirit became the wind of change. The hearing committee of elected and faithful Lutherans heard the witness and acted accordingly within its purview. While seven of the committee members felt that they did not have the authority to set new policy, the group was nearly unanimous in calling for swift and complete removal of the old. The decision has taken the case of one fine pastor in the deep south to the national stage. Unintended advocates, Pastor Schmeling and St. John's now stand squarely at the center of the ongoing conversation. LC/NA continues to accompany and support them in this process."
As a result of this decision, two tracks of action will proceed immediately. Pastor Schmeling has 30 days to decide to submit an appeal. Within 24 hours LC/NA and its collaborative partners under the banner of goodsoil.org will release the legislative package requested by the hearing committee in its decision. LC/NA calls on its members and RIC churches to answer the call of the hearing committee and bring the recommended motions to their conference and synodical assemblies. Organizing for the ELCA Churchwide Convention, August 6–12, 2007 at Navy Pier in Chicago, is already underway.
The full text of the decision of the Hearing Committee can be found on St John's website. [The decision is also available as a PDF file on the LC/NA website.]
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Barbara Lundblad preaches on "flesh"
This trial will focus on the ELCA's definition of holy living. It was first defined in a 16-page booklet, called "Vision and Expectations." It is 16 pages long, but its whole weight rests on 16 words – which I won't repeat because you have heard them very often. They're 16 words that deny life in the flesh to gay and lesbian people. We should remember how the Book of John starts: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh." The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and to deny life in the flesh is a very serious matter.
Holy living: years ago, a gay orthodox rabbi, writing under a pseudonym, Yaakov Levado, because he had to at the time, wrote his version of holy living for the journal Tikkun, and he said this:
Gay people cannot be asked to be straight, but they can be asked to hold fast to the covenant. God will work the story out and link the loose ends as long as we hold fast to the covenant… Holding fast to the covenant demands that I seek a path toward sanctity in gay life… being gay does not free one from the fulfillment of mitzvoth. The complexities generated by one verse in Leviticus need not unravel my commitment to the whole of Torah.
Bradley and Darin, you have sought a path to sanctity in gay life. You have promised to be faithful to each other for the rest of your days. And you know that this does not free you; if anything it supports you and helps you to follow God's calling to justice, to listen to the witness of the prophets, and to the call of Jesus to be servants in the world. To paraphrase the words of the rabbi, the complexities generated by 16 words in "Vision and Expectations" need not unravel your commitment to the Gospel.
http://lcna.org/lcna_news/2007-01-22a.shtm
Wonder how much Barbra Lunblad had to do with the jury's decision to urge assemblies to contest ELCA policy, especially V & E
Holy living: years ago, a gay orthodox rabbi, writing under a pseudonym, Yaakov Levado, because he had to at the time, wrote his version of holy living for the journal Tikkun, and he said this:
Gay people cannot be asked to be straight, but they can be asked to hold fast to the covenant. God will work the story out and link the loose ends as long as we hold fast to the covenant… Holding fast to the covenant demands that I seek a path toward sanctity in gay life… being gay does not free one from the fulfillment of mitzvoth. The complexities generated by one verse in Leviticus need not unravel my commitment to the whole of Torah.
Bradley and Darin, you have sought a path to sanctity in gay life. You have promised to be faithful to each other for the rest of your days. And you know that this does not free you; if anything it supports you and helps you to follow God's calling to justice, to listen to the witness of the prophets, and to the call of Jesus to be servants in the world. To paraphrase the words of the rabbi, the complexities generated by 16 words in "Vision and Expectations" need not unravel your commitment to the Gospel.
http://lcna.org/lcna_news/2007-01-22a.shtm
Wonder how much Barbra Lunblad had to do with the jury's decision to urge assemblies to contest ELCA policy, especially V & E
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
A pink reformation
Theo Hobson
February 5, 2007
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/02/a_pink_reformation.html
What emerged from the gay adoption business is that the issue of homosexuality is terribly dangerous to the Roman Catholic church. It comes away from such a debate with its public image damaged. And of course this is true of the Anglican Church too. Indeed, it seems to me that the debate about homosexuality poses such a serious threat to organised religion in this country that it is not absurd to compare it to the reformation of the 16th century.
Some will reply that the churches have always faced difficult moral issues, and they have muddled through: the gay issue is nothing unusual. Until quite recently I would have agreed. But it becomes ever clearer that the issue of homosexuality really is different. It has managed to tie the finest Anglican theologian of his generation in knots, effectively disabling him from leadership. And more widely and more seriously it is undermining the churches' claim to the moral high ground.
The Church of England has faced all sorts of controversial moral debates over the years, but none of these has really threatened it. There is a journalistic cliche that sex is the problem: church leaders are "obsessed" with it and find it fatally problematic. But it's not really true. The Church of England has faced countless questions relating to sexual ethics and has muddled through fine. It is not sex in general that is so threatening to churches: it is homosexuality in particular. Why? Why is this issue doing such damage to religious institutions?
It seems to me that a couple of factors coincide. Firstly, this is an issue that shuns compromise. It has a stark "either/or" quality. Either homosexuality is a fully valid alternative to heterosexuality or it is not. There is no room for compromise, no third way: poor Rowan Williams is trying to make himself a perch on a barbed-wire fence. You don't find such absoluteness in other moral debates, such a complete absence of shared assumptions and aims. This is not a normal moral debate but a pure clash of visceral responses.
The second factor is the sheer speed of the homosexual cause's success. Something that was assumed for centuries to be unspeakably immoral has emerged as an alternative form of life, an identity that merits legal protection. The demand for gay equality has basically ousted traditionalist sexual morality from the moral high ground. The speed of this is stunning: feminism was brewing for a century or two before it started to win the argument, and the same applies to the case for racial equality.
And there is another, more complex factor. The public change in attitudes towards homosexuality is not just the waning of a taboo. It is not just a case of a practice losing its aura of immorality (as with premarital sex or illegitimacy). Instead, the case for homosexual equality takes the form of a moral crusade. Those who want to uphold the old attitude are not just dated moralists (as is the case with those who want to uphold the old attitude to premarital sex or illegitimacy). They are accused of moral deficiency. The old taboo surrounding this practice does not disappear but "bounces back" at those who seek to uphold it. Such a sharp turn-around is, I think, without parallel in moral history.
These factors have combined to make the gay issue the church's perfect storm, perhaps even its nemesis. Because previous shifts in public morality have been slower, and more amenable to compromise, thecChurch has been able to move its clunky stone feet, and keep standing. This shift has floored it. By resisting the new moral orthodoxy on homosexuality, and hardening against it, the church is fast losing the aura of moral authority it has more or less retained all this time. When a bishop defends discrimination against homosexuals he is, in the eyes of most of the population, displaying a lamentable moral deficiency.
So the issue of homosexuality has the strange power to turn the moral tables. The traditional moralist is subject to accusations of immorality. And this inversion is doing terrible damage to the Christian churches.
But it might not be so bad for Christianity. For it revives the huge question of whether Christianity is meant to uphold a moral law at all. The original answer was no: Jesus and Paul wanted to sever the link between religion and the idea of a divine moral law. (It is therefore amazingly ironic that Paul is used as a "legal" authority for Christian homophobia.) But in practice Christianity became an organised religion, and therefore laid down the moral law - at first this law applied to a subculture, and later it merged with official public law. This was semi-challenged by the reformers of the 16th century, who wanted to revive the notion of "freedom from the law". But actually most forms of Protestantism returned to, and even intensified, the association of God and the moral law.
The crisis over homosexuality is reawakening us to the question that inspired Paul and Luther. The real question is not whether homosexuality is against "Christian morality" but whether moralism is against the Christian gospel. It seems to be - but how can a church adapt to this insight? All religious groups seem to unite around a holy moral code. Can Christianity jettison the whole idea of the moral law - and remain an organised religion? The debate about homosexuality is ushering us into strange new religious territory; making us contemporary with Paul. God works in truly mysterious ways.
February 5, 2007
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/02/a_pink_reformation.html
What emerged from the gay adoption business is that the issue of homosexuality is terribly dangerous to the Roman Catholic church. It comes away from such a debate with its public image damaged. And of course this is true of the Anglican Church too. Indeed, it seems to me that the debate about homosexuality poses such a serious threat to organised religion in this country that it is not absurd to compare it to the reformation of the 16th century.
Some will reply that the churches have always faced difficult moral issues, and they have muddled through: the gay issue is nothing unusual. Until quite recently I would have agreed. But it becomes ever clearer that the issue of homosexuality really is different. It has managed to tie the finest Anglican theologian of his generation in knots, effectively disabling him from leadership. And more widely and more seriously it is undermining the churches' claim to the moral high ground.
The Church of England has faced all sorts of controversial moral debates over the years, but none of these has really threatened it. There is a journalistic cliche that sex is the problem: church leaders are "obsessed" with it and find it fatally problematic. But it's not really true. The Church of England has faced countless questions relating to sexual ethics and has muddled through fine. It is not sex in general that is so threatening to churches: it is homosexuality in particular. Why? Why is this issue doing such damage to religious institutions?
It seems to me that a couple of factors coincide. Firstly, this is an issue that shuns compromise. It has a stark "either/or" quality. Either homosexuality is a fully valid alternative to heterosexuality or it is not. There is no room for compromise, no third way: poor Rowan Williams is trying to make himself a perch on a barbed-wire fence. You don't find such absoluteness in other moral debates, such a complete absence of shared assumptions and aims. This is not a normal moral debate but a pure clash of visceral responses.
The second factor is the sheer speed of the homosexual cause's success. Something that was assumed for centuries to be unspeakably immoral has emerged as an alternative form of life, an identity that merits legal protection. The demand for gay equality has basically ousted traditionalist sexual morality from the moral high ground. The speed of this is stunning: feminism was brewing for a century or two before it started to win the argument, and the same applies to the case for racial equality.
And there is another, more complex factor. The public change in attitudes towards homosexuality is not just the waning of a taboo. It is not just a case of a practice losing its aura of immorality (as with premarital sex or illegitimacy). Instead, the case for homosexual equality takes the form of a moral crusade. Those who want to uphold the old attitude are not just dated moralists (as is the case with those who want to uphold the old attitude to premarital sex or illegitimacy). They are accused of moral deficiency. The old taboo surrounding this practice does not disappear but "bounces back" at those who seek to uphold it. Such a sharp turn-around is, I think, without parallel in moral history.
These factors have combined to make the gay issue the church's perfect storm, perhaps even its nemesis. Because previous shifts in public morality have been slower, and more amenable to compromise, thecChurch has been able to move its clunky stone feet, and keep standing. This shift has floored it. By resisting the new moral orthodoxy on homosexuality, and hardening against it, the church is fast losing the aura of moral authority it has more or less retained all this time. When a bishop defends discrimination against homosexuals he is, in the eyes of most of the population, displaying a lamentable moral deficiency.
So the issue of homosexuality has the strange power to turn the moral tables. The traditional moralist is subject to accusations of immorality. And this inversion is doing terrible damage to the Christian churches.
But it might not be so bad for Christianity. For it revives the huge question of whether Christianity is meant to uphold a moral law at all. The original answer was no: Jesus and Paul wanted to sever the link between religion and the idea of a divine moral law. (It is therefore amazingly ironic that Paul is used as a "legal" authority for Christian homophobia.) But in practice Christianity became an organised religion, and therefore laid down the moral law - at first this law applied to a subculture, and later it merged with official public law. This was semi-challenged by the reformers of the 16th century, who wanted to revive the notion of "freedom from the law". But actually most forms of Protestantism returned to, and even intensified, the association of God and the moral law.
The crisis over homosexuality is reawakening us to the question that inspired Paul and Luther. The real question is not whether homosexuality is against "Christian morality" but whether moralism is against the Christian gospel. It seems to be - but how can a church adapt to this insight? All religious groups seem to unite around a holy moral code. Can Christianity jettison the whole idea of the moral law - and remain an organised religion? The debate about homosexuality is ushering us into strange new religious territory; making us contemporary with Paul. God works in truly mysterious ways.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Solution elusive as churches weary of gay clergy debate
Solution elusive as churches weary of gay clergy debateMany members say they would like to move on to religious missions.By JOHN BLAKEThe Atlanta Journal-ConstitutionPublished on: 02/05/07
Ron Miller is a member of Druid Hills Presbyterian Church in Atlanta who says he would have "no problem at all" accepting a gay pastor.
But the genial church elder says he'd rather focus on something else — and so should other churches.
Brant Sanderlin/Staff
(ENLARGE)
The Rev. Bradley E. Schmeling of St. John's Lutheran Church told his bishop he was in a committed, sexual relationship with a man. His denomination requires that gay clergy be celibate. Schmeling is awaiting a verdict in a church trial for defying policy.
Churches and homosexuality>> Episcopal Church: The denominaton accepted the election in 2003 of Bishop V. Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop in a same-sex relationship. The decision sparked fierce criticism but leaders have not retreated from their action. >> Roman Catholic: The church teaches that same-sex attractions are "disordered." In November 2005, the church barred ordination to men "who practice homosexuality." >> Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Leaders are required to live either in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." The Presbyterians approved a task force's proposal last year that appeared to give congregations leeway to ordain gay clergy. >> Southern Baptist Convention considers homosexual behavior sinful, destructive and deviant. The convention does not allow churches to ordain gays and lesbians or perform same-sex unions. >> Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has officially welcomed gay and lesbian members since 1991 but does not ordain practicing homosexuals or bless same-sex partnerships. >> United Church of Christ: The 25th biennial General Synod in July 2005 approved an "equal marriage rights for all" resolution, making it the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse gay marriage. >> United Methodist Church: The second-largest Protestant denomination in the country and the largest mainline Protestant denomination prohibits same-sex union ceremonies and does not allow the ordination of sexually active homosexuals. Sources: Religion Newswriters Association, ReligiousTolerance.org, individual church Web sites and other news sources.-- Compiled by Sharon Gaus
"A lot of time and energy is being spent by governing bodies and individual churches over this issue," Miller says. "That time could be devoted to the real mission of the church: helping the poor, the homeless, the community at large."
Miller's frustration reflects the weariness in several Protestant denominations. After years of fighting over the acceptance of gay clergy, some church leaders say they're exhausted. The nonstop battles are draining the life from their congregations and driving members away.
Yet church members slog on through the gay clergy debate because leaders can't seem to devise a solution that satisfies both sides. That was evident in discussion about a church trial held two weeks ago in Atlanta. An Evangelical Lutheran Church in America jury tried an Atlanta pastor for defying church policies that accept gay clergy only if they're celibate.
The Rev. Bradley E. Schmeling of St. John's Lutheran Church in Midtown faces expulsion from the ELCA clergy roster after telling his bishop that he was in a committed, sexual relationship with another man. A verdict is imminent.
No matter what the ELCA's verdict is, expect more confrontations in more denominations in the future, church leaders say.
"It's an enormous mess," says Jim Berkley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, who has been following the gay clergy debate in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). "Because there's been 35 years of turmoil, some people are very tired and would like to get along with other things so there's some sense of trying to compromise."
Mark Jordan, a professor in Emory University's department of religion and author of, "Blessing Same-Sex Unions" (University of Chicago Press, $29), says denominations are "breaking apart like icebergs" despite the compromises.
The policy is an interim measure, not a solution, he says. Some gay ELCA pastors defy the policy by being sexually active but don't tell church authorities.
"It's just a stop-gap measure until one side or the other wins in the church," says Jordan. "The unfortunate problem is that this particular stop-gap encourages people to be dishonest."
The ELCA's stalemate isn't isolated. In 2003, the Episcopal Church accepted an openly gay bishop who was in a relationship. The infighting continues. In December, eight congregations in the Virginia diocese as well as a diocese in California announced that they were cutting ties with the Episcopal Church because of that decision.
Mark Rigler, a member of the Episcopal Church for 18 years, recently left the denomination because of the debate over the acceptance of a gay bishop.
He's joined Holy Cross Anglican Church in Loganville, where the church rejects the acceptance of sexually active gay clergy.
"We don't have the conflict over leadership," he says. "We're clear about the way God wants us to lead one another."
Church leaders involved with their own denominational fights over the issue of gay clergy say there are three major reasons why the debate is so intractable.
They are:
• Differing views on homosexuality
Those who support and those who oppose sexually active gay clergy don't even speak the same language. One side sees homosexuality as a sin; another says it's a sexual orientation.
Mark Chavez, director of WordAlone, an ELCA group that wants its denomination to enforce its ban on sexually active gay clergy, doesn't accept the argument that prohibiting gay pastors from sexual intimacy is unrealistic. He considers homosexuality a sin.
"A heterosexual serial adulterer could use that argument and say, 'I can't help it, and it's not realistic for me to not act out on these feelings and you need to accept me,' " Chavez says. "That would be devastating to the church."
But Lowell Erdahl, a retired ELCA bishop, says it's unrealistic to think that people choose to be gay — or straight.
"I didn't sit down one day when I was 13 and say, 'I'm going to choose to be interested in girls,' " says Erdahl, co-author of "Sexual Fulfillment: For Single and Married, Straight and Gay, Young and Old," (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, $14.99).
Erdahl says any minister — gay or straight — should be ordained if they're in a committed relationship.
"The sinfulness of a sexual relationship has a lot more to do with the relationship between two people than it does with specific sexual activity," he says.
• At odds with local congregations
When denominations are wrestling with the issue of gay clergy, some punt the decision to local congregations, church leaders say. That's what some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) leaders appeared to do last summer at the denomination's General Assembly.
The denomination reaffirmed ordination rules requiring "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."
But it also appeared to give local ordaining bodies greater flexibility in deciding to accept gay clergy on an individual basis in a separate decision.
"It's a way of saying we can't agree so we'll let people fight it out at the local level," says Jordan, author of "Blessing Same-Sex Unions."
When the national church doesn't speak clearly on the issue, church leaders say it emboldens local leaders to make up their rules.
Chavez, from WordAlone, says it's common knowledge that certain ELCA bishops have sexually active gay clergy in their synods but "the bishop just looks the other way."
"It continues to weaken the denomination and not only create confusion but some pretty unjust situations," Chavez says.
• Different takes on Bible
Protestant denominations are filled with groups that clash over incendiary issues such as the Iraq war, capital punishment and the ordination of women. Yet those issues rarely threaten to break them apart.
The debate over gay clergy seems different, at least for now. Both sides cite the Bible but they read the Bible in very different ways.
Church leaders tend to embrace a literal reading of Scripture. They say their opposition to gay clergy is rooted in a deeper, non-negotiable issue — obedience to Scripture.
"Instead of submitting to the word of God, we place ourselves with authority over God's word," Chavez says.
Those who support gay clergy have a different view of Scripture. They reject a literal reading of Scripture. They say Scriptural verses also sanction slavery and order women to be silent in churches.
They base their acceptance of gays on Jesus' habit of accepting the outcasts of his day: women, lepers, religious heretics.
"I don't find anywhere in Scripture where Jesus is talking about homosexuality as a sin," says the Rev. Kim Smith King, senior pastor of North Decatur Presbyterian Church in Atlanta and co-moderator of More Light Presbyterians, a group supporting gay clergy.
Church fights over homosexuality have been so bitter and prolonged that some denominations may split, says the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a leader in a group of conservative Anglicans who have opposed the church's decision to accept an openly gay bishop in a relationship in 2003.
"It's like a couple that's separated and there's very little that the marriage counseling can come up with," Harmon says. "So much mistrust has been created and damage has been done."
Ron Miller is a member of Druid Hills Presbyterian Church in Atlanta who says he would have "no problem at all" accepting a gay pastor.
But the genial church elder says he'd rather focus on something else — and so should other churches.
Brant Sanderlin/Staff
(ENLARGE)
The Rev. Bradley E. Schmeling of St. John's Lutheran Church told his bishop he was in a committed, sexual relationship with a man. His denomination requires that gay clergy be celibate. Schmeling is awaiting a verdict in a church trial for defying policy.
Churches and homosexuality>> Episcopal Church: The denominaton accepted the election in 2003 of Bishop V. Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop in a same-sex relationship. The decision sparked fierce criticism but leaders have not retreated from their action. >> Roman Catholic: The church teaches that same-sex attractions are "disordered." In November 2005, the church barred ordination to men "who practice homosexuality." >> Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Leaders are required to live either in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." The Presbyterians approved a task force's proposal last year that appeared to give congregations leeway to ordain gay clergy. >> Southern Baptist Convention considers homosexual behavior sinful, destructive and deviant. The convention does not allow churches to ordain gays and lesbians or perform same-sex unions. >> Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has officially welcomed gay and lesbian members since 1991 but does not ordain practicing homosexuals or bless same-sex partnerships. >> United Church of Christ: The 25th biennial General Synod in July 2005 approved an "equal marriage rights for all" resolution, making it the first mainline Christian denomination to endorse gay marriage. >> United Methodist Church: The second-largest Protestant denomination in the country and the largest mainline Protestant denomination prohibits same-sex union ceremonies and does not allow the ordination of sexually active homosexuals. Sources: Religion Newswriters Association, ReligiousTolerance.org, individual church Web sites and other news sources.-- Compiled by Sharon Gaus
"A lot of time and energy is being spent by governing bodies and individual churches over this issue," Miller says. "That time could be devoted to the real mission of the church: helping the poor, the homeless, the community at large."
Miller's frustration reflects the weariness in several Protestant denominations. After years of fighting over the acceptance of gay clergy, some church leaders say they're exhausted. The nonstop battles are draining the life from their congregations and driving members away.
Yet church members slog on through the gay clergy debate because leaders can't seem to devise a solution that satisfies both sides. That was evident in discussion about a church trial held two weeks ago in Atlanta. An Evangelical Lutheran Church in America jury tried an Atlanta pastor for defying church policies that accept gay clergy only if they're celibate.
The Rev. Bradley E. Schmeling of St. John's Lutheran Church in Midtown faces expulsion from the ELCA clergy roster after telling his bishop that he was in a committed, sexual relationship with another man. A verdict is imminent.
No matter what the ELCA's verdict is, expect more confrontations in more denominations in the future, church leaders say.
"It's an enormous mess," says Jim Berkley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, who has been following the gay clergy debate in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). "Because there's been 35 years of turmoil, some people are very tired and would like to get along with other things so there's some sense of trying to compromise."
Mark Jordan, a professor in Emory University's department of religion and author of, "Blessing Same-Sex Unions" (University of Chicago Press, $29), says denominations are "breaking apart like icebergs" despite the compromises.
The policy is an interim measure, not a solution, he says. Some gay ELCA pastors defy the policy by being sexually active but don't tell church authorities.
"It's just a stop-gap measure until one side or the other wins in the church," says Jordan. "The unfortunate problem is that this particular stop-gap encourages people to be dishonest."
The ELCA's stalemate isn't isolated. In 2003, the Episcopal Church accepted an openly gay bishop who was in a relationship. The infighting continues. In December, eight congregations in the Virginia diocese as well as a diocese in California announced that they were cutting ties with the Episcopal Church because of that decision.
Mark Rigler, a member of the Episcopal Church for 18 years, recently left the denomination because of the debate over the acceptance of a gay bishop.
He's joined Holy Cross Anglican Church in Loganville, where the church rejects the acceptance of sexually active gay clergy.
"We don't have the conflict over leadership," he says. "We're clear about the way God wants us to lead one another."
Church leaders involved with their own denominational fights over the issue of gay clergy say there are three major reasons why the debate is so intractable.
They are:
• Differing views on homosexuality
Those who support and those who oppose sexually active gay clergy don't even speak the same language. One side sees homosexuality as a sin; another says it's a sexual orientation.
Mark Chavez, director of WordAlone, an ELCA group that wants its denomination to enforce its ban on sexually active gay clergy, doesn't accept the argument that prohibiting gay pastors from sexual intimacy is unrealistic. He considers homosexuality a sin.
"A heterosexual serial adulterer could use that argument and say, 'I can't help it, and it's not realistic for me to not act out on these feelings and you need to accept me,' " Chavez says. "That would be devastating to the church."
But Lowell Erdahl, a retired ELCA bishop, says it's unrealistic to think that people choose to be gay — or straight.
"I didn't sit down one day when I was 13 and say, 'I'm going to choose to be interested in girls,' " says Erdahl, co-author of "Sexual Fulfillment: For Single and Married, Straight and Gay, Young and Old," (Augsburg Fortress Publishers, $14.99).
Erdahl says any minister — gay or straight — should be ordained if they're in a committed relationship.
"The sinfulness of a sexual relationship has a lot more to do with the relationship between two people than it does with specific sexual activity," he says.
• At odds with local congregations
When denominations are wrestling with the issue of gay clergy, some punt the decision to local congregations, church leaders say. That's what some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) leaders appeared to do last summer at the denomination's General Assembly.
The denomination reaffirmed ordination rules requiring "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."
But it also appeared to give local ordaining bodies greater flexibility in deciding to accept gay clergy on an individual basis in a separate decision.
"It's a way of saying we can't agree so we'll let people fight it out at the local level," says Jordan, author of "Blessing Same-Sex Unions."
When the national church doesn't speak clearly on the issue, church leaders say it emboldens local leaders to make up their rules.
Chavez, from WordAlone, says it's common knowledge that certain ELCA bishops have sexually active gay clergy in their synods but "the bishop just looks the other way."
"It continues to weaken the denomination and not only create confusion but some pretty unjust situations," Chavez says.
• Different takes on Bible
Protestant denominations are filled with groups that clash over incendiary issues such as the Iraq war, capital punishment and the ordination of women. Yet those issues rarely threaten to break them apart.
The debate over gay clergy seems different, at least for now. Both sides cite the Bible but they read the Bible in very different ways.
Church leaders tend to embrace a literal reading of Scripture. They say their opposition to gay clergy is rooted in a deeper, non-negotiable issue — obedience to Scripture.
"Instead of submitting to the word of God, we place ourselves with authority over God's word," Chavez says.
Those who support gay clergy have a different view of Scripture. They reject a literal reading of Scripture. They say Scriptural verses also sanction slavery and order women to be silent in churches.
They base their acceptance of gays on Jesus' habit of accepting the outcasts of his day: women, lepers, religious heretics.
"I don't find anywhere in Scripture where Jesus is talking about homosexuality as a sin," says the Rev. Kim Smith King, senior pastor of North Decatur Presbyterian Church in Atlanta and co-moderator of More Light Presbyterians, a group supporting gay clergy.
Church fights over homosexuality have been so bitter and prolonged that some denominations may split, says the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a leader in a group of conservative Anglicans who have opposed the church's decision to accept an openly gay bishop in a relationship in 2003.
"It's like a couple that's separated and there's very little that the marriage counseling can come up with," Harmon says. "So much mistrust has been created and damage has been done."
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Durham damns Blair as 'deeply unwise'
Durham damns Blair as 'deeply unwise'
The Prime Minister has announced that there will be no exemption for Catholic adoption agencies under the new Sexual Orientation Regulations. Instead, there will be a delay until the end of next year before they come into force, and during that time, Catholic agencies will have to refer gay couples to other agencies. The full statement, made in the Lobby this afternoon, Monday, is reproduced below, along with Ruth Kelly's response. Significantly, LibDem MP Dr Evan Harris welcomed it as the "first time" the Government has "stood up" to the religious lobby on a matter of public policy. His full statement is below as well. But the strongest statement came from Bishop Tom Wright of Durham. I was talking to him this afternoon on something else, to be blogged separately soon, and took the chance to ask him what he thought. He did not mince his words, and launched into an excoriating attack on almost every aspect of the present "Labour" Government. In fact, he was so angry he almost forgot to mention Iraq, throwing it in for good measure only at the last minute. The full quotes are below, but first, I was much moved this week to read my former colleague Andrew Pierce's testimony of his life as an adopted, gay Catholic. He actually supports the Church's stance - he was one of those who, without Catholic agencies, might have had a lifetime in care. There are lots of links to many interesting articles as usual at Thinking Anglicans and Anglican Mainstream. (Photo Gill Allen of The Times)
Dr Wright, in his car on his way to address a conference at Swanwick, was furious with the Government. "There is no way that the Catholic Church is going to change its mind on this one given 18 months or so." he said. "This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that New Labour - which has got every second thing wrong and is backtracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control - the idea that New Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years - I am sorry - this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.
"Legislation for a nouveau morality is deeply unwise. That is not how morality works. At a time when the Government is foundering with so many of its policies - and I haven't even mentioned Iraq - the thought that this Government has the moral credibility to be able tell the Roman Catholic Church how to order one area of its episcopal teaching is frankly laughable. When you think about it like that, it is quite extraordinary. I suppose the hope is that in 18 months time there will be a different Prime Minister who might take a different view, and this will kick it into the long grass until then."
I am not sure there's much hope of Gordon Brown backing down on this one without alienating large parts of the party, but on the other hand, the prospect of losing thousands of badly-needed votes in Scotland might temper his opinion a little.
The Roman Catholic response from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was initially predictably muted. His critics will say that the Cardinal, having come out fighting a few days ago, has bottled it. (I wonder what the reaction will be in Rome? Will the Pope accept his resignation this summer, clearing the way for AB Nichols, who won the battle on education?)
But on the Today programme Tuesday morning, the Cardinal was in fighting spirit again. Asked about the Bishop of Durham's comments on this blog, the Cardinal responded: "There is legislation and legislation. Some legislation however well-intended does created a new kind of morality, a new kind of norm, as this does. The legislation about the adoption by homosexual people of children... it seems to me we are having a new norm of what marriage is. I think normally children should be brought up by a father and a mother. We hold that as extremely important. Clearly the Government has a right to legislate. Homosexual couples clearly are able to adopt in other agencies. But we want to hold on to that principle."
He also made the point that the Catholic Church does not intend to close agencies, but that they will lose local authority funding if they do not comply with the law.
By coincidence, the Catholic bishops' standing committee was meeting when the PM's statement appeared, so they had an opportunity to discuss it together. The Cardinal is clearly going to aim for some kind of deal, to avoid the Church having to close the agencies down. I understand the bishops were given some more detailed notes from Downing Street, outlining how this might be achieved, and the Cardinal's statement reflects that. Privately, some of the Catholic bishops are furious. One insider said: "Twenty-one months! It could have been 21 years. If something is morally wrong, what's the difference?" We can expect a more detailed response from the Catholics soon. Meanwhile, the Cardinal said: "It is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement that he has listened to some of the concerns of the Catholic Church in regard to its adoption agencies. We are, of course, deeply disappointed that no exemption will be granted to our agencies on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience. We look to the forthcoming Parliamentary debate to address some of the fundamental issues centred on the well-being of the child, whose needs must always be put first. We note and welcome, however, the Government’s expressed desire that the experience and excellent work of our agencies is not lost, especially for the benefit of needy children. We appreciate the two year period that will be established for independent assessment. We note that one of its purposes will be to 'ensure the valuable expertise of faith-based adoption agencies in successfully placing the most vulnerable children, including the full range of post-adoption services, is retained and developed' (Terms of Reference). We understand that Local Authorities will continue to work with and fund our Catholic agencies in their vital and sensitive work during this period. This debate has raised crucial issues for the common good of our society. We believe there is an urgent task to reach a new consensus on how best the public role of religious organisations can be safeguarded and their rights upheld. An important part of our Catholic tradition is to work constructively with the Government in mutually respectful cooperation, in which we can act with confidence and integrity in the service of the common good."
Continues at http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/01/sors_sorted_sor.html
The Prime Minister has announced that there will be no exemption for Catholic adoption agencies under the new Sexual Orientation Regulations. Instead, there will be a delay until the end of next year before they come into force, and during that time, Catholic agencies will have to refer gay couples to other agencies. The full statement, made in the Lobby this afternoon, Monday, is reproduced below, along with Ruth Kelly's response. Significantly, LibDem MP Dr Evan Harris welcomed it as the "first time" the Government has "stood up" to the religious lobby on a matter of public policy. His full statement is below as well. But the strongest statement came from Bishop Tom Wright of Durham. I was talking to him this afternoon on something else, to be blogged separately soon, and took the chance to ask him what he thought. He did not mince his words, and launched into an excoriating attack on almost every aspect of the present "Labour" Government. In fact, he was so angry he almost forgot to mention Iraq, throwing it in for good measure only at the last minute. The full quotes are below, but first, I was much moved this week to read my former colleague Andrew Pierce's testimony of his life as an adopted, gay Catholic. He actually supports the Church's stance - he was one of those who, without Catholic agencies, might have had a lifetime in care. There are lots of links to many interesting articles as usual at Thinking Anglicans and Anglican Mainstream. (Photo Gill Allen of The Times)
Dr Wright, in his car on his way to address a conference at Swanwick, was furious with the Government. "There is no way that the Catholic Church is going to change its mind on this one given 18 months or so." he said. "This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that New Labour - which has got every second thing wrong and is backtracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control - the idea that New Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years - I am sorry - this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.
"Legislation for a nouveau morality is deeply unwise. That is not how morality works. At a time when the Government is foundering with so many of its policies - and I haven't even mentioned Iraq - the thought that this Government has the moral credibility to be able tell the Roman Catholic Church how to order one area of its episcopal teaching is frankly laughable. When you think about it like that, it is quite extraordinary. I suppose the hope is that in 18 months time there will be a different Prime Minister who might take a different view, and this will kick it into the long grass until then."
I am not sure there's much hope of Gordon Brown backing down on this one without alienating large parts of the party, but on the other hand, the prospect of losing thousands of badly-needed votes in Scotland might temper his opinion a little.
The Roman Catholic response from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor was initially predictably muted. His critics will say that the Cardinal, having come out fighting a few days ago, has bottled it. (I wonder what the reaction will be in Rome? Will the Pope accept his resignation this summer, clearing the way for AB Nichols, who won the battle on education?)
But on the Today programme Tuesday morning, the Cardinal was in fighting spirit again. Asked about the Bishop of Durham's comments on this blog, the Cardinal responded: "There is legislation and legislation. Some legislation however well-intended does created a new kind of morality, a new kind of norm, as this does. The legislation about the adoption by homosexual people of children... it seems to me we are having a new norm of what marriage is. I think normally children should be brought up by a father and a mother. We hold that as extremely important. Clearly the Government has a right to legislate. Homosexual couples clearly are able to adopt in other agencies. But we want to hold on to that principle."
He also made the point that the Catholic Church does not intend to close agencies, but that they will lose local authority funding if they do not comply with the law.
By coincidence, the Catholic bishops' standing committee was meeting when the PM's statement appeared, so they had an opportunity to discuss it together. The Cardinal is clearly going to aim for some kind of deal, to avoid the Church having to close the agencies down. I understand the bishops were given some more detailed notes from Downing Street, outlining how this might be achieved, and the Cardinal's statement reflects that. Privately, some of the Catholic bishops are furious. One insider said: "Twenty-one months! It could have been 21 years. If something is morally wrong, what's the difference?" We can expect a more detailed response from the Catholics soon. Meanwhile, the Cardinal said: "It is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement that he has listened to some of the concerns of the Catholic Church in regard to its adoption agencies. We are, of course, deeply disappointed that no exemption will be granted to our agencies on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience. We look to the forthcoming Parliamentary debate to address some of the fundamental issues centred on the well-being of the child, whose needs must always be put first. We note and welcome, however, the Government’s expressed desire that the experience and excellent work of our agencies is not lost, especially for the benefit of needy children. We appreciate the two year period that will be established for independent assessment. We note that one of its purposes will be to 'ensure the valuable expertise of faith-based adoption agencies in successfully placing the most vulnerable children, including the full range of post-adoption services, is retained and developed' (Terms of Reference). We understand that Local Authorities will continue to work with and fund our Catholic agencies in their vital and sensitive work during this period. This debate has raised crucial issues for the common good of our society. We believe there is an urgent task to reach a new consensus on how best the public role of religious organisations can be safeguarded and their rights upheld. An important part of our Catholic tradition is to work constructively with the Government in mutually respectful cooperation, in which we can act with confidence and integrity in the service of the common good."
Continues at http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/01/sors_sorted_sor.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...