(Here is an article reposted by Good News Magazine). See what you think. BW3
Outsider influence over homosexuality at General Conference
By Karen Booth
In 1989, Hunter Madsen and the late Marshall Kirk published a groundbreaking book entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s. The book offered step-by-step instructions for winning the war to normalize homosexuality in America as well as tips for overcoming the greatest obstacle: Christian faith communities with biblical teachings about human sexuality and marriage. Since that time gay rights activists have increasingly focused on eliminating or weakening traditional Christian moral teaching, beginning with the more theologically liberal and moderate denominations.
Activists within The United Methodist Church got started long before After the Ball was published, and they have played prominent roles ever since. In 1972 a handful of gay men lobbied the General Conference delegates for full inclusion and acceptance. When the statement that “homosexual practice” is “incompatible with Christian teaching” was adopted instead, the men responded by launching the first United Methodist advocacy group: the United Methodist Gay Caucus, which later was renamed Affirmation. After the 1984 General Conference banned the ordination of sexually active homosexuals, Affirmation leaders spun off a grass roots advocacy program called Reconciling Congregations, which was also later renamed the Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN). Affirmation, RMN, and the longer-established Methodist Federation for Social Action currently lobby together as the Common Witness Coalition to promote the acceptance of monogamous homosexual behavior, the ordination of sexually active homosexuals, and the celebration of same-sex unions.
Similar pro-gay caucuses sprang up throughout the mainline denominations in the early 1980s, and the groups quickly realized they could be more effective by working together. At first they interacted informally as “the welcoming church movement.” But a few decades later six of the denominational networks, including those within The United Methodist Church, incorporated a non-profit organization called the Institute for Welcoming Resources (IWR). In 2006 the IWR became an official program department of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the oldest and one of the most influential of the secular gay rights groups.
Since the turn of the millennium, other national faith-based organizations have also joined forces with the United Methodist pro-gay caucuses. A group called Soulforce has helped to coordinate their onsite “witness” at large United Methodist gatherings—clergy trials, General Conferences, and Judicial Council hearings. Under Soulforce’s influence the 2000 General Conference degenerated from fairly civil legislative give-and-take to a hyper-dramatic confrontation that resulted in multiple arrests. Though Soulforce has toned down its tactics considerably since that time, its practice of public bullying continues unabated.
The Director of a group called The Religious Institute, Debra Haffner, has worked with denominational officials to develop policies regarding sexual harassment, contributed articles to the General Board of Church and Society’s “Sex and the Church” online education series, and spoken to groups of UM teens. Haffner is a former CEO of the Sexuality Education and Information Council of the United States (SIECUS), an organization that promulgates radical notions of “sexual justice and liberation” based on the work of the notorious Alfred Kinsey.
The last group, Faith in America, trains homosexual Christians and their supporters to share stories about the personal and social harm that results from anti-gay religious bigotry—convincing listeners that intrinsic and unchosen homosexuality is morally neutral and laying a subtle guilt-trip on those who still harbor traditional moral beliefs. Though Faith in America doesn’t exert as much of a direct influence on the denomination, it maintains a strong connection through its co-founder, defrocked United Methodist clergyman, Jimmy Creech.
Secular gay rights groups were initially reluctant to heed Madsen and Kirk’s advice. Many of their supporters had parted company with organized religion because of the stigma and rejection they had experienced and they were initially skeptical of attempts to team up with people of faith. But once they recognized the value of mutual cooperation, vast amounts of their talent and treasure were committed to the effort to morally remake the Church.
The aforementioned National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was the first to get involved. In the late 1990s it developed the National Religious Leadership Roundtable, an ecumenical and interfaith “think tank” that promoted the public witness of gay-friendly religious communities and fostered alliances between them and other secular gay rights groups. All of the United Methodist pro-gay caucuses were Roundtable founding members.
In 2006 the Roundtable released its first joint research project: a landmark study entitled David v. Goliath. More than half of the report focused on pro-gay caucuses in the Protestant mainline churches—“the backbone of American religion.” If these denominations could be won over to the pro-gay cause, “it would … be a tremendous moral victory for the LGBT community,” said the report. Three of the denominations (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church U.S.A, and The United Methodist Church) were singled out for special attention specifically because of their denominational decision-making processes. Because their legislative gatherings were essentially democratic in nature, they were more susceptible to pro-gay advocacy than other autocratic or autonomous Christian bodies. Because they were conducted on a church-wide basis, greater numbers of people, including those that lived internationally, could be reached. So their general assemblies and conferences were identified as the best settings to introduce and foster proposals for theological and moral revision.
David V. Goliath also challenged secular activists to recognize the political advantages of working with people of faith and to support their new friends with intellectual, political, and financial resources. In 2005 the Human Rights Campaign (the largest national group with over one million members) harkened to the call, starting its “Religion and Faith” Program with the help of a former United Methodist student pastor named Harry Knox. Committed to influencing the “moveable middle,” the Program’s most recent focus has been Hispanic believers. A comprehensive pro-gay resource entitled A La Familia was written and edited by retired United Methodist pastor Ignacio Castuera and Iliff Seminary Professor Miguel De La Torre.
Around the same time, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) also began its “Religion, Faith and Values” program. It was founded by J. Ann Craig, who served on staff of the Women’s Division of the Board of Global Ministries for over 15 years. Under her direction, GLAAD taught media skills to the lesbian couple that sued the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association and to two transgendered pastors who “came out” to the denomination: Drew Phoenix and David Weekley.
On Valentine’s Day 2010 all of the previously mentioned organizations cooperatively launched the Believe Out Loud Campaign in order to reach the 41 percent of surveyed mainline clergy who were still in “the moveable middle.” In other words, these pastors favor full inclusion but have not yet taken action. The Reconciling Ministries Network coordinates the United Methodist portion, which may have been the pilot project for the campaign. According to its online training manual, 500 Reconciling trained advocates “told their stories” to 250 of the United States delegates to the 2008 General Conference. Strategy for the upcoming General Conference has focused on coalition building on the Annual and Jurisdictional Conference levels.
Funding
Everything described above has required colossal amounts of money. Most of it has been donated by three major funding institutions that have strong commitments to gay rights: the Arcus Foundation, the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, and the E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Foundation. (Records of their annual giving are easily accessible online, either reported on the organizational website or as part of their IRS 990 forms.) In just four years (2007 to 2010) Arcus alone contributed over $20 million to hundreds of pro-gay “religion and values” initiatives. Almost half of them targeted the Global South, one of the last strongholds of traditional Christian morality.
United Methodist advocates received $850,000, with about 90 percent of that going to the Reconciling Ministries Network. In addition, RMN was also co-beneficiary of a $350,000 grant to a public relations firm that helped them with communications and “branding.”
The Hass Fund was only slightly less generous, giving a third of its $30 million pro-gay grants to faith-based “allies.” The bulk of that—$9.2 million—was aimed at mainline denominations, though individual advocacy caucuses received only a small piece of the pie. However, United Methodist groups did get a slightly bigger slice, possibly because the Fund’s “Gay and Lesbian Program” is led by a United Methodist layman, Randall Miller. The Reconciling Ministry Network acquired $230,000 for their programs, and Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco received $50,000 for its community outreach.
Finally, though the Carpenter Foundation has given the smallest amounts to individual United Methodist advocacy groups ($40,000 to Reconciling Ministries), its $3 million in grants for theological education is bound to have a substantial long-term effect. Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville and Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley both have Carpenter-funded Gay and Lesbian Studies Programs; and one of the most recent programs at Brite Divinity School in Fort Worth will be lead by United Methodist pastor, Joretta Marshall. All three seminaries are approved by the United Methodist University Senate.
Of the three mainline denominations specifically targeted in the David V. Goliath report, only The United Methodist Church has managed to hold the line on traditional moral teaching. But leaders from the Reconciling movement have gone on record predicting that the 2012 General Conference will finally reward them with long-awaited victory. At the very least, they expect compromise legislation to be passed that would enact policies stating United Methodist are “not of one mind” about homosexuality. For Lutherans and Presbyterians, that was the first step toward the downhill slide to full inclusion.
In order to prevent that, morally traditional General Conference 2012 delegates will have to be winsome and outspoken witnesses to the biblical truth about sexuality. Moderate delegates, some of whom may be stuck in the gray area of the “moveable middle,” need to realize that compromise has not served us well for the last 40 years and could very well destroy us in the long run. And all the delegates, even those who are liberal or progressive, should express outrage over the non-Methodist and non-Christian “outsider” influence and money that have been manipulating our system.
We in The United Methodist Church cannot afford to tolerate that kind of unscrupulous interference, and we must not allow it to sway us to overturn two millennia of Christian moral teaching on a cultural whim. If we do, then perhaps we are no longer the Church that Christ founded and for which he died.
Karen Booth is a United Methodist clergywoman and the director of Transforming Congregations. This article is adapted from several chapters in her forthcoming book Forgetting How to Blush: United Methodism’s Compromise with the Sexual Revolution. It will be released by Bristol House Publishers in the spring of 2012.
Given that you start with “likely”, it’s quite possible that you are incorrect. Indeed, I would argue “quite probably”. But even if only “possibly”, then there is not reason to expect that others should be persuaded, or to expect that they should agree with you. There are very persuasive arguments that many of your points are wrong.
I don’t agree that Israel’s God only bears a “vague resemblance”, but more importantly polygamy is not analogous to homosexuality vis a vis how the God deals with sexuality as revealed by his inspired scripture.
Polygamy is not a good analogy and does not evidence a changing standpoint of God toward sexual ethics. The creation story is about a one man – one woman complementary couple where each completes what is lacking in the other. There is no indication that additional women would be able to meet this more fully, nor is polygamy even envisioned.
Second, the Biblical narratives do not have God commanding or approving polygamy. He regulates an existing practice, but like divorce it appears to be regulated because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites (i.e., if they are going to do it anyway, it should be regulated).
Third, the Biblical narratives constantly demonstrate how polygamous relationships and families are problematic and dysfunctional.
Fourth, marriage and faithfulness in marriage is constantly portrayed as reflective and symbolic and participatory in God’s marriage to his people. There is only one God for Israel and only one people for Him. Multiple gods are indicative of unfaithfulness.
Fifth, Jesus reiterates the two person requirement and holds that up as the creation mandate. Moreover, he makes the requirement even more strict than it was culturally at that time by his negative comments about divorce.
In contrast, same sex unions are always presented negatively in Scripture, and the prohibitions against them are never relaxed. And this is true even though the Israelites existed in a cultural context where same-sex unions were permitted in some of those cultures.
Homosexuality is not like male pattern baldness at all. Firstly, it has no genetic component (there appears to be a biological component(s) but it is not genetic in nature), whereas baldness does. Secondly, it is connected to adverse impacts on individuals and societies, whereas baldness is not.
Finally, it is a non sequitur, absurd even, to suggest that a behaviour should be allowed simply because the individual is a good citizen. The same could be said about paedophiles, who are good citizens but for their choice of sex partners.Yes, there are issues of consent, etc., with paedophilia that make it different from homosexuality, but my focus is solely on the absurdity of the good citizen argument.
regards,
John
I see and appreciate that you are refining your arguments as you go along, and I’m pleased that you continue to participate in the discussion.
Morality does not depend exclusively or even mostly on whether the alleged immoral actions are destructive.
More importantly, however, the issue is whether acting on one’s homosexual desires or orientation by way of intimate union separates one from God. If so, then the most loving thing one can do is to point this out, stand firm on the position, and do all that one can to restore the other to fellowship with God.
This is analogous to the approach that one must take in training and disciplining a child. One must do what the child does not like (in the immediate term) in order that the child benefits in the long term and from a teleological perspective.
regards,
John
No, but thank you. I learn a lot by participating in blogs–both from them and from myself as I am forced to think about my position and then refine my reasons or change my position. I also learn how to dialogue more peacefully and appreciatively (though I do not always achieve that goal).
I particularly like BW3′s blog because of the range of topics he addresses, his irenic style, and his strong argumentation.
regards,
John
What’s the relevance of the speck / plank argument teleologically? A speck separates humans from God just as much as a plank. Neither Jesus nor the apostles imply that we allow sin in others just because we sin ourselves. And “whether homosexuality is sin” is the issue, not how we are to approach homosexuals or deal with them given that we sin, too.
It is not discriminatory within the church to deal with sin as sin. It is no solution to the issue to pronounce a sin as good in God’s sight if it is not. Outside the church, in the public square, we must deal with homosexuality differently. For example, we do not allow a committed Hindu or Wiccan to be a pastor, but we do not make it illegal or criminal to be one in America.
regards,
John
Though your comment is directed at BW3, I believe that the question you pose to Jesus is not, and would not have been, in his ballpark. Jesus would have put all homosexuality on the other side of the line of morally acceptable, regardless of whether or what kind of love was involved.
John
You’re right, we (evangelical methodists) do have a good record in regard to justice, particularly in comparison to other evangelicals. If gay people are denied the same rights they have by law, that is a justice issue. Should it be called marriage? No. It’s disingenuous and hypocritical to use this article and not note where Good News’ bread is buttered. Outside forces are involved there, as well.
Ben, I agree completely, Heterosexual-monogamous relationship is the gold standard. It’s really a question of the inordinate emphasis placed on homosexuality and sin. Is sin a laundry list of behaviors, as in Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 or the Mosaic Law? In these passages Is Paul referring to Heaven, as in life after death, or is he talking about the blessings of the Kingdom, as the rule and reign of God in the hearts of men—here on earth as it is in Heaven.
My inclination is to believe that he is reflecting first, earthly kingdom and secondarily the after-life. I don’t believe that Paul is intending these as a series of absolute truth statements, but is attempting to correct the many excesses of what were primarily gentile Christians in Corinth. This included morally repugnant behavior as well as Charismatic excess, which he refers to as “evil and childish”. They are intended as general admonitions regarding attitude and behavior. Not apocalyptic proclamations or a new law carved in stone.
Inevitably this always gets back to the idea of sin as an inventory of behaviors, as opposed to where we are in relation to Christ. In him there is no sin, outside of relationship with the Father, through the Son, we are simply unrepentant sinners. Sin, in the Hebrew Bible, the same Bible used by Jesus and Paul was primarily understood as rebellion against God. For virtually all of the Prophets, Isaiah, Hosea, Jeremiah, Elijah …etc., the cause of Israel’s bondage was the sin of idolatry—bondage as in, the very literal bondage to Egypt, Babylon, Persia and Rome.
The Kingdom of God as understood by 1st century Jews was Israel, the people of God; Jerusalem was the city of God, and the Temple of Solomon was the house of God. The Biblical tradition of the 3rd Heaven was vaguely defined as the place where God lived, beyond the firmament that covered the earth. Their concept of Messiah is as a deliverer who will rescue them from their bondage, delivering them from the consequence of their sin, driving out the Romans and reestablishing Israel to its rightful place.
This was, I believe, the language of the early Jesus movement, redefined in broader terms—the Kingdom eventually coming to mean the whole of creation and salvation meaning deliverance from the sin of rebellion and the life-destroying corruption that followed. Christians began to redefine this idea yet again as Christianity became an increasingly gentile religion, as opposed to what it was in its first forty years, which was essentially a Jewish movement. The Book of Acts records this change in a compressed form.
The Kingdom of God after the first century, through Augustine and the Reformation began to be understood as primarily about the after-life. Sin will keep you out of Heaven and God will be forced to send your immortal soul somewhere, that somewhere being Hell. After all, didn’t Jesus talk about Hell a lot, a subject left largely untouched in the Hebrew Bible? Most of what Jesus says about “Hell” is derived from Greek thought, as in, Hades, Gehennah, Tartaurus and is adapted by the Jews, probably as the result of the conquest of Alexander the Great. This important variable is generally left out of the debate.
The Apocalyptic and symbolic nature of the Book of Revelations should disqualify it as a literal text. If I’m correct, the focus needs to be shifted from the afterlife back to the Kingdom of God, with the afterlife as the end, and the kingdom on earth as the means.
Should America be promoting the Homosexual lifestyle? That is a political debate, and scripture should be left out of it—and Government should likewise stop promoting private behavior either way. Government has enough on its plate, most of which it does very poorly. Such is the nature of monopolies. We don’t need Government to move into our bedrooms as well. America is a Republican form of Democracy, not a theocracy. The government should stay out of the marriage business, it is a private issue between free people, and those rights are inalienable, not given by politicians. After all, if men could be made righteous by keeping the law, by all means give us more laws. I don’t however; believe that was Jesus’ intent. Christians likewise have every right to choose who they will include and who they won’t, based upon their own beliefs.
We have an obligation to understand what the Bible is, how it actually came into being, and the very real human process involved. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t the word of God only that with enough study and insight it may be a good deal more difficult to determine what that actually means than we are prone to believe. And in the face of that kind of difficulty, a little mercy and humility would be a good thing.
Regarding John’s response, I never said that polygamy was Biblically mandated. Nor did I intend it as an analogy. Only that it was widely accepted by the Patriarchal figures—and that according to fundamentalist teaching regarding the Bible, these men had unique relationships with God. They were able to speak the word of God in such a way as to perfectly capture God’s exact meaning. In spite of this, they seemed incapable of getting the one man, one woman thing down—which brings into question how literally we should read these texts. If you can say, “the Lord say, thus says the Lord” with authority regarding pooping in the camp during war, which Moses does, then it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to deal with polygamy.
If God created an original man and woman, and they were the root of all humanity, incest would have to be a necessary part of the growth of human populations. Does this mean that God mandated incest? This is only a problem if Genesis is read as a literal history. One that would be replete with talking snakes and fruit that had the properties of life and death and Cherubs with flaming swords. If it is allegorical, then we must look beyond the symbolism to find the texts real intent.
When I say that something is likely or probably true, I’m only stating the obvious, meaning that time and distance, to say nothing of vast cultural changes are impacting Jewish life, and make it difficult to know what was really intended. That doesn’t mean probably, as in wrong, only that we don’t really know.
As to differences between the “Old Testament God” and the New; Israel didn’t start as a monotheistic people, the idea of monotheism evolves over time and is a very simple example of an evolving tradition. It is likewise difficult to reconcile, “kill every living thing”, with, “Those who live by the sword will die by it”. Moses and the Prophets are a shadow, meaning they are amorphous, without shape and form. Why should it be starling to find that these shadows or types are very different than God as he’s finally revealed?
As to whether male pattern baldness is genetic or biological; if your father is bald, you are more likely to be as well—these traits are passed on through the generations. I was however; referring to these ideas in the context of a free culture—and neither of these things is the business of government. They are personal matters. A little history regarding the founding Fathers, the root of their thinking, and the Constitution might be in order. This includes “what people should be allowed to do” as you put it. Refer to the previously mentioned concept of inalienable rights as needed.
As to the functionality of Homosexuality in society or it’s relation to Pedophiles, I think your response speaks for itself.
Greece and Rome were among the most enlightened and advanced cultures of their time—and had enormous impact on Jewish life, including the language of the Gospels, and the philosophical thinking of Paul and other New Testament writers. They also paved the roads, built the bridges and kept the peace, enabling the Gospel to be spread. Their wisdom was also absolutely fundamental in the evolution of later enlightenment thinking, including the American Revolution. And one more thing, they were very comfortable with Homosexuality.
I have written more extensively for “Weekly Sothern Arts” on similar subjects. Here are a couple of links if you are interested. They might provide a bit more clarity. For now, I’m through. Or as Stan Lee used to say, “nuff said”!
http://www.weeklysouthernarts.com/the-battle-science-vs-religion.html
http://www.weeklysouthernarts.com/the-gospel-according-to-mark.html
http://www.weeklysouthernarts.com/the-case-of-the-infinite-monkeys.html
Mark
Zman each issue needs to stand on its own merits, and not be judged by who is or isn’t supporting or funding a particular view. The issue must be decided on first principles. What is disingenuous is using the excuse ‘outside money is supporting this cause, therefore…’ and thus failing to deal with the real issues.
Thanks. See you in Hell, brother.
Jesuitical prat much?
Your intent is stated as an invitation, but your long long long long ramp-up is, essentially, justification of your opinion/judgment. For which we thank you. When God reveals more to you, please continue to share. The stuff about “the agenda” set me chuckling. And “coupling” when you’re conflating carnal with spiritual matters- masterful. So much nicer than using the “F-gerund word.” Right down to the gutter. I’d say it IS a “reject.”
OK. Good. Your “ham raped Noah” story is an interesting spin; it’s often interpreted as “castration,” but . . . whatever floats your anti-gay boat. And it’s responsible for the strife in the Middle East that continues until today? Centuries later? BIG stuff.
Speaking of which, your “I will not judge anyone , straight or gay, . . . ” is sheerest BS. You DO judge, which is God’s job. So, we’ll be seeing you in Hell, as well.
Over here, “fear the queer” is a perennial fund-raising favorite for churches. This supplies tons of dosh for “religious freedom” shell organizations to meddle busily in federal, state, and local politics. Why, anti-LGBT equality funding is approaching the gross product of some of our states – providing excellent opportunities in the technical, writing, and acting fields (as well as for lobbyists on both sides).
“The homos” are virtually a cottage industry (yes, UK pun intended) in keeping neighborhood property values up, as well as employing additional operators at TeleVangeli$t organizations (with attendant salutary effect on the economy).
Especially that “serial unrepentant sin” (presumably, “coupling”). Uh-huh.
Reed you are really on a rant aren’t you, and the sad part is, you don’t know much about the complexity of the church in America or how different religious groups in America approach the difficulty issues of human sexuality. It might be useful for you to do more reading and reassure before you ascend into your bully pulpit. There is an important difference between critiquing some part of a person’s behavior, and condemning them to outer darkness, which, as you rightly say, is a job for God alone. When Jesus says judge not, he is not suggesting giving up proper moral critiquing of our own and others behaviors. Indeed, Jesus models such critiquing in numerous places.
Wait a sec . . . this whole article is some WOMAN’s opinion? Some female? With all of the Paulist cant? And the “winsome” approach? Now that is an interesting little twist of the knife.
You’re really clueless as to how toxic your lofty pronouncements might be, aren’t you?
“TOE-ing” the line. As in a police or military line-up. Not “TOW-ing,” as if pulling in a scow.
And thank you (sincerely, actually) for supplying the “As Augustine described, we can love the sinner and hate the sin” information. I NEVER knew that HE was the source of that notion. I’d often heard it attributed to God, or Jesus, or the Bible.
I reiterate. I do not just people. I will judge actions. And I will state my opinion based on my understanding of the scriptures. It is not something I take lightly because I am aware of my own sinfulness. You appear to call it judgment because you do not share my opinions. That’s okay. That does not mean that I will condemn you or argue that you deserve to go to hell. I have no idea. And even if I did know you well enough to say that, it is still not my job to judge. And so I won’t. If you ask me to ordain a self-avowed practicing homosexual, I will refuse. I believe that is contrary to scripture. It does not mean that I hate a person. There have been a number of times that I voted against ordaining someone. To the best of my knowledge that vote was neve based on the sexual orientation of the individual. And to the best of my knowledge, I never hated a person that I was voting against. I just did not believe that they should be ordained. (preaching, leadership, theology, etc was lacking.) Again, I believe the scriptures speak against homosexuality. You are entitled to your opinion. I just think your opinion is wrong, not hateful. Although telling me that you think I should go to hell does sound a bit hateful and judgmental to me. That’s my opinion
There was a mistake in the first line. I meant to say I do not judge people. That was my error. I know I am not perfect. I apologize for that mistake.
Someone in the (many!) comments might have mentioned this already, but it appears to me that those wishing to debate on this blog the morality or immorality of homosexual behavior have missed the point of the original article. You could substitute any other issue for homosexuality and still have the same question: is it appropriate for outside money to influence the inner workings of a covenant community like the United Methodist Church?
On a side note: I find the argument from silence regarding Jesus and homosexuality a breathtaking exegetical stretch. As I understand it, those who wish to legitimate homosexual behavior argue: “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Therefore, Jesus didn’t think it was important.” Well, if that’s the logic, then Jesus must not have considered many things immoral, including any kind of abortion, rape, slavery or slave-trading, excessive interest, etc. Maybe I’m missing something in this line of thought, but it sounds incredibly simplistic.
Once again, fair enough. Just don’t see how this article does that in any way: it’s title is “Outsider influence over homosexuality at General Conference”. You don’t have to convince me, I’m on the traditional side with this one!
You lie. You DO judge people, like it or not. But, you are correct. It is NOT your job. Consider that while you’re i9ndulging your Bibliolatry. Nor did I say that you should GO to Hell. I said that I’d be seeing you there. Prat.
Thanks for apologizing for the mistake of not being perfect. At least you acknowledge THAT, which is a lovely step toward reality and off down from your high horse. Now, if you could eliminate the lying about not judging, which you clearly DO (and take actions on those judgments involving your opinions as to others’ fithness for ministry), you might have a worthy focus for Lent.
Gagnon’s website has a great deal of material:
http://www.robgagnon.net/Index.html
Your use of “homophobia” is too broad and too pejorative to be useful. By your definition, homophobia is wrong and morally inferior, and homophobia includes all opposition to homosexuality. Where can any dialogue go from there?
Those who believe it is wrong are open to discussing why they believe it’s wrong, and what should be done both in the church and in the public square in relation to homosexuality. Those positions, though contrary to your own, do have open doors to dialogue.
“Homophobia” is not a way to move forward in dialogue and understanding, but is merely a rhetorical tool, and a power play, used as a weapon to shut down the other side and portray them as demogogues. The use of “homophobic” is, in all instances where I’ve seen or heard it, is a deliberate refusal to separate positions from persons. Thus the rehtorical volley is not about whether an argument or reason or fact or policy is right or wrong, but “you are a bad person and morally deficient”. And, because you are a bad person I do not need to listen to you or pay any attention to you at all. In fact, I have the right to shut you down because of your immorality.
Do some Christians shut down or hate homosexuals? Sure, but how is the wrong behaviour of some a justification for similar action? Do some homosexuals engage in dialogue? Sure, but they avoid calling the other side homophobic.
regards,
John
John from Toronto, I have stated elsewhere in this thread that I agree using that term unnecessarily gets peoples panties in a bunch. So I am not going to use it any more.
It seems to me that non-gay people react with such vengeance and vigor to inroads by gays that there is much more going on than simply saying that they are committing a sin and must be excluded because of it. We all know that each of us are going to continue to sin, every day. Every day. Why is sin from heterosexuals better than that from gay persons? I simply do not understand the argument.
What I have heard on this thread is that people say that committing homosexual acts is a sin and unless they are repentant they are not allowed to be in communion. But what about the bully who continually exerts his power over people to get his way? Is that not even worse? What about the guy who secretly lusts after women he meets. Is he better? Or the Pastor that purposefully excludes certain people because the Lord made them the way they are? Is that not infinitely worse?
I am simply asking people to try and understand why they have a visceral reaction to the homosexual issue and try to think what a more loving approach would be.
There is no doubt about it that men and women are the natural way, that is obvious. But does it mean that we should ruin the lives of those who are born unnaturally? What would you do with a hermaphrodite? Must they be celibate?
I am 50 years old, have 3 kids and know many people. It is obvious when there is something more than the surface arguments going on and I say that is what is happening on this issue.
Methinks ye protests too much (too Ben too).
Shalom
All are sinners. Nevertheless, some sin is, obviously, worse than others, either in its personal impacts or inter-personal impacts.
So, yes all sin needs to be dealt with. How do we deal with it? How do we restore sinners? That is a necessary dialogue. It’s certainly not true that all conservative church members simply want to kick the gays out.
John
“inroads by gays ”
What does that even mean?
If, as is evident from the current status of dialogue, the position of Christ’s body that homosexuality is sin continues to be true, then what follows?
Do we not have to do the same as with murder, adultery, theft, violence, fornication, lying, etc.? That is, oppose inroads by sin into our body? Note that I said “sin” and not “sinners”. Just as we do not have to promote murder as an acceptable way of life, but oppose it because it is sin, so also we do not have to promote homosexuality as an acceptable mode of life in Christ’s body.
It is a fact of this fallen world that sin negatively impacts everyone, even if it is not “fair”. What of those born anencephalic? Or with Down’s Syndrome? Or those who are afflicted by paedophilia–which we all would acknowledge is sin–and which condition is considered by many leading psychologists to be one that is to a large part biological and not amenable to treatment. Do we acquiesce to that just because those that suffer from it suffer from it unfairly and not by choice?
Factors such as you cite are facts of the natural world, and what is in nature simply “is” and so cannot logically give rise to ethics and morality. Do we sanction something as OK simply because it exists? No, we look to God to obtain our perspective on the world around us.
The church has, by and large, failed the homosexual community, but that failure cannot be used by those in that community as an excuse to maintain a lifestyle that falls outside of what God declares good.
John
John from Toronto, Don’t you feel that there is a very big difference in our responsibility when it comes to sins that we (or in this case, you) feel someone is committing before god but not against anyone around here? There is a very big difference between sins that hurt others and ones that we simply think hurts the individual. Being gay is not like alcoholism, pornography, lying, cheat, stealing, murder or most any other activity that you would call sin. It is something strictly between them and god, nothing to do with you.
Additionally, your interpretation of scriptures may be wrong. Yes, I feel Jesus teachings and actions showing acceptance and support for sinners to be greater than the thin teachings against homosexuality.
So, if I were to use your logic, I would be forced to not allow you are anyone like you in positions of responsibility in the church because you are sinning against god. As a matter of fact, your sin is not only potentially much worse than someone who is gay, because you are actively doing harm to others, but I feel it is definitely worse than the potential sin a gay person is committing.
I pray for your soul to stop this insanity.
I want to voice my appreciation for Ben for allowing me to argue, and learn to argue, the issues that I have on this page. I probably stepped over the line a bit now and then, but I have not engaged in this debate before and I am feeling out what is taboo (ha!) and what is not.
Ben, I am open to living within your rules in your house and appreciate your feedback rather than censorship in our dialog.
Dave
You’re actually not following or using my logic, but that is beside the point of whether homosexuality is sin. If it is sin, and the church throughout history and still today believes that is, then it must be dealt with as sin.
On the other hand, there is no Biblical sin with respect to disagreeing about morality, or with respect to disagreeing on appropriate church discipline.
I would also point out that homosexuality is very much like all the sins you point out: we have an inherent sin nature and a proclivity to do all those sins, we have that nature through no fault of our own, we are unable to resist on our own the impulses that we have to do those sins and continue to have difficulties during our sanctification, the sins all require forgiveness which is freely given by God, and all the sins require a response by our fellow members of Christ’s body.
Why is it insane to take a different position from you? Especially where my position is the historical and current position of the church? Calling my position “insanity” departs from diologue and resorts to ad hominem name calling.
John, my insanity comment relates to all the ways that gay people are tormented in our society. They are bullied and abused and that is the insanity that I am referring to. People who contribute to putting these folks down contribute to the punishment they endure. While what you are doing is not insane, it is contributing to the insanity.
If my appeals to the Holy Spirit working in side you do not soften your heart then I give up.
Don’t you know that we must be more righteous than the Pharisees? They too had time and teaching on their side, but some saw the light and others did not. We have to decide based on a complex world, not wooden rules. If your sole basis for this is your view of an inerrent bible then you may have even more work to do. The bible is not innerrent. It does not stand up to that type of examination.
I have to end this now, again, and you can have the last writing, but I cannot see how someone can read the bible and then think that Jesus would be OK in not allowing for exceptions based on the variety of biology we have in people. They did not know what we know now. These people are not being gay to get the jollies (though I suppose some do but those are not who I am talking about), these are people created by God to be homosexual.
1 Corinthians 6:Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.
I’m not sure how “far down the list” our sexual ethics are. It seems to me that Paul thought it was a big deal. It probably isn’t a good idea to put one sin over another, I agree that prejudice and pride are massively destructive. I differ in the “minor wrong” category.
I agree there is too much harshness in these debates and in how we treat one another.
If anyone is still listening, I am wondering if those of you who are against gays (please don’t nit pick that language), would you still be so if the bible did not say anything negative about it?
Here is an interesting study. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/what-s-the-matter-little-brothersister-action
Would you object to a little brother/sister action too?
I’d be curious to hear the theological reasoning behind the statement that “Christ died for the Church.” Thanks.
“Activism trumps theology.” Please. Church activism has its roots in theology, whatever it is that the activism is working for. Your theology drives your activism, my theology drives my activism. We are both Christians struggling to live out in the world God’s will and God’s loving redemption through Christ as best we can. Neither the Lord nor the Church is served by dismissing those with whom we disagree as non-theological, non-religious, or non-Christian.
I have not been following the discussion here much (waaay to much information for me to digest with my limited time), but this post caught my eye. FWIW, and not intended as being a polemical intrusion on my part, since the above post asks about opinions of homosexuality separate from Biblical authority, I thought I would mention a post I saw at Wintery Knight’s blog where he introduces a “secular case against same sex marriage.” http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/
Another FWIW: here’s a fairly recent post at the same blog on some church vandalism by gay activists (just to show that any accusations of hatred and intolerance can be applied to *some* members of both camps). http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/gay-rights-activists-vandalize-church-for-posting-pro-marriage-sign/