Can Gays Raise Children?

A member at church clued me into this speech delivered by 19 year old Zach Wahls before the Iowa House of Representatives before it passed a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. I believe she told me that her daughter had the "misfortune" to testify after this speech. I am sure she did fine. But as I was just reading about it here I thought I would share this clip.

DADT Dead

It is finally done, thanks to Joe Lieberman, among others. With the military set to accept all without regard to sexual orientation, can the church be far behind? It will be interesting to see if this changes the conversation any, especially with God and country Christians. Including some who claim the COB label.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Undone by Judge

Judge Virginia Phillips, a federal district court judge sitting in California's central district in Riverside, ruled Tuesday that she will not reverse a decision she ordered last week barring the U.S. military from enforcing the 1993 law signed by President Clinton known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The Pentagon has told recruiters that for now they must comply. The Obama Administration says it will appeal. (Hopefully not with much gusto.) But once again an "activist" judge has moved the civil rights agenda forward. Thank God for activist judges who think that racial and sexual discrimination violate constitutional protections.

Mark Thompson at Time.com's political blog notes that Phillips was appointed by Clinton:

And that's just one of the strange twists about the coming collapse of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." While the ban was a compromise Clinton didn't want to make, it was a judge he appointed who apparently finally has undone it. And she did it in response to a lawsuit filed by a group calling itself the Log Cabin Republicans. Not only did Republicans file the suit that's likely to end in the law's demise, the organization itself was created following a successful 1978 effort by gay California conservatives to defeat a ban on gay teachers in the state's public schools. Their most important ally in that fight? A former governor named Ronald Reagan.

On the Letter of Deepest Concern

Folks at Open Circle are sometimes surprised to learn that a) we are out of step with our denomination on some of its official positions and b) that we are tolerated nonetheless. The good news here, at least from our perspective, is that we are not so hierarchically oriented that someone from the denomination can lower the boom on us in some way. And we have been through the wars in our Northern Plains District and the district has come around to at least tolerating the presence of congregations that are open and affirming on the "homosexual issue" as it is often referred to. In fact it is fair to say in our district that for the most part we are now fully welcomed.

But the denominational story is different. The denomination has taken a decidedly rightward turn over the last several decades. Many congregations and members have been heavily influenced by the evangelical backlash and by the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks that their members tune into on a daily basis.

Below is a copy of a letter sent by standing committee delegates of the Southern Pennsylvania District in response to the recent Annual Conference held at Pittsburgh, PA. The letter was approved by their District Board so it is fair to say it represent the sentiment of a majority of their district.

I have been advocating for some time among the progressive COB community that we stop attempting to win over the other side or even that elusive middle made up of congregations that are themselves divided over these issues. Instead of trying to change minds I think it would be more productive to make the case of freedom of conscience and a big tent denomination (admittedly something of an oxymoron in a denomination with membership rapidly declining to the size of some mega-churches)where congregation are free to follow their own consciences on matters that divide us while we work together on issue where we find agreement. The tone of this letter would seem to suggest that at least some of our conservative brothers and sisters don't see this as an option.

What I read in this letter is fear. In a healthy community having a child handed a rainbow scarf, which represent a different perspective, is a teaching moment not a cause for alarm. The same is true for listening to a sermon that you don't agree with. Over the years I have listened to lots of them at Annual Conference. It is what I would expect in a denomination that has a diversity of opinion.

I must say that I laughed out loud when I read the sentence that said "When I questioned Moderator Shawn about the message he said that Earle didn’t deliver the message that Shawn had asked him to." He didn't deliver the message that Shawn asked him to? What are we? North Korea? We are not, of course, or Earle who delivered the message would now be toiling away at a hard labor prison. But the idea that the moderator 'asks' a speaker to deliver a certain message or that a speaker is not free to preach what is on his or her heart and mind is completely antithetical to what the COB stands for. Or once stood for.

As the letter indicates we are now in the midst of listening sessions across our denomination on the issue of homosexuality. We will be hosting one of them in our district on October 23. I don't expect any minds to be changed by this exercise. Given the rapid decline of our denomination's membership I would like to think that we can agree to a truce and a big tent approach that makes room for diversity. So we can all focus on reaching out to our wider communities with what is the best of the COB. My prediction, though is that nothing will change. Conservatives will remain adamant that their truth is the only truth and liberals will continue to want to keep talking. And we will continue to lose glbt pastors and members who choose to be part of welcoming communities. (My dissatisfaction with fellow liberals in our denomination is much greater on this issue). And all the while our denominational decline will continue unabated.

A denominational split would be a much better option than the status quo. The letter mentioned above follows.

Southern Pennsylvania District Church of the Brethren

Standing Committee Delegates: Larry M. Dentler & John A. Shelly

(letter was approved & affirmed by the Southern Pennsylvania District of the Church of the Brethren District Board, meeting at Upton Church of the Brethren, July 24, 2010)

August 9, 2010

To: Annual Conference Office
2010 Annual Conference Officers
2010 Program & Arrangements Committee

Letter of Deepest Concern

Dear Sisters & Brothers,

As Standing Committee delegates for Southern Pennsylvania District we are writing this letter following 2010 Annual Conference. The decision to write this Letter of Deepest Concern comes after discussions with many of our constituents from Southern Pennsylvania District who attended Annual Conference in Pittsburgh. We write in humility for we know that Annual Conference involves a mind boggling myriad of details to care for. There is much about Annual Conference that we affirm and applaud as being inspirational, well planned, and exciting. But this year we come home with some very deep concern that was not just expressed by one or two but by many of those who attended Annual Conference from our District.

1) The 10 year old granddaughter of one of our families was in the exhibit hall. Persons at the Womaen’s Caucus booth gave her a rainbow scarf and told her, “You should wear this.” The little girl went back to her grandmother‘with a lot of confusion. This was very distressing for the family. Annual Conference should be a safe place for children, not a place where other persons’ controversial viewpoints are thrust upon them. Since this booth this year seemed to be singular in focus — handing out scarves to support homosexual acceptance – we believe that Womaen’s Caucus should either be denied further exhibit space or placed on a probationary status stating clearly that they were in violation of #2, #3, and #6 of “Expectations of Exhibitors” (2010 Annual Conference Booklet, pp.52,53) this year, and any future disregard for Program & Arrangements Policy will result in future denial of exhibit space.
———————–
p.2

2) The “rolling BMC booth” was present again this year. This seems to laugh in the face of the decisions of Program & Arrangements and Annual Conference policy. This seems to us to reflect a total disregard for the authority of church leadership. Persons find the in-­your-face nature of the “rolling booth” to be embarrassing. We understand that we stress “no-force,” but we have also stressed respect for leadership. Something must be done!

3) When new fellowships and churches were welcomed we were introduced to Common Spirit in Minnesota. In only slightly shrouded language it was made clear that this is a congregation with a main focus on acceptance of homosexuality, in direct violation of the 1983 policy. We understand that new fellowships and congregations are acknowledged as part of District responsibility, but many delegates from our District felt that they were manipulated at this moment in Annual Conference. There was no time given to ask questions, and only a vote on accepting all four at once. These procedures lead to a gnawing, growing, festering belief that Conference officers are not being forthright and honest with the delegate body, and that we are being “set up.” I can’t tell you how many times we as our District’s Standing Committee delegates heard this kind of discontent and skepticism. Trust is eroding.

4) The moment causing the greatest concern for us was the sermon of Brother Earle Fike in Monday evening worship. Perhaps you noticed as we did that many persons left the convention center with tears. Others with faces gripped in anger. Have no doubt, this message will be noted as a milestone in the record of the debate before us. Anyone with conservative viewpoint on the human sexuality issue left feeling beat up and bruised. We affirm Brother Earle’s right to his viewpoint, but this message came across more as a “lobbying speech” than a message from God’s Word. This is especially true since, as many have noted, Earle completely ignored the fact that what brought acceptance was Zacchaeus’ repentance. This message came after we had been told repeatedly by the Conference Officers that there would be no speeches on this issue this year!

When I questioned Moderator Shawn about the message he said that Earle didn’t deliver the message that Shawn had asked him to. He also said that Annual Conference Director Chris had informed him,
———————————-
p. 3

upon receiving Earle’s manuscript, that “it was going to be controversial.” Why then was there not some intervention? This 30 minute “moment” did great harm to the unity of the Body, great harm to the spirit of the Annual Conference, caused further brokenness and division at a very moment when we are trying to encourage people to listen to each other!

Again, please hear us affirm that Brother Earle certainly has a right to his viewpoint. But to use the message time during worship for this one-sided “lobbying speech” with no chance for rebuttal or discourse, not only showed very poor taste by Earle, but extremely poor leadership by those who might have intervened, and was in reality ‘out of order’ in keeping with the Special Response Process before us, and as one District Executive noted, may well have been in violation of the Ministerial “Code Of Ethics” (Ethics in Ministry Relations – 1996, pp.AC80.5-7).

In our minds a very sincere public apology is in order from those in leadership to the Body of the Church. This did great damage, very likely even hindering the Special Response Hearing process which is just before us.

Let us conclude by saying once again that we celebrate and affirm all the hard work by many faithful servants to make Annual Conference the wonderful “family reunion” that it is. Our love for you as our leaders, and our love for our Church compels us to share these concerns at this tenuous moment in our history when the rumblings of division rattle around us. Please understand that we would be remiss in fulfilling our responsibility as our District’s Standing Committee delegates if we did not share our concern.

Your brothers & servants in Jesus’ love,

Larry M. Dentler
Bermudian Church of the Brethren, 279 Bermudian Church RD, East Berlin, PA 17316 / office ph: 717- 292-1861

John A. Shelly
7535 Talhe1m RD, Chambers g, PA 17202/ph: 717-375-2510

The Beginning of the End

For opponents of gay marriage. The significance of today's ruling by the California Federal Appeals Court that Prop 8 was unconstitutional is not only that it is what supporters of gay marriage like me hoped for, but more importantly that it was decided by a judge appointed by Ronald Reagan and argued jointly on behalf of the plaintiffs by noted conservative and liberal attorneys. This puts a lie to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins who said after the ruling that "far Left" was "using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box." What liberal court would that be?

This case will likely make its way to the Supreme Court, and everybody knows the current Court leans far right, but it is difficult to imagine the swing votes on this court siding with social conservatives. Getting the constitutionality of gay marriage into the federal courts is the best thing that could have happened. It is very much reminiscent of past courts striking down discriminatory laws in the civil rights era.

Religious communities will continue to be able to choose to not marry gays and lesbians, which is their wrong choice but protected right. But eventually they will no longer be able to legislate their view of morality on the rest of us. I am very much looking forward to the day when I can officially officiate at gay weddings.

Jennifer Knapp Comes Out

Via Andrew Sullivan I see this Christianity Today interview with singer Jennifer Knapp:

Traveling alone or with your partner?
Knapp: With my partner.
Have you been with the same partner for a long time?
Knapp: About eight years, but I don't want to get into that. For whatever reason the rumor mill [about me being gay] has persisted for so long, I wanted to acknowledge; I don't want to come off as somebody who's shirking the truth in my life. At the same time, I'm intensely private. Even if I were married to a man and had six children, it would be my personal choice to not get that kind of conversation rolling.
I understand. But I'm curious: Were you struggling with same-sex attraction when writing your first three albums? Those songs are so confessional, clearly coming from a place of a person who knows her need for grace and mercy.
Knapp: To be honest, it never occurred to me while writing those songs. I wasn't seeking out a same-sex relationship during that time.
During my college years, I received some admonishment about some relationships I'd had with women. Some people said, "You might want to renegotiate that," even though those relationships weren't sexual. Hindsight being 20/20, I guess it makes sense. But if you remove the social problem that homosexuality brings to the church—and the debate as to whether or not it should be called a "struggle," because there are proponents on both sides—you remove the notion that I am living my life with a great deal of joy. It never occurred to me that I was in something that should be labeled as a "struggle." The struggle I've had has been with the church, acknowledging me as a human being, trying to live the spiritual life that I've been called to, in whatever ramshackled, broken, frustrated way that I've always approached my faith. I still consider my hope to be a whole human being, to be a person of love and grace. So it's difficult for me to say that I've struggled within myself, because I haven't. I've struggled with other people. I've struggled with what that means in my own faith. I have struggled with how that perception of me will affect the way I feel about myself.

I am struck by the persistent questions about her relationship with her partner and wonder if she would get the same kinds of questions if she was straight. But more than that I really like Jennifer Knapp's response that she has been living her life with joy and being gay isn't a struggle for her; or it wouldn't be if the church of Jesus acted like Jesus and welcomed her for the person she is.

"He Cannot Turn Himself into a Heterosexual"

Via Andrew Sullivan:

"With Gareth coming out publicly and our divorce being finalized in the New Year, I feel a chapter is closing and, although I feel sad and wish it could be different, it's for the best. This is who Gareth is and it is something which cannot be changed, but it has been so hard coming to terms with that... He will always love me, but he cannot turn himself into a heterosexual. If he could, I would still be married to him. We will always be the best of friends and I couldn't feel prouder of him than I do now," - Jenna Thomas, former wife of Gareth Thomas, the Welsh rugby player who came out last week.

In 2005, Thomas captained Wales to their first Grand Slam victory since 1978 and was capped 100 times for his nation - more than any other Welshman in a country where rugby is a civil religion.

Spong's Done Arguing About Homosexuality

I haven't read anything by John Shelby Spong recently not because I find him disagreeable but because I don't really think he has said anything knew in a while. But a friend sent me Spong's recent email posting and I found it interesting:

I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy...

I make these statements because it is time to move on. The battle is over. The victory has been won. There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of this struggle will be. Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us. Homosexual marriages will become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church...

Spong deserves enormous credit for the pioneering leadership he provided on this issue. Long before mainstream Christianity had joined the battle for glbt equality Spong was up to his keisters in the struggle. So it is good to hear him say that the battle has been won.

Is he right? Is the battle over? I think it is. I stopped arguing with conservatives about this issue several years ago for the same reason. The final outcome is no longer in doubt and I see no purpose in arguing with the "flat-earthers" who can't seem to see that they are making the same kind of arguments once made by Christians who defended slavery. Whatever the Bible may say about homosexuality, followers of Jesus should be welcoming homosexuals with open arms and celebrating their out, open, and married presence in the church.

It's one of the (but not the only) reasons I don't do denomination stuff anymore. We are still fighting the battle there and all the while the denomination dies. And the conservatives don't care; they are going to take the ship down. So be it. I have more than enough to do welcoming those wounded by these church wars and figuring out together how we move forward and live into a new and liberating vision of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

So bully for Spong!

Evangelical Christian Changes Mind on Homosexuality

Evangelical Christian Brent Childers explains in Newsweek how he changed his mind on homosexuality:

So what it is that would bring someone from a place where he once declared himself a "Jesse Helms Republican," a man who condemned homosexuality as a threat to children and society, told his own son that being gay is a ticket to hell, to travel from Hickory, N.C., to the West Lawn of the Capitol building on Oct. 11, 2009? How can one travel from the seemingly impossible road of bigotry to one of acceptance and love for our LGBT brothers and sisters? The answer is one that I hope religious leaders such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson (and most importantly, their followers) will hear.

It's because something deep inside told me that I needed to step out in faith onto a bridge of knowledge and understanding. I didn't know where this bridge would take me but something was telling me it was a path I needed to walk. My own mother challenged me in 2003 to look at my beliefs and the true intent behind the teachings I held in blind faith. "Do you think your views are Christ-like?" she asked me. Her question was dead on: once I walked away from the Church's teachings of rejection and condemnation, my relationship with God transcended to a higher spiritual plateau. I realized an unparalleled sense of spiritual clarity when I opened my heart and mind to a genuine expression of love, compassion, and acceptance of all sexual orientations and gender identities.

This new voice—Christ's voice—became the core principles of my faith: love, compassion, and respect. That voice I now realize was desperately wanting to be heard, a voice no longer comfortable with the place in which I had chose to confine it for so long—a place of bigotry, prejudice, fear, and misunderstanding.

Childers has left the SBC and is now worshiping with Pentecostals and at a non-denominational church.

Tornado a Sign from God

Tornado sirens went off yesterday around the metro area as heavy rains and thunderstorms rolled through the area spawning a few small tornadoes along the way. One touched down in downtown Minneapolis near where Lutherans (ELCA) are gathered for their annual assembly. They, like most of our denominations, are having divisive conversations about homosexuality. Yesterday, as the storms were swirling they voted to accept the validity of same-sex relationships that are "chaste, monogamous and lifelong." This sets up a vote, expected Friday, on a proposal to repeal a ban on gay and lesbian ministers from leading churches unless they promise to be celibate.

Could these tornadoes have been a message from God? Via Drew Tatusko I see that John Piper, pastor of preaching at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, has said God sent these tornadoes as a warning to the Lutherans. A gentle warning, thankfully:

The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

It is worth noting that the tornado did not hit the convention center where the Lutherans are meeting. It did do some damage to a Lutheran Church steeple but most of the damage was done to homes in the area of the church. Thankfully no one was seriously injured.

Unless the homeowners were all ELCA members apparently God saw fit to punish innocent neighbors and homeowners. Or else God missed.

I am wrapping up a message series this week on the biblical view of suffering. There is certainly plenty of evidence from the scriptures, particularly the prophets, that one view of why suffering comes to us is that God is angry and sends armies and storms as punishment or warning. In this view God sometimes wipes out entire populations including lots of innocent people. So Piper isn't saying anything that can't be supported by biblical passages.

That doesn't make him right, though. For one thing there are other biblical responses to the question of why suffering happens, including some that suggest that bad things sometimes happen to good or innocent people and it isn't God's fault or their fault or anyone's fault. For another, we don't live inside that biblical worldview anymore. We know too much about storms and weather and how it works. It isn't a mystery left to be explained by God. This doesn't mean there aren't weather surprises; the tornadoes yesterday were quite surprising considering the relatively cool temperatures. But God isn't behind the surprises. The explainable forces of nature are.

Pastors who say the kinds of things Piper said about this storm are using a fear-based form of religion to maintain their authority with their congregation. If they can keep their people just scared enough to worry that God might be coming after them next if they don't behave then they can also keep them in the pews.

I know that many people are raised in this kind of fear-based religious environment and it works for them. I understand. But I do not have the same kind of understanding for educated pastors like John Piper who feed and nourish this kind of thinking. It is just wrong.

Gay Rights and the Faithful

Rod Dreher wants supporters of gay marriage rights to be upfront about the fact that this unfolding legal reality is going to impinge on the rights of religious people who oppose gay marriage:

It's coming. And you may be one of those people who thinks this is a good thing, a just result. If so, then defend that -- just don't pretend that there won't be big sacrifices required of the faithful. When an Orthodox Jewish university is compelled by the state to allow same-sex couples access to married student housing, that's a very big deal.

The faithful? I have same sex couple in my congregation who have been in faithful committed relations with each other for years and faithful Christians and members of a church for many years as well. Some of the faithful have been making big sacrifices for many years.

Through My Eyes

A new movie where young gay Christians tell their story. Here is the trailer:

ELCA on Gay Clergy

This seems like a sensible solution:

An ELCA task force admitted Thursday that it could not reach a consensus on the issue that has polarized its members for years. But with the matter expected to dominate this summer's national convention in Minneapolis, its position paper offers this suggested solution:

The ELCA will allow the ordination of gay pastors but will leave it up to individual congregations and synods whether to ordain or appoint pastors. The term used to describe this compromise is "structured flexibility."

While acknowledging that such an intentionally vague policy probably won't play well with "the bumper sticker crowd," the bishop of the St. Paul Area Synod, the Rev. Peter Rogness, said it reflects the ELCA's practice of trying to match ministers to congregations. He compared it to a rural congregation feeling that it would rather call a minister with a rural background, for instance.

This is the way the COB ought to go.

I wasn't too keen on President-elect Obama asking Rick Warren to offer the invocation at the inauguration, but I have held my nose thinking that Warren was at least an improvement over the Falwell types. Apparently I was wrong. Here, according to Christianity Today blog, is what Warren wrote some conservative leaders in the Anglican community:

... [The Episcopal Church has] already considered me an adversary after partnering on projects with Kolini, Orumbi, and Nzimbi, and writing the TIME bio on Akinola.

But since last summer... I’ve been on Gene Robinson and other’s attack list for my position on gay marriage. ....[Our] brothers and sisters here at St. James in Newport Beach lost their California State Supreme Court case to keep their property.

We stand in solidarity with them, and with all orthodox, evangelical Anglicans. I offer the campus of Saddleback Church to any Anglican congregation who need a place to meet, or if you want to plant a new congregation in south Orange County.

You would think that Warren would at least have the good sense avoid rubbing salt in wounds before the inauguration.

The Newsweek Kerfluffle

I haven't commented yet on the recent cover-story Newsweek article that is causing so much stir among those who blog and write about religion. Over at Beliefnet, Tony Jones provides a good rundown of the varied responses. The Newsweek article by Lisa Miller signals a changing focus for Newsweek, as it moves intentionally to become more of a partisan opinion magazine. Hence, article is italicized since Miller's piece isn't really reporting; it's commentary.

This change is signaled by Newsweek editor Jon Meacham who essentially says in his defense of Miller: "bring it on." I guess time will tell whether this strategy will work for Newsweek. It certainly has lit up the blogosphere.

I was intrigued by the response of Darrell Bock to Meacham's piece. Bock is Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Bock tells us in his blog post that he wants to tackle the substance of this comment by Meacham:

Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice—a matter of behavior—but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color. The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals. This argument from Scripture is difficult to take seriously—though many, many people do—since the passages in question are part and parcel of texts that, with equal ferocity, forbid particular haircuts. The Devil, as Shakespeare once noted, can cite Scripture for his purpose, and the texts have been ready sources for those seeking to promote anti-Semitism and limit the human rights of women, among other things that few people in the first decade of the 21st century would think reasonable.

Bock responds:

By lumping the issue of slavery, sexuality and gender into parallels with race and gender, not to mention hair cuts, he suggests that just reading the Bible at the surface is not good enough. This linkage is not new and evangelicals have noted the hermeneutical questions tied to it for some time. In 2001, William Webb wrote Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals with an eye directly on this supposed equation (and overgeneralization). He argued that these three issues are not handled nor are they to be read as being hermeneutically equivalent because of the manner each issue is handled within Scripture. Yes, some have handled them the same, but a careful reading shows that the grounding for slavery did not appeal to the same types of arguments as discussions did on the role of women and homosexuality. Even more, by far the strongest arguments and statements are made about homosexuality in comparison to the topics of either slavery or women.

I haven't read Webb's book so I can't comment on it. But to Bock's statement that the strongest arguments and statements are made about homosexuality, I would simply respond that this may be true and they may still be wrong. Shouting louder or holding the strongest convictions does not make one right. It remains the case the Biblical writers did not know what we know about sexual orientation. "Exchanging natural relations for unnatural" implies a choice. Homosexual orientation is not a choice.

It is worth noting that Bock does not directly address his views on the issue of sexual orientation here. In fact, it appears that Bock doesn't want to go down this road at all. He seems to say that sexual orientation as we understand it is not even addressed in the Bible:

I am not sure if Meacham’s starting point reflects a Judeo-Christian religious case beginning point or a modern starting point. Where is the case that from a Judeo-Christian perspective sexual orientation is intrinsic to a person’s makeup? Where is the religious text that says this?

The Bible, Bock says, addresses the issue of sexuality in terms of its functional role in a divinely ordered society where male and female are created in order to make a family. The biblical writers are concerned with survival of the species. What is the best environment for raising children?

The desire to pursue a virtuous society, which I think is a goal all good people should have, should not play favorites in dealing with questions where virtue may be distorted or lacking. And that is precisely the debate that needs to take place in our treatment of this issue. We should be concerned not merely with what makes for freedom, but what societal structures make for a more healthy society, and for a beneficial environment for our children.

Is the starting point for this discussion one that simply says that sexual orientation is a given for all who welcome this route for sexual orientation, or is this discussion far more complex, with this appeal being too facile. Why not suggest another starting point? That the divinely created world is filled with the intended diversity of male and female, which in combination makes up humanity in the image of God. So this cooperation is part of what God intended by marriage, since the core marriage text of Scripture does speak of a man and a woman being brought together. Surely if God exists and speaks (something that is a given within the Judeo-Christian tradition), he could have made it more clear that gender does not matter when it comes to marriage—and there is no such text anywhere...

Regarding the goal of creating a healthy society for adults and children I couldn't agree more. That is what we all want. So, show me the evidence that gay marriage is unhealthy for society or that raising children in homes where there are two fathers or two mothers harms the children. David Brooks has made this argument more than once. If the goal is to provide a healthy social fabric for adults and for children, then we should be embracing, in fact, insisting on gay marriage.

Regarding Bock's comment that surely God "could have been more clear" if gender didn't matter in marriage, the obvious response would seem to be that surely God could also have been more clear if God didn't think slavery was such a hot idea. Why did it take Christians nearly two thousand years to figure out that slavery and racial discrimination is not part of God's intent for the way we treat one another? Was God unsure? Were we still in an experimental phase when the Bible was written? Was God playing favorites then? No slavery for the Israelites but it wasn't such a big deal in the rest of society? Surely God could have been more clear about this rather important human issue if slavery is the great moral evil we all know it to be today.

Bock makes it clear, like many evangelicals, that he doesn't appreciate the link liberals often make between biblical writings on slavery and on homosexuality. So, why is it that liberal Christians like me always want to link the slavery issue with homosexuality when we talk about Bible texts? Because everyone agrees today that slavery is immoral. There is no debate. But there is also no debating the fact that the Bible isn't very good on the issue of slavery. There is no blanket condemnation of slavery; in one form or another it was part of the fabric of life in the ancient world. And slavery is one issue where the New Testament doesn't correct the Old Testament. Jesus doesn't speak to it and Paul accepts it as a continuing reality in Roman society.

The Bible writers, including Paul, were wrong on the issue of slavery. It is perfectly clear to us today that slavery is not part of God's will for us. It is perfectly clear that on this great moral issue the Biblical writers were caught in their historical context. To understand the Bible on the issue of slavery you have to read it in its historical context. You can say that God's intent was clear. In fact it was signaled very early in the story of Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt. "Let my people go." But the biblical writers were never able to clearly see and say that when God said this God meant all of God's people.

So learning to read the Bible on slavery is a non-threatening (for us) object lesson on the skills we need to bring to bear when we engage in biblical interpretation. But once you go down this road with a moral issue like slavery, you realize that you also need to go down the same road with moral issues like homosexuality and the status of women in church and society. If the biblical writers could be wrong about slavery, and it took Christians so long to figure it out, could they also have been wrong about homosexuality? About women? The answer is yes.

Richard Rodriguez on Prop 8

Author Richard Rodriguez is a regular contributor on NPR. Rodriguez is Hispanic, Catholic, and gay. He talks to Salon about what is behind the pro-Prop 8 movement:

American families are under a great deal of stress. The divorce rate isn't declining, it's increasing. And the majority of American women are now living alone. We are raising children in America without fathers. I think of Michael Phelps at the Olympics with his mother in the stands. His father was completely absent. He was negligible; no one refers to him, no one noticed his absence.

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.

Monotheistic religions feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the insistence, in many communities, that women take a bigger role in the church. At the same time that women are claiming more responsibility for their religious life, they are also moving out of traditional roles as wife and mother. This is why abortion is so threatening to many religious people -- it represents some rejection of the traditional role of mother.

In such a world, we need to identify the relationship between feminism and homosexuality. These movements began, in some sense, to achieve visibility alongside one another. I know a lot of black churches take offense when gay activists say that the gay movement is somehow analogous to the black civil rights movement. And while there is some relationship between the persecution of gays and the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, I think the true analogy is to the women's movement. What we represent as gays in America is an alternative to the traditional male-structured society. The possibility that we can form ourselves sexually -- even form our sense of what a sex is -- sets us apart from the traditional roles we were given by our fathers.

Rodriquez on how his only family reacted to his sexual orientation:

In my own my family, and my parents were not well educated, it would have been impossible for them to have dealt with the words "gay" or "homosexual" in my relationship with them. But there was no way for them to reject me either. I was a member of the family and I couldn't sin my way out of it.

Once my partner became part of my life, he became part of their life too. They didn't want it said, they didn't want it named or defined, but they assumed it and accepted it. At family events, when my partner wasn't there, my mother would get on the phone and call him and insist he come over.

These communities have very intricate ways of dealing with these things and they are not necessarily the highly politicized tactics that you see in traditional middle-class society in America.

I have not been to a Mexican family without some suspicion of homosexuality in children or grandchildren. But people deal with it within the larger context of family. That's why I suspect the revolution will come not from the male church but from how women treat their children, and whether or not women are willing to reject their children. I don't think they are. I saw too many times during the AIDS epidemic that when death came and the disease took its toll, if one parent was there, it was almost always the mother and not the father. That bond is so powerful.

On the feminization of God:

Well, I'm working right now in the Middle East on monotheistic religions because I'm very worried about the direction of religion. Ever since Sept. 11, when I heard that prayer being spoken at the moment the planes hit the World Trade Centers, I realized how much darkness there is in religion compared to how much light there is. I am very much concerned with whether or not these religions can be feminized.

The desert religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are male religions. Their perception is that God is a male god and Allah is a male god. If the male is allowed to hold onto the power of God, then I think we are in terrible shape. I think what's coming out of Colorado Springs right now, with people like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, is either the last or continuing gasp of a male hierarchy in religion. That's what's at stake. And women have a determining role to play. Are they going to go along with this, or are they going to challenge the order?

The Bible, Racism, and Homosexuality

GetReligion takes note of the changes underway in some conservative religious institutions in regards to their understanding of reading cultural mores into the Bible. At Bob Jones University:

The private fundamentalist Christian school that was founded in 1927 said its rules on race were shaped by culture instead of the Bible, according to a statement posted Thursday on the university’s Web site.

The university in northwestern South Carolina, with about 5,000 students, didn’t begin admitting black students until nearly 20 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling found public segregated schools were unconstitutional.

“We failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful,” the statement said.

From Furnam University:

Vaughn CroweTipton, Furman University chaplain, said there has been a long debate about whether the Bible condones slavery or discrimination. Most communities, he said, have decided biblical references to slavery were a reflection of contemporary culture.

“We can say ‘No, that was for them and not for us,’” CroweTipton said. Scholars and the faithful, CroweTipton said, are having a similar debate about the role of women in society. “We struggle to understand which of the texts we read are culturally bound.”

The school had used the Bible to justify discrimination in the past, such as in a 1998 letter to a writer who questioned the school’s ban on interracial dating. Then, school officials noted that God had created oceans to keep men apart, as well as ethnic, cultural and language barriers.

Little by little the circle of God's love becomes more open. For this we can be grateful. Is it not painfully obvious that the biblical passages that talk about homosexuality need to be seen in the same light? There is more biblical justification for slavery in the Bible than there is condemnation of homosexuality. Both views reflected cultural understandings of the day.

Conservative Christians can admit cultural biases regarding slavery and racism today. Thankfully. Let's pray for the day when they "get it" about homosexuality. Sometimes it just amazes me that they don't see the connection.

They Are Coming to Your Town

The American Family Association has a new video out:

Residents of the small Arkansas town of Eureka Springs noticed the homosexual community was growing. But they felt no threat. They went about their business as usual. Then, one day, they woke up to discover that their beloved Eureka Springs, a community which was known far and wide as a center for Christian entertainment--had changed. The City Council had been taken over by a small group of homosexual activists.

The Eureka Springs they knew is gone. It is now a national hub for homosexuals. Eureka Springs is becoming the San Francisco of Arkansas. The story of how this happened is told in the new AFA DVD “They’re Coming To Your Town.”

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

It's in Our Nature to Be Intolerant

Here is Craig Alan Myers of the BRF explaining why conservative Christians won't fully accept gays:

Put aside, for the moment, the double-speak of believing that homosexuality is a sin, and allowing–or forbearing–it openly. One of the whole obstacles to liberals understanding conservatives in the church is that liberals want conservatives to act like good liberals. They want us to accept liberal presuppositions. One of those presuppositions is inclusiveness. Conservatives do want to be as inclusive as the New Testament, but we also understand there are some exclusionary principles as well. For example, those who do not trust Christ do not go to Heaven, based on John 14:6. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 also speak of those who formerly practiced gross sins, and would not have entered the presence of God if they remained in their sins, and now have been saved from those sins.

Liberals have tolerated conservatives–and you might want to check how much conservatives have been tolerated (it may not be really as much as you believe)–because it is a liberal value to be inclusive. To exclude us would go against a liberal core value, and be perceived as “intolerant.”

Apparently it is a conservative core value to be intolerant.

Trial Update from Pittsburgh

The Rev. Janet Edwards is being tried by the Presbyterian judicial system for performing gay wedding. Here is the update of the first day of the trial yesterday from the More Light website...

Trial Update: Marriage Performed By Rev. Edwards Is Within the Bounds of Scripture and Tradition

Wednesday, October 01 2008 @ 03:44 PM
This was the message of the first day of Rev. Janet Edwards' trial here in Pittsburgh. PJC member Joan Henderson said in her opening prayer, "We pray for church leaders with the courage of prophets, the empathy of priests, and the persistence of pilgrims." Apt words for a leader like Janet.

The charges against Rev. Edwards allege that she both violated Scripture and acted in defiance of the Constitution. The charges cite eight Biblical passages that she allegedly violated, although they provide no context.

The proceedings opened with motions by the prosecution to close the proceedings to the public, and to postpone the proceedings until a later time. Both were denied by the PJC. The prosecution also asked to be able to present most of their witnesses tomorrow, and so the day was given over mostly to questioning of the witnesses for Dr. Edwards, with only very minimal cross-examination by the prosecution.

First, witness John Matta, former stated clerk of Pittsburgh Presbytery, gave some background about a conversation he had with Rev. Edwards about a hypothetical same-sex wedding ceremony. Witnesses Dr. Deborah Krause (Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament and Dead, Eden Theological Seminary) and Heather Reichgott (doctoral student, Graduate Theological Union) discussed how such a ceremony would not violate Scripture and in fact falls well within the scope of Reformed interpretation of Scripture. Witness Rev. Dr. Christopher Elwood (Professor of Historical Theology, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary) discussed how such a ceremony would be well within Reformed church tradition, although Reformed church tradition also includes many who might disagree. Witness Judge Justin Johnson took issue with the incomplete nature of the charges and the lack of evidence presented by the prosecution thus far. Johnson, a veteran of PJCs and secular courts, emphasized that in order to convict Rev. Edwards, the prosecution must demonstrate both what she did, and the mandatory provision that she violated. (W-4.9001 is a definition, not a mandatory provision). Johnson also provided some background information about the 1991 authoritative interpretation of W-4.9001, the Bush decision, the Benton decision, and the Spahr decision.

A room full of supporters seated at round tables watched the proceedings peacefully and in good humor, a fitting background for Rev. Edwards' gentle attitude toward the trial.

(Note: Any errors in the summary above are entirely our own and are unintentional, but this is the precis of today's events as we understand them so far. The PA system at the Priory wasn't working very well for the first portion of the proceedings, and it was very difficult to hear. Stay tuned for further updates!)