Bill Moyers Interviews Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

BILL MOYERS: It was quite a day last fall at The National Cathedral in Washington. For the first time in its history the Episcopal Church of America was installing a woman as its presiding bishop.
NEWSFOOTAGE: Brothers and sisters in Christ, greet the 26th presiding bishop.
BILL MOYERS: Quite a moment for a faith community that traces its roots back over four centuries to the Anglican Church of England.
And quite a moment For Katharine Jefferts Schori. Raised as a catholic, she only became an episcopal priest in 1994. Now, just twelve years later, she had been elected to lead America's two-and-a-half million Episcopalians. Before the priesthood, she was a marine biologist - as familiar with squids as she would become with scripture. Now she presides over a fellowship of 7,600 congregations…
But it's a troubled time for the church. Episcopalians are part of the worldwide Anglican Community of 78 million members…and they are deeply divided over issues of sexuality and the Bible.
VOICE: It is the Bible that says man shall not lie with man neither shall woman lie with a woman - it is an abomination before God.
BILL MOYERS: At a global conference in 1998, their representatives declared homosexuality to be 'incompatible with scripture."
Five years later, defying the world body, U.S. Episcopalians consecrated Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay bishop in the history of the church.
Traditional Episcopalians at home and Anglicans abroad were outraged. Over 40 American congregations have now voted to leave the fellowship, many to join a new alliance led by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria.
Last February, at an international conference in Tanzania, seven archbishops refused to take communion with Bishop Schori.
Now there is speculation the Episcopal Church of America might be expelled from the worldwide Anglican Community. As the controversy rages, Bishop Jefferts Schori finds serenity in her faith and --- her flying. Her new book is in fact entitled A WING AND A PRAYER.
This week she was down to Earth again and testifying before a Congressional hearing on global warming… as both a biologist and Bishop.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: The crisis of climate change presents an unprecedented challenge to the goodness, interconnectedness and sanctity to the world that God created and loved.
BILL MOYERS: When you look at a squid what does it tell you about the world?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: The incredible wonder of God's creation and the incredible diversity of God's creation. Things that come in different sizes and colors and shapes and body forms are all part of that incredible diversity of creation that's present below the waters where we never even see them. And the Psalms tell us that God delights in that.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: That creation is in some sense God's way of-- loving the world.
BILL MOYERS: Has being a trained biologist shaped your faith journey?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Absolutely. My faith journey has been, as a scientist, about discovering the wonder of creation. That there-- there's a prayer that we, in the Episcopal Church use after baptism that prays that the newly baptized may receive the gift of joy and wonder in all God's works. The kind of work that I did as a scientist was a piece of that, just a small piece.
BILL MOYERS: What do you personally believe brought this world into existence?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: As a scientist, I would embrace something that looks like the Big Bang as an accurate representation of how the best of knowledge today understands the origins of the universe.
As a person of faith-- Genesis tells me that God is in love with this world. That God creates and calls it good, and God finishes creation and calls it very good.
BILL MOYERS: What meaning comes from science?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: The origins of what is, of a connectedness of what is-- the mechanism of how what is has come to be.
BILL MOYERS: And what meaning comes from religion?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: What it means to be in relationship with something beyond ourselves.
BILL MOYERS: 01 With God.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: With God, what it means to be in relationship with other human beings. What it means to be in relationship with the rest of creation.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Christians talk about the body of Christ. A theologian named Sally McFague talks about the body of God as being all of creation. When one part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers. That's an essential piece of Paul's theology. If we're not caring adequately for the other parts of the body, we are not only destroying ourselves, but we're destroying our neighbors here and across the world.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: The fact that, you know, how I use carbon might have some impact on a poor person in China.
BILL MOYERS: Or vice versa.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Absolutely.
BILL MOYERS: Or the old story that I've heard so often of butterflies- who motion--creates disturbances thousands of miles away And science tells us that, right?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Absolutely. So does religion.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Religion and science are both ways of knowing, but they go at it from somewhat different perspectives. Science asks questions about-- how things happen and where they've come from. Religion and faith traditions ask questions of meaning, about why we're here and what we should do with what we have here, and how we should relate to the rest of creation.
BILL MOYERS: what is it about religion that provides that radical certainty for the people who are often on the other side of the issue from you on most or many things.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Religion is at its best, I think, an invitation into relationship. It's not necessarily a set of instructions for how you deal with every challenging person you run across in the world. It has that at its depth, but it-- does not give one permission to say, "This person is out, and this one's okay and acceptable." And I-- it continually invites us into a larger understanding of that relationship.
BILL MOYERS: And yet so much of religion is about excluding, not connecting, not including.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Connection with the sacred is something that gives people a sense of what is beyond themselves. And the desire to control that I think is one of the basic human failings. If we can control access to the sacred or control how the larger world understands those we like or those we do not like-- we have the ability to change things in creative or destructive directions.
BILL MOYERS: As I read about the conflict in your church, what I find is that both sides treat the Bible as their source, but they come to totally opposite conclusions as to what the Bible says. What do you make of that? As a scientist and a believer.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Our ways of reading Scripture shape the conclusions we come to. And often what we go looking for shapes the conclusions about what we read. I'll give you a-- you know, a loaded example. The story of David and Jonathan.
You know, Canonically, the traditional way of reading that has been about the friendship between two men. It says in the Scripture that David loved Jonathan with a love surpassing women. Many gay and lesbian people in our church today say, "This is a text - that says something constructive about the love between people of the same gender." Yet our tradition has rarely been able to look at it with those eyes. I think that's a fertile ground for some serious Biblical scholarship and some encounter from people who come to different conclusions.
BILL MOYERS: If biology, as I understand it does, tells us that homosexuality is-- is a genetic given. And religion says homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, can those two perceptions ever be reconciled?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: How do we come to a conclusion that it's a sin in the eyes of God?
BILL MOYERS: Well, you're the-
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: What texts do we read that-
BILL MOYERS: But you know, all of your adversaries say that it is.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Well, I would have them go back to the very sources they find so black and white about that, and ask what's the context of this passage? What was it written to address? What was going on underneath it that this appears to speak to? And I think we find when we do some very serious scholarship, that in almost every case, it's speaking about a cultural context that looks nothing like the one in which we're wrestling with homosexuality today.
BILL MOYERS: So how do you read-- Jonathan and David, that story?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think it's got some-- challenging things to say to us who have said for hundreds of years, thousands of years that it's inappropriate for two men to love each other in that way.
BILL MOYERS: Is this a moral issue to you?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It's a moral issue in the sense that part of the job of a church is to help all Christians grow up into the full stature of Christ. It's to help all of us to lead holy lives The question is what does that holy life look like?
BILL MOYERS: Well, many conservative, traditional Christians say that the homosexual life is not a holy life.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: They would say that it's only holy if it's celibate. And I think we've got more examples out of Scripture even to offer in challenge to that.
BILL MOYERS: But if it is a moral issue, is there a way somewhere between the positions on this? Or is it impossible for a church divided to agree on that way somewhere between the moral judgments?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I do believe it's a moral issue because it's about how we love our neighbor. It's about how we live in relationship to God and our neighbors. When I look at other instances in church history, when we've been faced with something similar-- the history in this country over the-- over slavery. The church in the north . Much of it came to a different conclusion than the church in the south-- about the morality of slavery.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: And neither side was comfortable with the breadth of understanding that could include the other. In practice, the Episcopal Church didn't kick out the Confederate part of the church. They kept calling the roll during the Civil War, and when the war was over, they welcomed them back. But in the-- in the heat of the moment it's pretty tough to live with that kind of breadth that can include a position that seems so radically opposed.
BILL MOYERS: It's not my intention to hold Episcopalians up as the only arbiter of this issue because the Catholics are facing it, the Mormons are facing it, the Southern Baptist Convention is facing it. Orthodox Jews are facing it. And Islam, of course. Why are so many religious people uptight about sex?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Because we haven't done an adequate job of talking about the whole human being, I think. Teaching in our faith tradition about the whole human being. And actually Judaism has probably done a better job than most of Christianity.
Celebrating-- celebrating the Sabbath-- for a married couple was often understood to include-- sexual intercourse. A way of welcoming and rejoicing in the presence of God in the midst of the Sabbath. Christianity hasn't been able to say that very effectively.
BILL MOYERS: Why, do you think?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think part of it's our Greek heritage. You know, our tendency toward dualism, that-- you know, one part of a human being or a male human being-- exemplifies spirit and-- a female human being is somehow lesser and-- demonstrates the flesh
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: With our long-development of an anthology that says that heterosexual male is a normative human being. We're-- we've only begun in the last 150 years to really question that.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: And I believe that the wrestling with the place of women in leadership, particularly in public leadership, is directly related to the same kind of issue over the position of gay and lesbian people in leadership, in public leadership.
BILL MOYERS: When you look at what the other side says about homosexuality, and the-- Scriptural tradition, do you grant them anything?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Absolutely. That has been the traditional way of seeing things. It was also why Galileo got in so much trouble. The traditional way of seeing things was that the-- sun went around the earth, not the other way around. If you expect things to be in a certain way, it's hard to see data that ask you to see the world in a very different way.
BILL MOYERS: So you would concede that as people like you want to modernize the Canon, the tradition and the Scripture, the traditionalists who look back and say, "This is our sacred tradition," would not-- want to come along on that journey.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Absolutely. But I would take them back into that tradition to see within it far more complexity than they've been willing to admit.
BILL MOYERS: But can there be compromise and conciliation within the church when the positions are so fixed and the feelings are so strong?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think if we're willing to hold our positions a little more lightly. To say, "Yes, this is where we come to as a conclusion out of faithfulness. We understand you may come to a different conclusion, also out of faithfulness. Perhaps we don't have to decide one way or the other immediately." If we're willing to live in that place of a little more humility, yes, we can live together.
BILL MOYERS: But isn't this what liberals say? We would like to talk and have a dialogue and listen. But do you get that coming back from this? I mean, the Bishop of Uganda would not meet with you. Now, you would be willing to meet and listen, but he won't. How can there then be any kind of reconciliation?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Well, the larger structure of the communion did make that a possibility. He was at the table in Tanzania-- in February with me. We had one or two conversations. And clearly we disagree about matters of sexuality. But we do hold some other things in common.
BILL MOYERS: Did you recognize that? I mean, was there any sense of-
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: No.
BILL MOYERS: --kinship? Can you say communion with somebody who believes so differently from you on this issue?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I can. I can.
BILL MOYERS: Can he? Would he? Will he?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: He was not willing to come to communion when I was present, which made me very sad. I know how painful it is to be excluded from the table.
BILL MOYERS: So is this issue going to tear your church apart?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I don't believe so. I think people are going to be uncomfortable for a while, but-- perhaps that's the kind of stress that leads to growth eventually. I believe that-- perhaps a few more people may decide they have to go somewhere else. That they can't live with this-- innovation, in their eyes. But I don't believe it's going to tear our church apart.
BILL MOYERS: It's a fact that the biggest and fastest growing churches in the world are in what we call the global south-- Africa, Latin America, Asia, where the authority of Scripture has not been challenged. In fact, the Anglican community in Nigeria-- your counterpart to Episcopalians in this country have seven times the numbers you do in this country. What are they doing right that you aren't?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: They're functioning in a very different context. They're functioning in an environment where radical Islam is very much a force in the community, where in fact Christianity and Islam are competing for converts. There's some indication that membership in a faith tradition is less clearly defined than it might be for people here in the United States.
Our context here is of a complex culture faced with issues that are not so often about life and death. That are not about where the next meal is going to come from in most people in mainline traditions. That are not about disease that's likely to kill 40 percent of us before we reach maturity. We're dealing with different, different radical questions of meaning
BILL MOYERS: Now I've been stunned to realize just how deep is the hostility-- to homosexuals in Africa. The penal code of Nigeria provides for up to 14 years imprisonment for homosexuality. It's considered illegal under Nigerian law. And, Islamists in Nigeria, as I understand it, are pressing right now as we speak-- for a new law that would provide for homosexuals to be stoned. So you're-- you're saying this would have some effect on the Christian-- Anglicans in Nigeria.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Absolutely. Right, and the Anglican Archbishop has been working for a similar kind of law to outlaw all kinds of-- not just homosexual activity, but even having conversations about it in public.
BILL MOYERS: Your colleague?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: Peter-- Peter Akinola?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: How can you ever make peace with that kind of people? Or he with you?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Well, well, I look at where laws were in this country 50 years ago. How many laws were there about sodomy in this country 50 years ago? People were imprisoned-- for being open about their sexuality. It wasn't until Stonewall in the '60s that we began to-
BILL MOYERS: Here in New York.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: --talk about that kind of thing openly.
BILL MOYERS: I've watched the struggle grow within your community, with an American Episcopalian community growing more and more liberal. And the Nigerians and Rwandans and the others growing more and more conservative on this issue. Is it possible that a divorce is the right choice down the road?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It's-- it's remotely possible. But if we-- if we give up and say that's the only solution, I think we would lose something very precious. The Anglican Communion is one of the only worldwide faith communities that is willing to live with significant diversity of opinion. I think we have something to offer the larger society in teaching people how to live with folks who don't agree with you. It's not always easy, but it is of the Gospel, in my understanding.
BILL MOYERS: What can you and Peter Akinola, the Archbishop of Nigeria, your counterpart, what can you all collaborate on?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think with the help of our colleagues, we can collaborate on more than either of us might expect. He has said quite clearly that he doesn't want the help of the Episcopal Church in any kind of mission work in Nigeria, which is incredibly sad. It also removes us from being able to learn about his context-- to learn about Christian evangelism in a-- in a culture where Islam is so present and vocal. It- prevents both of us from being converted by the conversation.
BILL MOYERS: Do you see any hope of that changing?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: God has a way of keeping us at things like this. Even when some of us would find it more comfortable to depart.
BILL MOYERS: What is God asking you to do?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think God is asking us to build a society where people can live together in peace with a sense of justice. Where people can develop their gifts to the fullest, where people can, in some sense, recover their presence in the garden.
BILL MOYERS: You've even been criticized by some of your liberal colleagues in the American fellowship because you have called for a moratorium for a season on ordaining more gay Bishops. Why did you do that?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It was a very painful thing to do. My sense was that there might be hope of some kind of broader understanding if we were able to pause. Not go backwards, but pause.
BILL MOYERS: Is it fair to ask some aspiring gay or lesbian person who wants to become a Bishop, like Gene Robinson did in 2003, to wait?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Is it fair? No. It's not fair.
BILL MOYERS: But it's necessary?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It's a crucified place to stand.
BILL MOYERS: There are some of your dioceses that do not accept your ordination-
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Uh-huh
BILL MOYERS: --because you are a woman.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: There are three Bishops, three diocesan Bishops.
BILL MOYERS: Three Bishops out of how many?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: A hundred and ten.
BILL MOYERS: Women are still up against a stained glass ceiling in religion, are they not? You-- you are an exception
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: All of [the] traditions have within them the seeds of an alternate view. Paul's ability to say that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male and female. Islam-- the presence of women in the earliest strands of that tradition-- and women of some significant position. The Jewish tradition, with-- you know, Miriam as one of the leaders of Israel-- Deborah, among the judges. Women whose places have been often marginalized or forgotten. The many women in the Bib-- Christian Scriptures who are not named.
Mary Magdalene, who is apostle to the apostles, is first to tell the news of the Resurrection, but is-- rejected and marginalized as a prostitute in later Christian thought. Some of what that-- those insights are-- have been apparently too uncomfortable to maintain in the religious tradition.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: The reality is that women have always been very important tradents and passers-on of the tradition. In most cultures in the West . Women have passed on the faith at home. They continue to do that. This church and some other faith traditions have begun to affirm women's ability to do that in the larger public sphere. The early church did it until it got too uncomfortable.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, early in the Christian story, women were a very dynamic presence, and leaders of local congregations. Then came the Bishops.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: There's a very intriguing mosaic somewhere in Italy that-- that apparently says, "Theodora Episcopa" in the feminine. Who knows? Who knows?
BILL MOYERS: I'll be in the last year, there have been moments when you wished it was just you and that squid again in the-
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Oh, oh.
BILL MOYERS: --is that right?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I miss going to sea. I loved that. But I'm finding this a blessed ministry. Sure, there are challenges to it, but that's what keeps life interesting.
BILL MOYERS: What brings you the greatest joy in a day?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think seeing the signs of health and vitality in the church around the larger church. And they exist everywhere, places where people are focused on serving their neighbors. Places where people are doing new and creative things. Seeing partnerships between a-- church in Iowa and the diocese of Swaziland that's providing clean water. Things like that, that show people at work doing Gospel work.
BILL MOYERS: Bishop Katharine, thank you very much.
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Thank you, it's been a joy to be here.
BILL MOYERS: Same here.

Of heteronormative plumbing and men

From GetReligion.

I’m not terribly clear on why the federal government has a surgeon general but it’s been one of the highest-ranked public health positions in the land since Ulysses S. Grant filled it with John Maynard Woodworth in 1871. President Bush’s nominee for the vacant seat is one Dr. James W. Holsinger, a University of Kentucky professor.
Holsinger has come under fire in the media and among some gay groups mostly for a research paper he wrote for the United Methodist Church in 1991. While he’s not criticized for belonging to the United Methodist Church, which officially believes homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, he’s been criticized for belonging to a congregation that has a ministry to homosexuals who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle. He’s also been criticized for upholding church doctrine with regard to approving same-sex unions or permitting ordination of gay clergy.
But the big news has been over the research paper. Major kudos to the Lexington Herald-Leader and ABC News for posting the paper online. In the paper, which is very brief but contains citations from the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, he argues that the male and female sex are “indeed complementary.” Nothing terribly earth shattering there. He also goes into great detail about the increased incidences of disease and trauma among those whose sexual behavior involves the gastrointestinal tract. The report was given to a committee studying whether to change the church’s position that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. The UMC retained its position.
Comparing the results of male homosexual behavior to those of male heterosexual behavior used to be a topic for discussion. Suffice to say that such comparisons are not frequently seen these days. I”m not sure why — if it’s changing ideas about the morality of homosexuality or political correctness dominating academia or a changed understanding of human sexuality and its ramifications in the medical community. I really don’t know why — but there has definitely been a change in how we discuss these issues.
It’s a very interesting story — not only because the topic is rather salacious but also because it says a lot about newsrooms, modern culture and how our approach to issues changes over time. One of the things that makes the report difficult to cover is that it basically lists studies showing higher incidences of medical problems associated with anal erotic behavior. Some of it is graphic, as medical issues tend to be. So media reports have focused on this section of the paper, which is written rather clearly and without graphic descriptions:
[I]t is clear that even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse, and the birth of children. Indeed our own children appear to intuitively understand these facts. I think we should note that these simple “scientific facts are the same in any culture - patriarchal or matriarchal, modern or primitive, Jewish or gentile, etc. The anatomic and physiologic facts of alimentation and reproduction simply do not change based on any cultural setting. In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur as noted above.
Sarah Vos at the Herald-Leader characterized that section as follows:
Like male and female pipe fittings, certain male and female body parts are designed for each other . . . Holsinger wrote . . .
Here’s how Associated Press reporter Jeffrey McMurray conveyed the report:
Sixteen years ago, he wrote a paper for the church in which he likened the reproductive organs to male and female “pipe fittings” and said homosexuality is therefore biologically unnatural.
Uh, not exactly. He said that it was so obvious how male and female genitalia were complementary and it was so well understood by everyone — even reporters, one could presume — that the terms male and female are used to describe pipe fittings. Again, he argues, the complementary nature of the sexes is so obvious that we even use the words male and female in other contexts. To say that he compared male and female genitalia to pipe fittings is to miss the point of his argument and make it seem less nuanced.
Either way, I’m not sure why that portion of the paper is so noteworthy. If it is noteworthy, it makes one pause — is it possible that the plumbing profession is suffering from heteronormativity? Is it a good thing that plumbers developed their vocabulary before political correctness took over? And how, exactly, would people who oppose Holsinger on this point recommend we rename pipes?
Jake Tapper’s article for ABC suffered from a horrible headline but his story was much better. First, the headline:
‘Homosexuality Isn’t Natural or Healthy’Bush’s Choice for Top Doc Compared Human Genitalia to Pipe Fittings and Said Homosexual Practices Can Cause Injury or Death
Only problem with the headline is that Holsinger neither said nor wrote the words that he’s quoted as saying. And we’ve already discussed the problem with the subhead.
Anyway, Tapper actually quoted in detail from the paper and showed some substantive responses to it under the heading “What Holsinger’s Paper Argues”:
Holsinger’s paper argued that male and female genitalia are complementary — so much so “that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other.” Body parts used for gay sex are not complementary, he wrote. “When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur.”
Holsinger wrote that “[a]natomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis” while the anus and rectum — which “contain no natural lubricating function” — are not. “The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage . . . can result if objects that are large, sharp or pointed are inserted into the rectum,” Holsinger wrote.
The explanation goes on for three more paragraphs or so. Precisely because summation of controversial issues doesn’t work well for reporters, Tapper handled this brilliantly. He explained difficult words, quoted directly and somewhat extensively from the paper and put it in context of the question the church was trying to answer. He also goes on to quote a number of people, such as the head of the Kinsey Institute, who surprisingly doesn’t agree with Holsinger. The head of the Kinsey Institute also accuses Holsinger of being political. Which is kind of funny.
It might have been good to get some quotes from neutral observers, less political observers or more religiously-oriented observers. To that end, I thought Vos at the Herald-Leader did a good job of putting Holsinger’s professional views — as opposed to his religious views as a Methodist — into focus:
Holsinger’s colleagues at the University of Kentucky were surprised to learn of the views expressed in the 1991 paper. They said his personal objections to homosexuality — if he had any — would not affect policy decisions as surgeon general.
They pointed to a 2002 incident in which Holsinger, then chancellor of the UK Medical Center, defended a session on lesbian health issues at a women’s health conference over the objection of two state senators. The senators threatened to withhold funding because of the 90-minute session.
Phyllis Nash, who organized the conference, said Holsinger did not have to be persuaded to defend the session. “He basically said we are obligated as individuals to meet the needs of everyone, regardless of orientation.”
At the time, Holsinger defended the session in a Herald-Leader article. “It’s important to educate health care professionals on the issues that surround lesbians,” he said. “It’s important professionals have the knowledge base to do care for these patients in a quality manner.”
It was this vignette that made the story particularly interesting for me. Not that we really know the extent of Holsinger’s personal views or religious views on homosexuality, but let’s say Holsinger has the view that his religious beliefs on this topic should have no bearing on his professional vocation. How does that compare with those Roman Catholic politicians such as John Kerry and Rudy Guiliani who support abortion rights despite their personal view that it is horrible? That it literally destroys an innocent human life? Do you see any differences in how the media treat this issue?
And which angles and approaches on this surgeon general story would you recommend?

Pittsburgh's Largest Presbyterian Church Votes to Split

An overwhelming majority of members at the largest church in the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Pittsburgh presbytery voted Sunday to split from the denomination and affiliate with a smaller Presbyterian group.
Mon, Jun. 04, 2007

An overwhelming majority of members at the largest church in the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Pittsburgh presbytery voted Sunday to split from the denomination and affiliate with a smaller Presbyterian group.
Over 1,200 people attend Memorial Park Church's Sunday worship service, and of 1,051 members who voted, 958 favored a request to seek dismissal from the PC(USA) over the denomination's departure from traditional doctrines concerning the Holy Trinity and the authority of the Bible. Dr. D. Dean Weaver, senior pastor of Memorial Park Church in Allison Park, Pa., said the members affirmed that it is time to "realign ourselves with other Presbyterians in our country and around the world who believe the same things we do and have the same passion for evangelism and for missions."Considering the unanimous vote, a formal request was made asking the Pittsburgh Presbytery to dismiss the church from the PC(USA) in order to join the conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)."We are saddened that Memorial Park members and leaders have elected to separate from the Presbyterian Church," James Mead, Pastor to Pittsburgh Presbytery, said in a statement. "However, we believe that wrestling with such painful issues is part of God's redemptive plan for the world. It is our prayer that as we move forward, our Christian love for each other will shine forth into our community as a witness to the risen Lord."For the 93 members who did not vote in favor of the split, Mead said the presbytery and the session will work together to provide pastoral care. Meanwhile, negotiations for church property ownership may begin this week.
Sunday's vote closely follows East Tennessee Presbytery's decision last Tuesday to approve the dismissal of Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church along with its property to EPC. Also the largest in its local presbytery, the 1,800-member church in Signal Mountain, Tenn., had voted 1,082-10 in January to request dismissal. Considering such an overwhelming majority vote to leave, an appointed administrative review committee said the church is not in schism and thus "with deep regret and sorrow" dismissed the church "with all its property, real or personal, without condition.”
Like many of the dissident churches, Signal Mountain Church experienced growing dissatisfaction with the PC(USA) - the largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States with 2.4 million members - over the past two decades, citing differences with the denomination over the recognition of the absolute Lordship of Jesus Christ and scriptural authority.
Despite the split, the administrative committee further allowed the church to retain the name "Signal Mountain Presbyterian Church." The church is currently in the process of being received into the Evangelical Presbyterian Church.Similarly, members at Memorial Park also reaffirmed their Presbyterian roots. "At Memorial Park, we will always be Presbyterian. We are a conservative, evangelical, missions-oriented Presbyterian Church,” said Jay Roy, a ruling elder and former president of the Pittsburgh Federal Home Loan Bank, in a statement. " Our motto is ‘preaching the unchanging Word to an ever-changing world.’ Without apology, we believe that the Bible is God’s infallible Word. We are unashamed when we proclaim that Jesus Christ is the only Way, Truth and Life.” The latest vote and dismissal comes weeks ahead of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church's 27th General Assembly, scheduled for June 20-23. The conservative body had invited congregations from the New Wineskins Association of Churches – a network of Presbyterians discontent with the PC(USA) – to create a non-geographic presbytery under the EPC where churches can realign. The EPC is comprised of some 180 churches representing 75,000 members in the United States.
Lillian Kwon Christian Post Reporter
http://www.christianpost.com/pages/print.htm?aid=27788

LCNA: Summary of synod assembly results, through May 22, 2007

Summary of synod assembly results, through May 22, 2007
MEMORIAL 1 (directing amendments to V&E, D&G, and reinstatement policy – PASSED BY EIGHT SYNODS: Sierra Pacific; South/Central Wisconsin; Southeastern Pennsylvania; Northeastern Minnesota; Rocky Mountain; Metro New York; Southwestern Washington; and Oregon.
MEMORIAL 1 – DEFEATED BY FOUR SYNODS: Eastern Washington-Idaho; Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana; Northwestern Ohio; Southwestern Texas.
MEMORIAL 2 (encouraging refraining) – PASSED BY TWO SYNODS: Rocky Mountain and Oregon.
MEMORIAL 2 – DEFEATED BY FOUR SYNODS: Southeastern Pennsylvania; Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana (combined with Mem. 3); Metro New York; Southwestern Texas.
MEMORIAL 3 (endorsing restraint) – PASSED BY THREE SYNODS: Southeastern Michigan (variant form); Rocky Mountain; and Oregon.
MEMORIAL 3 – DEFEATED BY SIX SYNODS: Southeastern Pennsylvania; Eastern Washington-Idaho; Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana (combined with Mem. 2); Florida-Bahamas; Metro New York (postponed indefinitely); Southwestern Texas.
MEMORIAL TO DELAY ACTION UNTILL 2009 – PASSED BY TWO SYNODS: Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana and Eastern North Dakota; (Northwestern Ohio passed "delay" only as a synodical resolution, not a memorial to the Churchwide Assembly).
MEMORIAL AGAINST BLESSING SAME-GENDER UNIONS – PASSED BY ONE SYNOD: Eastern North Dakota; (Southwestern Minnesota and Northwestern Ohio passed synodical resolutions against blessing unions, but not memorials to the Churchwide Assembly).
DID NOT CONSIDER MEMORIALS TO CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLY – SIX SYNODS: Arkansas-Oklahoma; Western Iowa; Southwestern Minnesota; Pacifica; Northern Great Lakes; North/West Lower Michigan.
A full one-third of all assemblies will occur in the weekend of May 31–June 4. Almost another one-third will occur the next week end, June 7–9.

Missing Body Parts!

May 18, 2007
Update on the "missing" project
We need your help. For several months you have received messages and seen Concord articles and web postings about the "missing" project. I want you to understand why LC/NA is supporting this project and how the statistics gathered will be used.
For LC/NA the purpose of the project is to gather statistical information on everyone who has been excluded from the ministry by Lutheran denominational policies precluding partnered LGBT people from rostered service.
LC/NA and our goodsoil partners will share this statistical information with the voting members of the ELCA at the Churchwide Assembly in August. While statistics can never convey the pain of each story, they attempt to quantify the degree of loss to the church, loss contrary to God's call. Our silence keeps our church blissfully in the dark.
Who is invited to participate:
If you ever considered the ministry and decided against it because of the policy of exclusion;
If you went to seminary and quit somewhere in the middle;
If you finished seminary but were never ordained;
If you were ordained or rostered as a lay professional and then left the ministry:
Through voluntary resignation;
Through forced resignation;
Through trial and removal;
Through denial of on leave from call status;
Through expiration of call;
Through expiration of on leave from call status;
If you left the Lutherans for greener pastures in a more welcoming denomination;
If you are rostered or pursuing roster status with the Extraordinary Candidacy Project.
If you are an ally and left the ministry or the denomination because of the policy.
You get the picture. We need all of you to answer, if these questions apply to you. Think hard about people you know who qualify for this study.
Please don't blow this off as another on line survey.
The instructions are simple: if you qualify send an email to missing@lcna.org. Pastor Vicki Pedersen, project researcher, will take it from there.
If you know people who qualify, have them email missing@lcna.org. Your confidentiality is assured as requested.
There are thousands of you out there who have stories to tell. God knows who you are. The church needs to know how many you are.
Please help.
Blessings,Emily EastwoodExecutive Director

Church to celebrate Brooklyn Pride Week

From the Metro NY Synod newsletter:

Church to celebrate Brooklyn Pride Week
St. John-St.Matthew-Emanuel, Brooklyn (Pr. David Parsons), will host an interfaith worship service on June 6, 7:30 p.m. in celebration of Brooklyn Pride Week. Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender persons, and their families and friends, are welcome to gather around the theme "Dwelling in God's House: the Lord is my Shepherd." Several choirs will sing, and light refreshments will be served in the Social Hall following worship. 718-768-0528, www.stjme.org, or www.brooklynpride.org

The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy

From First Things:
I’ll presume to call it Neuhaus’ Law, or at least one of his several laws: Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Some otherwise bright people have indicated their puzzlement with that axiom but it seems to me, well, axiomatic. Orthodoxy, no matter how politely expressed, suggests that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false, about things. When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others.
A well-mannered church can put up with a few orthodox eccentrics, and can even take pride in being so very inclusive. "Oh, poor Johnson thinks we’re all heretics," says the bishop, chuckling between sips of his sherry. The bishop is manifestly pleased that there is somebody, even if it is only poor old Johnson, who thinks he is so adventuresome as to be a heretic. And he is pleased with himself for keeping Johnson around to make him pleased with himself. If, however, Johnson’s views had the slightest chance of prevailing and thereby threatening the bishop’s general sense of security and well-being, well, then it would be an entirely different matter.

So it was that some church bodies muddled through for a long time with leaderships that trimmed doctrine to the dictates of academic fashion and popular prejudice (the two, more often than not, being the same) while permitting the orthodox option as a kindness to those so inclined, and as testimony to the "balance" so cherished by placeholders radically devoted to the middle way. It was not always an entirely unattractive accommodation. In religion, too, sensible people prefer to be neither fanatic nor wimp. Considering the alternatives, and if one has the choice, it is nice to try to be nice.

Non-optional Orthodoxy
But then what used to be called orthodoxy came up against a new orthodoxy. The new liberal orthodoxy of recent decades is hard and nasty; compared to it, the old orthodoxy was merely quaint. The old orthodoxy was like a dotty old uncle in the front parlor; the new orthodoxy is a rampaging harridan in the family room. The old orthodoxy claimed to speak for the past, which seemed harmless enough. The new orthodoxy claims to speak for the future and is therefore the bearer of imperatives that brook no opposition. The choice of a few to live in the past could be indulged when the future was thought to be open and undetermined. Tolerating the orthodox was also a way of playing it safe. You never know: maybe the ways of the past would come around again. But the old orthodoxy that is optional is proscribed by the new orthodoxy, which is never optional.

The easy-going liberal tolerance that long prevailed was at home with accommodating preferences but uneasy about the question of truth. Not that it denied that there is a truth about this or that, but, then, who was to say what that truth might be? When the question of truth is bracketed-that is, when it is denied in practice-one can choose to be tolerant of a splendid array of "truths." Or one might decide that there really is no truth that makes tolerance necessary, and choose another course. The alternative to the course of tolerance is the course of power. Tolerance suspends judgment; the will to power acknowledges no reason for restraint.

In some churches, the new orthodoxy is most aggressively manifest in feminist and homosexual (or, as it is said, "lesbigay") agitations. These, however, are but the more conspicuous eruptions that follow upon a determined denial of the normative truths espoused by an older orthodoxy. Proponents of the new orthodoxy will protest, with some justice, that they, too, are committed to normative truths. These truths, however, are not embodied in propositions, precedent, ecclesial authority, or, goodness knows, revelation. They are experiential truths expressing the truth of who we truly are-"we" being defined by sex, race, class, tribe, or identifying desire ("orientation").
Identity is Trumps
With the older orthodoxy it is possible to disagree, as in having an argument. Evidence, reason, and logic count, in principle at least. Not so with the new orthodoxy. Here disagreement is an intolerable personal affront. It is construed as a denial of others, of their experience of who they are. It is a blasphemous assault on that most high god, "My Identity." Truth-as-identity is not appealable beyond the assertion of identity. In this game, identity is trumps. An appeal to what St. Paul or Aquinas or Catherine of Sienna or a church council said cannot withstand the undeniable retort, "Yes, but they are not me!" People pack their truths into what Peter Berger has called group identity kits. The chief item in the kit, of course, is the claim to being oppressed.

Nobody denies that there are, for instance, women, blacks, American Indians, and homosexuals beyond number who do not subscribe to the identities assigned their respective groups. This, however, does not faze those in charge of packing and distributing identity kits. They explain that identity dissidents, people who do not accept the identities assigned them, are doubly victimized-victims of their oppressors and victims of a false consciousness that blinds them to the reality of their being oppressed. Alternatively, identity dissidents are declared to be traitors who have been suborned into collaboration with the deniers of who they are. The proponents of truth-as-identity catch the dissidents coming and going. They say their demand is only for "acceptance," leaving no doubt that acceptance means assent to what they know (as nobody else can know!) is essential to being true to their authentic selves. Not to assent is not to disagree; it is to deny their humanity, which, especially in churches credally committed to being nice, is not a nice thing to do.

This helps explain why questions such as quota-ized representation, women’s ordination, and homosexuality are so intractable. There is no common ground outside the experiential circles of identity by which truth is circularly defined. Conservatives huff and puff about the authority of Scripture and tradition, while moderates appeal to the way differences used to be accommodated in the early church (before ca. 1968), but all to no avail. Whatever the issue, the new orthodoxy will not give an inch, demanding acceptance and inclusiveness, which means rejection and exclusion of whatever or whomever questions their identity, meaning their right to believe, speak, and act as they will, for what they will do is what they must do if they are to be who they most truly are. "So you want me to agree with you in denying who I am?" By such reasoning, so to speak, the spineless are easily intimidated.

An Instructive Tale
Contentions between rival orthodoxies is an old story in the Church, and the battles that have been fought are riddled with ironies. An earlier round of the difficulties encountered by optional orthodoxy is nicely recounted by John Shelton Reed in a new book, Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism (Vanderbilt University Press). The Oxford Movement associated with John Henry Newman set out to restore to the Church of England an orthodox and catholic substance that it had presumably once possessed. By the middle of the 1840s, Newman and others came to the conclusion that the via media they had championed as an Anglican alternative to both Rome and Protestantism was in fact a "paper church," quite devoid of apostolic reality. After Newman and his companions left, the work of orthodox restoration was continued under the banner of "Ritualism" or "Anglo-Catholicism." It enjoyed the impressive leadership of such as John Keble and Edward Pusey, but in the public mind was more closely connected with sundry aesthetes and eccentrics for whom Anglo- Catholicism was, says Reed, a "countercultural" assault on the Victorian establishment.

It is a mark of the restorationists’ success that they were soon perceived as a serious threat by the bishops at their sherry, and by Englishmen of consequence (their wives tended to be more sympathetic) who resented any departure from the unapologetic Protestantism of the national religion. In 1874, unhappiness led to parliament passing the Public Worship Regulation Act, which landed a number of Anglo-Catholic clerics in jail for short stays. Checked by this establishment opposition, Reed notes that the ritualists did an about-face.
In their earlier restorationist mode, they had insisted that the entire church should conform to the normative orthodoxy that they claimed was constitutive of the Anglican tradition. By the 1870s, however, it had become evident that any steps toward uniformity would be at the expense of the Anglo-Catholics. Whereupon Anglo-Catholics became the foremost opponents of uniformity and enthusiastically championed ecclesiastical pluralism. All they were asking for, they said, was "tolerance and forbearance" for their way of being Anglican. In 1867, the Rev. Charles Walker was urging upon the Royal Commission on Ritual that peace could be found in the agreement "that the National Establishment embraces in its bosom two separate religions." Of course that appeal failed to carry the day, as is almost inevitably the case when previously tolerated options threaten the establishment.

Reed, an Episcopalian who teaches at the University of North Carolina, sums up the irony of Anglo-Catholicism: "A movement that originally championed orthodoxy had come to defend freedom; begun in opposition to religious liberalism, the movement now appealed to liberal values for its survival. Cardinal Manning, once an Anglo-Catholic clergyman himself, saw the irony, and maintained that ’Ritualism is private judgment in gorgeous raiment, wrought about with divers colors.’ He declared that ’every fringe in an elaborate cope worn without authority is only a distinct and separate act of private judgment; the more elaborate, the less Catholic; the nearer the imitation, the further from the submission of faith.’" Reed adds, "Although some denied it, Manning had a point."

Defending Enclaves
It took a long time for Anglo-Catholicism to be thoroughly routed, but the job seems now almost complete. Among Anglo-Catholics in this country, many have left for Rome or Constantinople, some have joined up with groups of "continuing Anglicanism," and a few are determined to make yet another valiant last stand, despite a long and depressing record of failed last stands. In England there is the peculiar spectacle of "flying bishops," a kind of parallel episcopate ministering to parishes that are no longer in communion with their own bishops. That is generally conceded to be a transient arrangement.
Within the Episcopal and other liberal church bodies, it is still possible, here and there, to defend parochial enclaves of orthodox teaching and catholic sensibility. But those who seek safe haven in such enclaves frequently suspect that Cardinal Manning was right: there is something deeply incoherent about sectarian catholicity. There are numerous groups in this country-Baptist, Missouri Lutheran, Reformed, Pentecostalist-that maintain their version of orthodoxy in a way that is not optional. Setting aside the theological merits of their orthodoxies, such groups are sociologically secure; in their world, they are the establishment, and to that world the new and nasty orthodoxy of truth- as-identity is not admitted. Some of us may think such immunity comes at too high a price. But for those to whom sectarianism is no vice, and may even be a virtue, such withdrawal and disengagement seems like no price at all.
The circumstance is very different for those Christians to whom it matters to be part of the Great Tradition. One thinks especially of Lutherans, Anglicans, and those Reformed who claim the heritage of John Nevin and Philip Schaff; all think of themselves as "evangelical catholics" in ecclesial bodies temporarily separated from upper case Catholicism and upper case Orthodoxy. Anglo-Catholicism was the most impressively institutionalized form of this self-understanding. But, whether in its Reformed, Lutheran, or Anglican expressions, movements of normative restoration were compelled to settle for being tolerated options, and now it seems even that is denied them.
Almost five hundred years after the sixteenth-century divisions, the realization grows that there is no via media. The realization grows that orthodoxy and catholicity can be underwritten only by Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Perhaps more than any other single factor, the influence of Anglo-Catholicism among Protestants obscured this reality for a long time. It is a considerable merit of John Shelton Reed’s Glorious Battle that it contributes to our understanding of why movements of catholic restoration, posited against the self- understanding of the communities they would renew, turn into an optional orthodoxy. A century later, an illiberal liberalism, much more unrelenting than the Victorian establishment, will no longer tolerate the option. It is very much like a law: Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.

Formerly gay examined

May 15, 2007

Formerly gay?
by Amy Johnson Frykholm

Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian Conversions in the Ex-Gay Movement
by Tanya Erzen
University of California Press, 293 pp., $19.95 paperback

Erzen offers some of the nuances that we miss when we are focused on black-and-white politics and the pronouncements of organizational spokespeople.
click here to buy from amazon.com

Be Not Deceived: The Sacred and Sexual Struggles of Gay and Ex-Gay Christian Men
by Michelle Wolkomir
Rutgers University Press, 225 pp., $23.95
Wolkomir's account is both compassionate and dispassionate, providing much vital material for challenging stereotypical assumptions.
click here to buy from amazon.com

In the aftermath of New Life Church pastor Ted Haggard's fall from grace amid allegations of gay sex and drug use, a subtle controversy emerged among conservative Christians.Three weeks after the Colorado Springs pastor left for an undisclosed treatment center to grapple with his sexuality, pastor Tim Ralph announced that Haggard had emerged from those meetings "completely heterosexual." Among those who questioned this pronouncement was Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, an umbrella organization for what is called the ex-gay movement. Chambers politely contended that Ralph had possibly misunderstood the dynamics of sexuality involved in the Haggard case. He was quick to caution that Haggard's story is not typical of people involved in ex-gay therapy and that "recovery" from homosexuality is a long process.The ex-gay movement is controversial and misunderstood. Essentially, ex-gay leaders argue that homosexuality is caused by a particular kind of home environment and that homosexuals can change their behavior with the help of therapy and through a relationship with Jesus Christ.Two recent books help make sense of the ex-gay movement and its complexities through careful research. Tanya Erzen wrote Straight to Jesus after spending a year at New Hope Ministry in California, a residential treatment program for men who hope to change their homosexual behavior. Erzen interviewed both participants and leaders, attended group meetings, worked in New Hope's office and helped design the ministry's Web site. Her book draws on a wealth of personal relationships.At the heart of Erzen's analysis is a point about ex-gay ministries that the media often miss: most ex-gay ministries are skeptical about their ability to "cure" homosexuality. While many people involved in these ministries have heterosexual marriage and biological children as their ultimate goal, and while they idealize heterosexual relationships, most ex-gay people find themselves part of a third category.Ex-gay people believe that they will still experience homosexual desire and maybe even occasionally "fall," but that through gradual religious conversion, sexual conversion can happen as well. "Sexual identity is malleable and changeable," Erzen writes, "because it is completely entwined with religious conversion." Religious conversion and sexual conversion are so linked that participants don't change their sexual orientation so much as commit to a life of "following Jesus." As one ex-gay woman put it, "First I considered myself a lesbian, then a woman who struggles with lesbianism; now I consider myself a woman of God."Erzen offers some of the nuances that we miss when we are focused on the black-and-white politics and the pronouncements of organizational spokespeople. One such nuance is that while heterosexual marriage and biological children are touted as the ideal by many in conservative Christian politics, ex-gay communities actually provide alternative family structures. Ex-gay people build networks of relationships within the ex-gay community, and these relationships provide the friendship, encouragement and spiritual support that many ex-gay people long for.Another important nuance is that a repeated pattern of "fall" and "redemption" is considered a normal part of the recovery process. People involved in ex-gay ministries accept accountability for such private parts of their lives as sexual fantasy, crushes and fleeting sexual feelings. While the media seem scandalized by the failings of ex-gay people, publishing reports of members being discovered in gay bars or returning to "the gay lifestyle," many ex-gay people take such happenings as part of the reality of their attempt at "recovery." Within the social and religious system to which they are committed, homosexuality is just one sin among others. They expect failings, confession and return as part of a lifelong process.Erzen not only makes possible a better understanding of the ideas that motivate the ex-gay movement, she also offers important portraits of ex-gay individuals. We meet a young man for whom New Hope provides an opportunity to explore his identity and eventually to choose to live as a gay man. "New Hope taught me how to think, how to look inside myself," he says. We meet a much older man, "Paul," who lived with the house leader "Hank" as his lover for many years. Paul calls New Hope his refuge and tells Erzen that he will die outside of the program. During the year that Erzen spends at New Hope, Paul goes to Ohio on a business trip, and news reaches the house of his death. These portraits give a compassionate picture of ex-gay people that could perhaps be attained in no other way than through engagement with their stories. Disagreements with New Hope's methods, ideology, theology and practice are complicated by an encounter with ex-gay people's experiences.The richness of Erzen's research is not matched in Michelle Wolkomir's Be Not Deceived, but the latter has a significant story to tell as well. Wolkomir documents the theological and practical methods of two men's Bible study groups. One group is a part of the Metropolitan Community Church and helps men to live as gay Christians. The other is an Exodus International group that tries to lead men out of homosexuality. Wolkomir is primarily focused on these more limited contexts, and she does not bring individual men's stories to life in the same way as Erzen.Her important contribution is to take us beyond the two groups' oppositional political positions. She underscores their common religious heritage, a version of Christianity that emphasizes personal salvation and the centrality of testimony. Both groups retrain men in their understanding of what it means to be a good Christian, and they direct participants' emotional lives in very focused directions—one toward openness and acceptance, the other toward a particular understanding of morality that includes falls and redemption. Moving between these two different perspectives helps to overcome the simplistic and divisive language that we often use to discuss homosexuality.Wolkomir also includes a fascinating chapter on the experiences of women whose husbands are involved in ex-gay ministries. She attempts to understand how these women make sense of their marriage, their religious commitment, and their husband's attraction to other men. Wolkomir's approach and her subsequent account are both compassionate and dispassionate, providing much vital material for challenging stereotypical assumptions.Books like Erzen's and Wolkomir's are increasingly important as Christians struggle with questions of sexual identity. They should be widely read by people who want to understand the political positions not only in the light of theological pronouncements, but also through the textures of individual lives and experiences.
Amy Johnson Frykholm, author of Rapture Culture, teaches at Colorado Mountain College.

Methodist bishops table proposed new gay stance

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

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

R.C. Sproul on homosexuality

http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=0&id=201

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.

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

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).

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.