Two Friars and A Fool

We Have Moved

2011-03-01T08:00:00.000-08:00

Come visit us at our new location!

Tomorrow is the Day

2011-02-28T08:27:00.000-08:00

Our new site launches tomorrow! That means this space is going to go quiet. It is not going to disappear immediately. We may eventually migrate most of the content over and close this space down, but for now it will remain if you wish to search through the archives. New high quality content from many different voices will all be hosted at www.twofriarsandafool.com.

If you haven't done so yet, there are a couple things you can do to keep track of our work and join the conversation:

Follow us on twitter: @TwoFriars

Like our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/TwoFriarsandaFool

Bring your friends to the party!

Preview: Many New Voices

2011-02-27T08:26:00.000-08:00

The entire goal of the new Two Friars and a Fool is to open the provoke good conversation. To that end we want more voices represented on the site than our own, and we'd like those voices to come from a variety of backgrounds. We hope to continue to attract known speakers and writers like Rev. Carol Howard Merritt, but we also want to provide a space for a host of other individuals who have ideas worth sharing.

We are very proud that in the first two months you are going to be hearing from a wide array of people we find fascinating. Here is just a taste:

Rev. Lia Scholl is an ordained minister and sex work ally. She is the pastor of the Richmond Mennonite Fellowship in Richmond, Virginia. She has worked with people in sex trade for nearly 10 years, most recently as the Client Advocacy Program Manager at HIPS (Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive) in Washington, DC. She is the founder and former executive director of Star Light Ministries, Inc. Originally from Alabama, she earned her M.Div. from Beeson Divinity School at Samford University. Lia blogs at http://www.roguereverend.com and can be found on twitter @roguereverend.

Rev. Dr. Gregory Anderson Love is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at San Francisco Theological Seminary and the Graduate Theological Union. He is an ordained Presbyterian pastor. His first book "Love, Violence and the Cross: How the Nonviolent God Saves Us through the Cross of Christ" explores the atonement in a thorough, sensitive, and surprisingly playful way, opening new possibilities for our understanding of salvation.

Megan Dosher is a 34-yr-old Presbyterian elder living and working in Oklahoma City, OK. She was born in Minnesota and raised both in Minnesota and Washington State. Megan now works as a half-time youth director at Santa Fe Presbyterian Church in Edmond, OK, and as a substitute teacher while she completes her ordination requirements to become a Minister of Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA). She loves volunteering, rabble-rousing, avocados and stripey socks.

Rev. Toby Brown is pastor of Jefferson Center Presbyterian Church, a blogger, and a self-described Classical Presbyterian. He can be found either smoking his pipe, remonstrating against liberal heretics, or here on Two Friars and a Fool doing both.

Heather Reichgott is a mother, a wife, a PhD student, a candidate for ordination to ministry of the Word and Sacrament, a Ballet teacher, a pianist, and many other things. She blogs at Voices of Sophia and has served in the past as a board member for More Light Presbyterians.

Michael L. Westmoreland-White, Ph.D. is a former academic theologian turned peace activist and educator. Married to the Rev. Kate Westmoreland-White, a Baptist minister who works at a Catholic charity for homeless people. He writes a theological blog called Pilgrim Pathways from an Anabaptist, Social Gospel, and Liberation perspective. He expects Christians to be in permanent exile while the Lord tarries–not primarily citizens of their home countries, but of the Rule of God and the global church.

Preview: Reverend Tim Carson

2011-02-24T08:26:00.000-08:00

Lest someone get the idea that the new Two Friars and a Fool is going to be a Presbyterian thing we remind you that one-third of our merry band is Disciples of Christ. In our first month we will have a DoC, a Mennonite and a Baptist.

We are especially excited about the participation of Rev. Tim Carson. You can read some of his excellent ruminations at his own blog, or see some of the ministry he is doing at Broadway Christian Church. He is a guy who speaks and writes with refreshing vigor and honesty.

We won't divulge yet, what his article is about, but we asked him for something provocative, and boy has he delivered. Stay tuned.

Preview: Reverend Carol Howard Merritt

2011-02-21T07:25:00.000-08:00

Our first month is starting with a bang on the new Two Friars and a Fool. We will have a new guest every 3 days with video responses and moderated forum discussions for each one. We want to put out consistently thought provoking content, but more importantly host some great conversations.

One of the first month's contributors we are very excited about is Rev. Carol Howard Merritt. She is the author of Tribal Church and Reframing Hope. She blogs at TribalChurch.org and HuffPo and a few other spots. She is the co-host of God Complex Radio and somehow she fits in being pastor at Western Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C.

If you haven't been reading her stuff you've been missing out on some cogent, insightful analysis of where we have come, and where we are going as a church, like her most recent article about local food movements. We can rectify this gross oversight in your education. We are going to be reviewing her most recent book and hosting a new article by Rev. Howard Merritt in March.

Preview: the Right Reverend Landon Whitsitt

2011-02-18T06:25:00.000-08:00

The new Two Friars and A Fool is going to play host to some awesome people bringing provocative ideas about church, theology, and life for us to debate. The very first contributor to our site will be the current Vice Moderator of the PC(USA), Rev. Landon Whitsitt. He is, in our opinion, a refreshing voice well worth a listen to. He wrote the free e-book Open Source Gospel, works with God Complex Radio, and is appearing in a bunch of other places as well. We're not going to reveal what he will be talking about when he comes to Two Friars and a Fool on March 1st, but here is one of his recent videos to get a taste:

Virtual Theology Pub

2011-02-15T08:05:00.000-08:00

This site is just a collaborative blog, but we want to be so much more to you. We aspire to be a Virtual Theology Pub.

A what?

We want to be a place where you come to hang out with people you like and have spirited, but friendly conversations about things that matter. To accomplish this we are moving away from the blog format where we spout our opinions and you read them (if you can be bothered). Instead we are soliciting the opinions of people we think are cool on subjects where we can get some traction for a good debate. We are going to be responding to the submissions of the aforementioned cool people with short videos designed to make you laugh, and think, and most importantly jump in with your own opinion into the forums.

Spread the word on your own blogs, on twitter, on facebook, or wherever you make your digital home. This is gonna be fun.

Countdown to Launch

2011-02-12T08:52:00.000-08:00

As we've said before this blog was always just a temporary measure until we were able to unleash our true plan on an unsuspecting world.

Something big is coming.

As of March 1st we will be directing all traffic to our new home. This blog will stay up for a short while as we figure out what we want to do with all the content here, but it will be a ghost town.

To those of you who have been loyal followers of us at this location: thank you. If you liked what was going on here, though, you are going to be blown away by the next step. It may be annoying to have to redo your links, and RSS feeds and what not, but it will be worth it. We promise.

Stay tuned in the coming days for previews about what we are up to and why you will soon be explaining to all of your friends what a virtual theology pub is.

Myths Busted

2011-02-11T11:07:00.000-08:00

Mubarak resigned this morning.

The entire scenario playing out in Egypt is dispelling popular misconceptions so thoroughly that I hope we can lay some of these unfounded myths to rest forever:

#1 - There is a Culture War on.
Despite the best attempts of some the defining conflicts of our current age are not a continuation of the crusades. The fight is not between the Christian West and the Muslim Orient. Christians and Muslims have been protesting alongside each other in Egypt, and even protecting each other from sectarian violence. The enemy is political oppression, poverty, and injustice. It is an enemy which lives in the United States as well as the Middle East.

#2 - Arabs are backwards and hate-filled.
Egypt is the most populous Arab nation and is 90% Muslim. They have just managed to end 30 years of dictatorship without a war, in what was really a very sophisticated series of targeted protests. This is not a people who can't understand democracy. This is a people with a deep conviction in the authority of the people to hold their government accountable.

#3 - America is a force for spreading Democracy
If democracy is realized in Egypt it will be in spite vast amounts of money, diplomacy, weapons, and political influence expended by the U.S. to uphold a dictatorship there. We have been Mubarak's best friend and are even now working to keep Suleiman, a brutal enforcer, in power. Places in the Middle East where we have attempted to install democracy by force are stuck in a morass of perpetual Civil War. The best thing we can do for the spread of democracy at this point is get the hell out of the way.

#4 - Dictatorships are stable
Mubarak reigned for 30 years it is true. This gives the appearance of stability, but the cost to the region has been so immense and the failure of the regime seems so self-evident now that we must begin to realize that it is not in anyone's long term interest to continue to support oppressive governments. The arc of history bends toward justice. The powers and principalities are in their death throes. Everywhere justice and liberty will break out and take hold. It is past time we stopped putting short term gains ahead of long term peace.

#5 - Nonviolence doesn't work
A little more than two weeks of concerted nonviolent protests have brought down three decades of dictatorship. Who honestly believes an armed revolution or foreign military intervention would have been more effective? Conventional wisdom is that violent megalomaniacs like Mubarak cannot be reasoned with - that violence was our only option with Hitler, and Saddam, and now with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il. The lesson we should take from Egypt is that peace is infinitely more powerful than war. One man on a cross broke the backbone of an empire. Even large scale geopolitical confrontations with entrenched militarily powerful and violent regimes can be won by unified nonviolent resistance.

Confirmation Class Character Sheet

2011-02-11T08:23:00.000-08:00

Trying to do something new and interesting (hopefully) with the confirmation class. We're going to talk about gifts of the spirit, and I used Comic Life to put together a little character sheet for the kids to fill out. The idea is to spark a conversation about the spiritual gifts described in the three main NT lists as well as turn us to thinking about which gifts we have, which we want to develop, and which we just wonder about.

I tried to change all of the spiritual gifts listed into I-statements that the kids can either identify with or not. I hope this goes well. The idea is just to jump-start talk about spiritual gifts, and to connect the lists in the Bible with what we do, or don't do, every day.

Anybody reading this brave enough to post your scores in the comments thread?

This is really a rudimentary sheet - the software is more versatile than this, but I don't have all that long to learn how to use it better. I got the idea from Pete Figtree using Comic Life for his syllabus and making character sheets for all of his high school English students. What he came up with is more of an example of what you can do with the software, which is free for 30 days, and based on its potential, may end up being something I pay to register.

Everything Is About to Change

2011-02-09T12:50:00.000-08:00

Check it out.

Commanded and Enabled

2011-02-07T09:02:00.001-08:00

Here is the text of sermon I preached at Broadway Christian Church on Matthew 5:13-20. I hardly ever stick exactly to my manuscript but this is what I have to offer.

13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

14 “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I just want to begin by pointing out the irony of our scripture passage on salt when we just had the “snow-pocalypse.” Let me say this week I have been extra thankful for the truckloads of salt that have come into Columbia! I certainly used my share shoveling out my long driveway. As Terri likes to say… if I could add any text to the bible it would be that “Jesus laughed.”

This morning’s text expands on what we learn about the call to discipleship known as the Beatitudes in the first 12 verses of this chapter in Matthew and our verses sit as the middle transitional passage in the Sermon on the Mount. It sits between Jesus’ call for his disciples and the later ethical teachings. While we don’t have time to go into all of it this morning, it is important to set the context. Arguably this text and the whole of the Sermon on the Mount can be considered the very heart of Matthew’s gospel. The Sermon on the Mount is a short sermon, by relative standards, but it is some of the most brilliant and inspiring passages in all of scripture.

Our verses this morning are no different, Jesus continues his sermon with our two metaphors to describe and prescribe who his followers are and what they are to do for and in the world. This is the point where we preachers like to say he’s landing the plane, he’s bringing home the point. So after presenting the eight Beatitudes, Jesus launches into the heart of his sermon by making these analogies: that his followers are to be like salt and light. These are interesting choices, and both have implications for the implementation of mission and pastoral ministry.

The first metaphor, Jesus calls his disciples the “salt of the world,” suggesting that we have a distinctive capacity to elicit goodness on the earth. Like salt, which is used to alter or enhance the taste of food (and, yes, even melt icy sidewalks). Salt alters the world around it; it brings alive what would otherwise seem tasteless and bland. In the first century it helped preserve food, it was even used as currency (hence worth your weight in salt).

Jesus is making the point that if we live out the Beatitudes - becoming peacemakers, being merciful, pure in heart, those who care of the meek, dispossessed, ones caring for those who suffer loss, seeking to do justice -- to put it in the context of last weeks text those who act justly, love kindness, to walk humbly with their God – THEN we will have the capacity shift the world around us, to enhance the very flavor of goodness. Like my college Derrick Weston says, “We're the seasoning that brings out God-flavors.”

But then Jesus shifts into talking about salt that looses its saltiness…He offers us a challenge. This is a challenge to Israel to be Israel (his original audience), and it is a challenge for us as Christians to be Christ-like. He is both affirming the individual person and challenging the person to become more. Jesus accepted the rich young man, but challenged him to give away his possessions. He accepted the woman caught in adultery, and then instructed her to go and sin no more. He both manages to uphold the person’s dignity, regardless of circumstance, while inviting behavioral change towards a better way of life. Not an easier way of life, but a better way. His first metaphor here is no different.

His second metaphor is, “You are the light of the world,” where he invites us to consider the role of the disciples as a gathered community. Light enables us to see things, it is color, it helps vegetation grow, it provides solar power for electricity, and can even be focused into a laser. We are being called to be the light that brings out the God-colors, to enable diversity (giving things color), to nurture a healthy eco-friendly world (helping vegetation grow), and to even restore or repair that which needs mending (by use of a laser perhaps). This is what will make us the light of the world.

Regardless of the size of the light, even a dim one can bring light to darkness, to offer wholeness in a fractured world. The light is the light of the gospel, and it draws people to its warmth and radiance. This mission has been primary, from the very beginning of scripture, throughout every age. William Temple said, “The church is the only organization on earth that exists for those who are not its members.” In order for the light to be seen, we must be willing to go where the darkness exists, to engage and walk through it, trusting that the light will overcome it.

But we know that darkness, and brokenness does not exist only outside these walls, but within ourselves. We must be willing to seek what Parker Palmer calls “the dark night of the soul.” We must be prepared to see and read our inner landscape. While this is never easy, it is essential. We cannot bring the light of Christ to others if we are unaware of where that light needs to shine in our own hearts. We do not need to banish all darkness inside us, that is too difficult a task for any, but we must understand our darkness, and even because of it, reach out beyond ourselves.

These two metaphors, of salt and light, make me think of Psalm 34 "Taste and see that the Lord is good." As verses 17-20 remind us, it is because of who Jesus is and how he understands his mission that his disciples individually and collectively are enabled to be salt and light.

Jesus goes on to declare to his newly commissioned disciples and followers that he has not come to abolish the law or the prophets. But he claims his place in God’s history of the liberation of and covenant with God’s chosen people. He aligns himself with the ever-expanding trajectory of God. By so doing, he does not dismiss the Judean tradition but rather speaks of it being fulfilled. Here we can begin to see Jesus aligning himself with the essence of a covenantal God who continually pursues his creation; from the first moment of creation itself, through the Abrahamic covenant, leading his people out of exiles (on multiple occasions), to the prophets social criticisms, to Jesus proclaiming the kingdom of God is at hand, to the early church meeting the needs in their midst, to our day in those seeking equality for all people. To Matthew, “to fulfill” was an eschatological category to see that God was already at work in the world. Jesus was telling Israel and his disciples to read Torah no longer in the context of sin, but in the context of the kingdom. Now that the reign of God was being inaugurated, the measure was no longer human pettiness or brokenness, but the abundance of God’s righteousness.

The very righteousness of God that flows into Jesus and, in turn, is the ground of Jesus’ relationship with his disciples, with us. Jesus’ followers are both commanded and enabled to surpass conventional and institutional practices, exceeding even what we perceive as being the most gracious, most loving gestures we can imagine! Jesus is proclaiming that as his followers, as Salt and Light in the world, we can and should become participants in transforming the world into God’s vision. The community of Christ is formed while engaging in this mission together.

Let me put it another way: this is your mission, if you choose to accept it; to venture forth, to risk it all, to push passionately beyond our own comprehension of the righteousness, of the commandments, of the prophets, of even the gospels to extend love beyond ourselves. For God is always bigger than we can fathom.

But to be honest this makes me worry. It makes me worry because first of all it’s hard, these things Jesus preaches about on the Sermon on the Mount are some of the most challenging things to actually do, anywhere.

But these days it makes me even worried for another reason. As some of you already know, Julia and I are expecting a baby. And honestly being on the verge of becoming a father (while something I have looked forward too) calls to radical discipleship scare me even more. It scares me because my son or daughter may feel called because of their faith in Christ to leave the comforts of our home and venture out into the danger, crazy upside down world and do something pretty much insane. Like the Coptic Christians in Egypt that I’ve been reading about who are literally putting their lives in harms way to protect Muslim protesters. As a future parent that scares the ---- out of me, both with joy that my child might so concretely live their faith, but also with fear that my child might get hurt doing something so brave and bold as that.

The thing is this hard part is what Jesus seems to be asking of us. Jesus seems to be proclaiming in this text that if we don’t live into these characteristics of the Beatitudes and lack the passion for justice and living into God’s reordering of human life, then we, in effect, break the covenantal relationship. That if we do not embrace our enemies, if we do not bless the poor, then Jesus says here that we will “never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

In a very important sense we are being commanded and enabled to live into the reordering of humanity, society, family structures, into the full embrace of a self-giving all loving God. To fulfill the law and the prophets is to bring their purpose to complete expression in everyday community. And that will mean risk, and making ourselves vulnerable, and letting go of some of the control over the way we think something should turn out (despite my new found fears).

I think this tension (of safety and risk) is exactly what Jesus had in mind when he offered these two metaphors. Salt and light both transform their worlds. I want to close with this story that Tim posted on his blog from our very own, Lynelle Phillips who is on faculty at the University of Missouri in Public Health. It’s an excerpt from her journal about taking a recent trip with a group of nursing students to Cape Coast, Ghana.

The goal of the trip was to expose nursing students to urgent dimensions of public health in a 3rd world context, to participate in an international immersion experience and to offer some help in public health education and HIV screenings in particular villages. They were also able to enjoy places of local history and cultural richness.

On one day the students visited the historical locations of the transatlantic slave trade. This included a slave camp and the path the captured slaves took down to a stream for their last bath and last drink of stream water before they were confined in the dungeons of Cape Coast, where they languished for weeks before being shipped long distances to be sold.

There were four African American young women among the students and for them this visit had special poignancy. This was the departure point of the ancestors and the remains of many were buried directly beneath their feet. As the group stood on the banks of the last-drink-stream contemplating all this Lynelle writes in her journal:

Local African women appeared out of the woods as if by magic. They took our African American women by the hand and led them one-by-one into the creek to let the cool water soothe their feet and souls. The good Lord sent them angels this morning.

Somehow these wise mentor women, whoever they were, took these women by the hand and led them to the stream of their ancestors. They were baptized in the meaning of it all. And after they came out of the waters, without so much as a word, the strange visitors disappeared into the forest from whence they had come.

Lynelle ends her journal with a reflection on mission trips, what really happens, and prayer. I share it with you now:

“It is the secret riddle of all mission trips – this paradox of giving morphing into receiving. Perhaps it’s God’s little practical joke on modern humanity. On the one hand we privileged Americans are driven to sign on, undergo injections and forfeit our vacation. We are compelled to help. We want to make that difference, even if it is only one random dribble off the hillside…yet in a gradual, puzzling twist of fortune, we become the recipient. What sets off to be a practical journey of service mysteriously winds up as our own spiritual enlightenment. We dine on the love and warmth and character of those we hope to serve. We magically transform from master to servant, from giver to receiver.

I sit and ponder winter/spring, servant/master, giver/receiver … in my place of confused wonderment. Oh my dear Lord, what is your calling for me? Wild geese honk their friendly greeting overhead. Looking down, I notice my hands are more beautiful when intertwined together, their left-right/giver-receiver distinctions fade as they unify in prayer. Oh…maybe that’s it…”

Let us pray.

Reflection: We Can Haz Elderz?

2011-02-07T07:43:00.000-08:00

Here are my notes from yesterday's sermon. Not counting what happens when talking in the moment, embellishing and examples and cutting things at the last minute and so on, this is pretty much what I said.

There is an italic part in the middle, added at the last minute based on a good conversation I had with a colleague Saturday night. I put it in italics so I could decide, in the moment, whether I would use it. I decided to use it - it introduced some ideas I wanted to introduce, and said something connected to what I was talking about (or so I thought). I try to mention something at least a half-dozen times in various venues before I expect anyone to address it with me.

Oh, and the title doesn't mean anything - it was just my working title. In the bulletin it just said REFLECTION.

ISAIAH 58:1-12

1 Shout out, do not hold back!

Lift up your voice like a trumpet!

Announce to my people their rebellion,

to the house of Jacob their sins.

2 Yet day after day they seek me

and delight to know my ways,

as if they were a nation that practiced righteousness

and did not forsake the ordinance of their God;

they ask of me righteous judgments,

they delight to draw near to God.

3 “Why do we fast, but you do not see?

Why humble ourselves, but you do not notice?”

Look, you serve your own interest on your fast day,

and oppress all your workers.

4 Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight

and to strike with a wicked fist.

Such fasting as you do today

will not make your voice heard on high.

5 Is such the fast that I choose,

a day to humble oneself?

Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush,

and to lie in sackcloth and ashes?

Will you call this a fast,

a day acceptable to the LORD?

6 Is not this the fast that I choose:

to loose the bonds of injustice,

to undo the thongs of the yoke,

to let the oppressed go free,

and to break every yoke?

7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,

and bring the homeless poor into your house;

when you see the naked, to cover them,

and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

8 Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,

and your healing shall spring up quickly;

your vindicator shall go before you,

the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.

9 Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer;

you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am.

If you remove the yoke from among you,

the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil,

10 if you offer your food to the hungry

and satisfy the needs of the afflicted,

then your light shall rise in the darkness

and your gloom be like the noonday.

11 The LORD will guide you continually,

and satisfy your needs in parched places,

and make your bones strong;

and you shall be like a watered garden,

like a spring of water,

whose waters never fail.

12 Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt;

you shall raise up the foundations of many generations;

you shall be called the repairer of the breach,

the restorer of streets to live in.

Prayer

When I finally decided to go to seminary, the last straw was reading Isaiah 58. It’s one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible. It touched me because, at the time, I liked a lot about Christianity...except for the religion part. If we could just do Christianity, but not have churches, I thought that would probably be the way to go. I felt acutely how church got in the way of following Jesus, of being true disciples.

Isaiah 58 is all about the difference between religion on the one hand and following God on the other. It’s easy to confuse the two, but they are not at all the same thing. (To be clear about now, I think it is easier to follow Jesus in a church committed to that - but it is a lot harder in a church that is committed to...the church)

The first job of an Elder is to follow Jesus. This comes before the best interests of the church, before finances, before meetings, before any of these things. The first job of an Elder is following Jesus.

I had a chance to talk to Peter a little bit earlier this week. We were going through the Book of Order, and what it has to say about the call of an Elder.

Ask: what is it that a Christian does? What is a Christian’s job? [some answers: to share the good news of Jesus’ life, to live a Christ-like life, to open our hearts to God’s Spirit, to have a personal relationship with Jesus]

It is possible to sum it up pretty briefly: there are things which all Christians are called to do - for an Elder, those things are your job. By accepting this call, by saying yes to it, you are saying that you will take as your special responsibility following Jesus, seeking to become more like him in every way. You will do this first and most. You will set an example for the congregation that you serve. (list answers they gave to the question)

In contrast to following Jesus, there is church; there is religion. It is Jesus who calls people, and it can be church that drives them away. You come to church, maybe excited about following Jesus, but suddenly you’re caught up in someone’s political agenda, or you’re embroiled in gossiping, or you spend all of your time worrying and working just to maintain what the church has done in the past. You drift off, or storm out, or whatever, because whatever following Jesus is, this ain’t it.

Or maybe it isn’t so dramatic - it is Jesus who calls people, and it is church that somehow convinces them that their calling (of God the creator of the universe; the risen Christ, the HS in us like a fire) amounts to attending worship once a week and maybe volunteering now and then, or making a donation. It’s underwhelming. You read the prophets; you read what he says in the Gospels, about giving up your whole live in order to find it, about moving mountains, and it doesn’t compare with what you experience in the church building.

The good news is, though, that this is our church - your church. We have a choice. We all have the same job - following Jesus. I have the absurd, luxurious privilege of being able to try to do that as a full-time job. This means that I have the easiest job in this room - and I mean that. My job is easy. I share that job with the Elders, and we share that job with all of you, that job doing things like (list their examples again)

That isn’t to say that there aren’t challenges. One of the challenges that come up among Elders is remaining together when we disagree - even when we disagree strongly. Fair warning - I am not going to avoid talking about divisive issues. Avoiding conflict is poison for a community, and I am not here to poison anyone, even though this will require periodically letting people feel uncomfortable; periodically being uncomfortable, even angry, myself.

A few days, a few dozen male pastors of some large Presbyterian churches wrote an open letter to the Presbyterian church as a whole. In that letter they talked about one issue that has been divisive in the denomination for almost 40 years now - that of gay ordination, and the connected issue of gay marriage. In this letter, they described our system as broken, our disagreements as entrenched, and as a solution, they laid out a plan to pull away from involvement in the denomination, and to form their own sub-groups, composed only of those people who agreed with them.

My thought was how frustrating and saddening this letter was. This is exactly what kills a community - breaking apart into tiny enclaves where we all are sure that no one will ever challenge us, or lead us to grow or change. We become theologically fossilized, with rocks instead of bones, unable to move - sad, dead things. What this letter, written by some stand-out names in the denomination, says is that they are no longer willing to work with anyone who disagrees with them.

They are no longer willing to be a community.

The test of love is always conflict. If you say you love someone, but you’re not willing to disagree with them, and talk about your disagreement, and remain with them, then is that really love at all? The test of community is the same.

***

This Thursday I was at a Presbytery training session, looking at factors that contribute to long-term church health. I learned a lot that was helpful. I got into a conversation with another pastor who is looking at retirement in the next few years. He said to me something like “Why would anyone ever want to do this”, meaning pastoral ministry. Honestly, this kind of question frustrates me. As calmly as I could, I asked “Would you rather be a pastor, or a cashier at Wal-Mart? Which is easier, being a pastor or a used car salesman? We get to do meaningful things all the time. But try to make being a cashier meaningful. It’s possible, but it’s a lot harder.” He had to admit - of the jobs I listed, he would still choose pastor.

Some pastors like to pretend that their job is really hard - I am not one of them. I’ve had hard jobs. Right now, I have the easiest job in this room.

In a similar way, the job of Elder can sound like a hard job. You have to go to meetings, and learn to use Robert’s Rules of Order, and read the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions, and make hard decisions, and have long discussions and even arguments.

Or, it could be like this. You get to help show us how to follow Jesus. And when you do, when you take risks, when you stick your neck out, when you take a stand for what’s right, Isaiah 58 says that God is backing you up. Listen again to what Isaiah says:

11 The LORD will guide you continually,

and satisfy your needs in parched places,

and make your bones strong;

and you shall be like a watered garden,

like a spring of water,

whose waters never fail.

12 Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt;

you shall raise up the foundations of many generations;

you shall be called the repairer of the breach,

the restorer of streets to live in.

I hope that we find ways, through this church, to more closely follow Jesus. I hope we find ways, through this church, to follow God, and to go out and to extinguish violence, and to raise up the lowly, and fight on the side of the oppressed, and to do justice, to show mercy - to do those things that God has always called people to do.

I hope we find ways to do this through the church - I bet you that we can, in fact, and that we will. But the priority is to follow Jesus; the priority is to do those things that Isaiah is talking about. That is my calling, that is your calling as Elders, that is the calling of every single person in this room, and every person who will ever come into this room, and every person who comes to know and trust the Lord.

We can look at this like it is the hardest job, or like it is the easiest and most wonderful job, like it is the only job worth doing.

[Praise hymn]

[Ordination/installation of Elders]

Sermon Notes: State of the Church Address

2011-01-30T11:26:00.000-08:00

1 Corinthians 1:18-28

Dalton Presbyterian Church, 1/30/11

***

Show of hands: who has seen or heard Obama’s State of the Union address?

Yeah, this will be nowhere near that good. Not even Joe Biden good. But I felt like the timing was right to try something - Elder retreat, talking about the present and future of the church lately.

So because I am not a famous public speaker, I’ll need some prayers.

::pray::

State of the Church address
Thanks to leadership (stand, clap)

Remember the empty seats, and those who cannot be with us because of physical limitations or health (Dan Rudy, Susanna Amstutz, Jodi Smith)

Thankful for differences - we’re diverse (not ethnically - a shimmering rainbow of Caucasian!) in beliefs and politics. Sometimes this comes out as fear to delve into divisive issues - but I see this as a strength, that we can come together even though we don’t agree on every line-item of a given creed.

Commonalities and continuity; this church, in one form or another, has been here a loooong time. 200 odd years. From back when the flag didn’t nearly have so many stars. In a couple years, we might want to think about doing something for our bicentennial. That’s a long time. Imagine all those saints who came before us - just in this little place in the world.

History - we’ve known times of flourishing, we’ve also known schism - the split 25 years ago that is still fresh for some of us - a split that is still felt now (I see it impact our live and ministry on an almost-weekly basis - it sneaks it’s way into other issues); and thru it all tremendous change. We are inheritors, but the church now is almost nothing like it was 50 years ago; even less 100 years ago, or 150. We’re not suddenly talking about change. We’re simply continuing to change.

In recent memory, though, the world has moved. The world always moves faster than the church - Facebook killing the church? - Evangelicalism and conservative politics - Christianity is a third-world movement, and will be for generations to come. Even if we’ve tried to stand still, the ground has moved out from under us.

The state of the church is always this - the world has moved, and we must be part of it.

The state of the church is always this - God has remained still, and we must move the world.

THis church doesn’t just have a past - we’ve also got a future. We are not like any other church, and we are planted here for a reason, no less now than our predecessors were 200 years ago. We are called to flourish; we are called to live out our passion; we all have a mission. Our calling hasn’t changed - it’s just that we have to figure out how to follow God out into the world. The way we do church will not be the way we’ve done church before. Until we are perfected, until Kingdom come, we are not finished.

We have this future, but I cannot hand it to you. I cannot go get it and bring it back. It isn’t going to land in our laps. It is possible to run away from our calling. God is alive and moving in our lives, alive and moving in the world outside these doors - but can ignore that if we want.

This future will not be made clear to us through wisdom - we read that in 1 Corinthians. If we are looking for a wise, well-considered path, that won’t quite get us to God. If we are careful and deliberate and discerning - that won’t quite cut it.

We continue to read, in 1 Corinthians, that this future won’t even come by way of signs and miracles! If we are waiting for a miracle, even if we experienced a miracle, a sign, here and now, that wouldn’t quite get us to God. That’s a load off of my shoulders, because I’ve got no miracles.

What will move us into the future is...foolishness - the foolishness of trusting a God we cannot see, trusting a savior who died on a cross, trusting in our own efforts when we know how flawed we are, trusting in the Holy Spirit to strengthen us when we cannot do one more thing.

Our hope is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is life to those who are alive with God. If we look ahead with the mindset that we are dying, God’s future for us will look like nonsense.

If, however, we are able to become fools, to cultivate our inner foolishness, then it’ll all make sense. We’re called to be foolish, and seek God’s wisdom - we are called to be weak, and trust in God’s strength - we are called to be regular folks, and let God be the one who grants us our status.

But these are all just words.

I thought about this passage, and about the Elder retreat we had yesterday. We talked about a lot of things - including what we thought we as a church, and the Elders in particular, were good at. What we care about most. Where we should be headed.

And this is where a President would outline the government initiatives and programs that would bring us into the bright future. I’m not a President, though. Being a pastor is quite different from being President. I can’t really make much happen on my own. In light of that point of divergence...

I’ve been thinking about what I am called to do. What it is that I am good at. What I care about. What am I supposed to do, in light of this reading, in light of our calling, in light of where we are, who we are. Who I am. I don’t want to speak for anyone else.

I will speak for myself.

I like the idea of being a Fool. Some of the astute and observant among may have noticed - I am a fool. I am a goofball. My head is in the clouds. I am a dreamer. I log more time in my own imagination than I do in this “real world” everyone keeps telling me about. Sometimes this is a strength, and sometimes it is a weakness. Part of me is happy to read that we are called to foolishness.

I don’t have any miracles up my sleeves, and I am only occasionally wise - but a fool provokes. I will therefore throw down a challenge. I will call you out, here and now, you, and everyone who isn’t here this morning, and everyone we can convince to come through those doors.

My challenge isn’t to dare you to sit in the front few rows of the church - even though it is warmer up here, and a lot easier to hear. I’m afraid what I have in mind is even worse. (and let me take a moment to honor the courage of the intrepid few who braved the front row this morning)

This morning, I’m going to use a dirty word in church. I want you to say this dirty word with me. Ready?

“Evangelism”. Say it with me: “Evangelism”.

We had our Elder retreat, and do you know what the Elders chose as the highest priority for the church going forward? Evangelism. So I am doing something tremendously foolish. I am calling upon an aging, shrinking Presbyterian congregation to join me in becoming evangelists.

Like fools, like Paul and the first apostles, we are called to proclaim Christ. Whether we like it or not. Whether it seems wise or not. With or without miracles. Whether we feel strong enough or not.

The state of the church is always this - we are chosen by God, we are called for ministry, and our future is present with us right now. You remember what Jesus was saying in the hills of Galilee in our reading last week? The Kingdom of God is at hand.

The state of the church is always this - we are the kingdom of God. And we are called to carry this good news in our hearts, in our lives, and out into the world.

I’m not going to drop this evangelism thing. If you ignore it, it won’t go away.

This morning, I dare you to believe it.

PresbyMEME: Why I am voting yes on 10-A

2011-01-28T10:23:00.000-08:00

Name, City, State
Aric Clark, Fort Morgan, CO

Twitter and Facebook profiles
Twitter: @aricclark
Facebook: Aric Clark, Two Friars and A Fool
Presbytery and 10a voting date
Presbytery of Plains and Peaks, May 7th 2011

Reason ONE that you are voting "yes" on 10a is...
Close friends of mine who are already ordained, but closeted, some who are ordained and open about their homosexuality, and others who are seeking ordination, but currently prevented by our polity have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Holy Spirit is working in and through LGBTQ persons as much as through any heterosexual and it is time the Church moved past our prejudices. This is merely the next step in our continual journey toward a fuller understanding of God's kingdom. One day we will have a Church that reflects the radical, profligate grace of Jesus Christ.

Reason TWO that you are voting "yes" on 10a is...
This is core Presbyterian polity. Where people of good intent and rational thinking disagree it is vital that we permit freedom of conscience. It is vital that we not rob our presbyteries of their right to be the ordaining body by turning our constitutional document into a rulebook and inserting personal political agendas into what should be ongoing theological conversations. Amendment 10-A does not make explicit statement regarding the ability or inability of any individual to be ordained based on arbitrary criteria. Instead it puts the responsibility and the authority squarely on the shoulders of the ordaining body where it should be.

Reason THREE that you are voting "yes" on 10a is...
I can't limit this list to three reasons. Here are many more. There simply aren't any good reasons to vote against 10-A.

What are your greatest hopes for the 10a debate that will take place on the floor of your Presbytery?
I hope we conduct ourselves with humility, patience, and love, and I hope justice carries the day.

How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)?

I would say that we can't be held hostage by those petty enough to threaten to take their toys and go home if we don't play the game their way. Those who cannot worship with their fellow presbyterians if we permit freedom of conscience on this issue have my blessings to depart.

What should the Presbyterian Church focus on after Amendment 10a passes?

The most urgent issue by far is our theological approach to violence. I would like to see the PC(USA) begin the process of becoming a Peace Church. I would like to see GA appoint a commission to study scripture and the confessions and present a paper to a future GA for adoption as an authoritative interpretation stating that being Christian and Reformed entails gospel nonviolence, and urging peaceful resistance to militarism in our society.

A close second to the issue of violence is our strategy for church planting in the PC(USA). I'd like to see us begin planting churches much more aggressively, using the wealth of young talent we have coming out of our seminaries. I would recommend setting up a grant program where recent seminary graduates can receive two years part-time salary and be ordained to an innovative ministry they design and initiate. Instead of trying a dozen expensive NCD's nationwide next year, lets plant 300 cheap ministries and see which ones take root.

How does your understanding of Scripture frame your position on 10a?
Scripture is constantly woven into my views on everything like themes in a symphony. By immersing myself in it, my imagination is shaped by it and scriptural ideas appear even unintentionally in my thought stream. On 10-A in particular the Biblical trajectory of God's inclusive love has been ever expanding. God's servants have always been challenged not by who God denies or rejects, but like Jonah by who God embraces. To understand God means to have your mind changed to understand the people you previously regarded as unclean, undesirable, "other" as the objects of God's affection. Putting on the mind of Christ means learning to love and accept those who God loves and accepts.

PresbyMEME: Why I Am Voting Yes on 10A

2011-01-18T02:10:00.000-08:00

Name, City, State
Douglas Hagler, Dalton, OH

Twitter and Facebook profiles
Twitter: @robosnake
Facebook: Douglas Hagler, Two Friars and A Fool, Dalton Presbyterian Church, Robosnake Games, The Stand-Up Comedian Party

Presbytery and 10a voting date
Muskingum Valley Presbytery; March 12, 2011

Reason ONE that you are voting "yes" on 10a is...
Instead of merely ONE reason, I offer...over two dozen good reasons why everyone should vote "yes" on 10a. After writing and expanding upon each of those, it's actually kind of hard to come up with more. Let's see.

Reason TWO that you are voting "yes" on 10a is...
The arguments against 10a are founded in theology and modes of interpretation I reject, including but not limited to: complementarianism, literalism, fundamentalism, and what I want to call "hypocriticalism", or "the hypoCritical method", whereby some conservative Biblical interpreters pretend they are not preferencing some parts of scripture over others, but rather pretend there is a singular "Biblical position" that we need only align ourselves with.

Reason THREE that you are voting "yes" on 10a is...
My mom is queer, and an ordained PC(USA) pastor. You talkin' about my momma? I'm-a slap you. [1]

What are your greatest hopes for the 10a debate that will take place on the floor of your Presbytery?
I am a coward, so I simply hope that no one yells at me, or at each other for that matter. I hope that the justice and equality viewpoint, which is a minority viewpoint in my presbytery, will not lead people who know nothing else about me to think ill of me, or glare at me, or that kind of thing. Basically, pessimism, cowardice and selfishness guide my hopes, such as they are. I would like to see some movement from 30% in favor of justice and equality to some higher proportion when the vote finally comes down. I hope not to hear anyone compare LGBTQ persons to pedophiles, drug addicts, people who have sex with animals, or people who are incestuous.

I hope I don't blow my lid, particularly in the event that people actually make those false and obnoxious comparisons, in public where I can hear them.

How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)?
To put it bluntly - no one is forcing any congregation to stay. If justice for LGBTQ persons is too much to stomach for some congregations, then so be it. I'd rather they stayed and saw our LGBTQ sisters and brothers as human beings worthy of dignity and called by God to serve in ministry. Failing that, if they simply must leave, then they'll leave. I'm sure congregations left when we started ordaining women as well. I'm sure congregations got angry when we stopped speaking out against interracial marriages. Remember when some Presbyteries said it wasn't ok to own slaves? A lot of congregations left over that too. If this is the deal-breaker for some congregations, then that's what it is. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether this is the right thing to do - and it is the right thing. In 50 years when the culture has sea-changed on this issue, we'll be hearing about evangelical mega-churches with burgeoning pro-LGBTQ outreach programs, just like we're suddenly hearing more about environmentalism and social justice from them now.

What should the Presbyterian Church focus on after Amendment 10a passes?
Becoming a committed peace church and regularly engaging in active, participatory nonviolent direct action. While Jesus is silent on homosexuality, he is very clear that his disciples must never, under any circumstances, use violence. Before it was co-opted by Empire, the Church was a peace Church. We will always be the slaves of Empire until we return to Jesus' original way of (among other things) radical nonviolence.

How does your understanding of Scripture frame your position on 10a?
Scripture is an ancient collection of human documents, written by people who were inspired by their faith and experiences to write a wide variety of things. It didn't descend on a cloud in King James English; it wasn't beamed into the writers' brains; God wasn't working them like puppets. Human beings wrote it, and whatever anyone says, human beings are left to interpret it. We pray and hope for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in our lives and in our own interpretation and thinking.

It is a messy process, and it leads to a situation where the Church has been on the wrong side almost as much as on the right side, and the church has often had to be corrected by the culture rather than successfully correcting the culture. This is to be expected when human beings are interpreting human writings which touch upon the deepest topics of human life and experience of the divine.

Scripture is also just one of many things which we rightly take into account when discussing theology and church life, including philosophy and reason, science, history, our own personal and collective experiences, God's ongoing inspiration, what the various Christian traditions have to say on the matter, and so on. This is right and good and necessary, and I believe, precisely what God intends for us to do. To use our whole minds, our whole bodies, and our whole collective wisdom, to bring all of that to bear, to the best of our abilities.

Bible-thumpers need not apply. [2]

***

1. No, I won't literally slap you. I'll just want to. Nonviolence is for the violent, after all.

2. If you want to read it and talk about it, I'm with you. If you want to thump it or use it as a weapon, see above.

Broken Reeds

2011-01-12T06:12:00.000-08:00

This was the sermon I preached this last Sunday, January 9th. I had written an entirely different sermon focusing on the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew, but following the events of the week felt compelled to rewrite. Hat tip to George Macdonald whose ideas these were before they were mine

Isaiah 42:1-9

The words God spoke to Jesus at his baptism are echoed in many places through scripture including this passage from Isaiah where God says “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.” Justice to the nations. As Jesus was being ordained, commissioned by God through John and the water of the river Jordan for his ministry of salvation this thought was reverberating in the background – that he would bring justice to the nations. And not just any kind of justice but one that is described as being so gentle it would not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick.

This morning I ask you to meditate on justice. Justice is an ideal everyone will commend and everyone claim to desire and to serve, but I want you to consider whether we have any idea what justice is, in light of recent events in our society.

Yesterday a young white man of 22 years, Jared Loughner, walked into the middle of a meeting in Tucson, Arizona and opened fire on a group of people gathered there to meet their congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords. Representative Giffords was hit in the head and at first believed dead, but is now known to be alive and in intensive care after surgery, and is under sedation as they wait to see if she will survive. Others were injured and six were killed outright including Gabe Zimmerman, an aide to the congresswoman. US District Judge John Roll. Dorothy Morris, 76. Dorwin Stoddard, 76. Phyllis Scheck, 79. Christina Greene, a child of 9.

People are rightly shocked by this horrific violence, which unfortunately is only exceptional in that it targeted a political figure. On the same day 27 people were killed in the ongoing drug war in Mexico. There are 16 casualties on average every day in our conflict in Afghanistan. There are 11 or 12 deaths each day due to violence in Iraq. Given national averages, in our own country, 45 other murders occurred in America yesterday which received no national media attention.

Regardless of the circumstances, the attack on Representative Giffords yesterday was a travesty. We should lift up our prayers on behalf of all of those injured, the families of those murdered, and the whole of our nation as it reflects on the complex dynamics that lead to violence.

We must also pray for Jared Loughner, the man who decided to take a gun and point it at another human being and pull the trigger repeatedly. There will be a lot of over-analysis focusing on young Jared in the media in the coming days. His internet profile will be delved into. His personal life will be examined. His friends and family and acquaintances will be interviewed as everyone tries to come up with some explanation for why he chose to do what he did.

Some people already are blaming the political rhetoric in our country which has gotten so intemperate that attack ads regularly indulge in violent metaphors “targeting” their opponents. We have reached a point where we no longer distinguish between political adversaries and enemies. The hatreds and divisions along ideological lines are stark these days much to our shame. That climate may have contributed to this attack, and it is definitely deplorable behavior, but Jared was still the one who pulled the trigger.

Others will blame this attack on mental illness. They will say that Jared Loughner is a disturbed young man. A lone bad apple. Psychotic. Crazy.

It is probably true that he is suffering from a madness, but if so it is a very mundane, even commonplace madness. It is a delusion that most of humanity suffers from – the delusion that retributive violence is a mechanism of justice.

The servant of God is coming to bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth.

Though we do not yet know the specific reasons Jared Loughner did what he did it is guaranteed that in his mind it was justified. He almost certainly did not fire that gun believing himself to be doing evil. He probably believed at the time, and perhaps even now, that his actions were in some way contributing to a just result. A righting of wrongs.

This hysterical delusion has gripped humanity from our beginnings and though we have shaken it in rare and beautiful occasions, too often it has ruled the day. Our courts, our prisons, our armies, our security, our governments, our identities are built on the illusion that evil can be defeated by force, that wrongs can be righted by punishment.

But punishment and retribution have no power to make things right. Violence can never establish peace.

Consider a very basic example. If you have stolen something from me, how can this injustice be made right? If you are caught and sent to jail does this fix my injury? Even if the stolen object is found by the police and returned to me, has justice been accomplished? Won’t the lingering wound of having my privacy invaded, my trust violated remain? How can your punishment fix that? It doesn’t. There is only one way for amends to be made and that is for you to repent and come to me asking for forgiveness. That is it. No judge, no court, no police officer, no lightning bolt from the sky, no punishment of any kind can ever fix my injury. Only the one who injured me has the power to right the wrong. Only I, by forgiving, have the means to restore peace.

But instead of repenting and seeking forgiveness, and instead of offering it to those who have wounded us we keep seeking justice through retribution. We keep hoping the proper application of punishment will heal our wounds. In our personal relationships this is deadly, and when applied to society as a whole, extrapolating our own grievous injuries onto the body politic it results in a massacre. Every time we turn to the sword for justice we end up with broken reeds scattered across the floor. Shattered lives, wrecked hopes, and dismembered dreams are all that remain of our quest for justice.

We must conclude that we know nothing about the nature of justice, least of all God's justice which comes at the hands of one so gentle it does not break even a bruised reed. Justice, as Christ administers it, is not something opposed to forgiveness, not a force tempered by mercy, but mercy itself, forgiveness itself, reconciliation itself made concrete between victim and perpetrator so that not even a smoldering wick would be quenched by its arrival.

Since humanity could reason we have always reasoned the costs of retributive violence justified. They are not, and never can be. No matter how we will it, or legislate it, or excuse it violence will never bring us either justice or peace. It will only heap more broken reeds on the pile.

But there is a way for us to act justly toward one another. There is a way for us to make peace.

In Egypt there is a sect of Christians, the Copts, who are a very small minority in that mostly Muslim country. Furthermore, the government of Egypt has not been protective of their rights, but has too often turned a blind eye to violence and persecution committed against the Copts by others. Recently the violence has been particularly bad with extreme Islamist groups attacking Coptic Christians in their churches. A car bomb just over a week ago on New Years Eve in Alexandria killed 21 Copts. 21 broken reeds. 21 lives cut short. No doubt the bombers believed like Jared Loughner and like all people who have ever committed violence for a cause that they were contributing to a better and more just future.

But a movement sprung up in the wake of this latest bombing. Some Muslims began to say that they would not tolerate the violence. They would not tolerate the attacks supposedly made in their name against their fellow Egyptians. "An attack against one is an attack against us all," they said. Banners went up throughout the city of Alexandria showing a cross inside a crescent - symbolizing the unity of all Egyptians. A plan was formulated. Coptic Christians follow a different calendar than us in the west. Their Christmas holiday is on January 7th. During the mass to celebrate that holiday when Copts would be gathered in their churches and more attacks were feared Muslims began showing up at the doors and outside the churches holding candle-light vigils. They would be human shields, risking their lives, so that if any violence were attempted against the Copts it would kill Muslims too.

Thousands. They stood up by the thousands willing to take a bullet for people very different from them. People with no political power or importance. People their own government wouldn't protect. They arrived like God's justice- quietly, but formidably. Irresistible in its graciousness, and so gentle that not even a bruised reed was broken.

They proved conclusively by their actions that violence can never establish justice. But love can.

Conclusion

2011-01-11T04:17:00.000-08:00

Thank you for following through each of these posts and for engaging in discussion, even when it became frustrating to do so on both sides. We will continue to have this conversation, but we will also be moving toward new issues and topics. The issue of LGBTQ ordination has taken up a tremendous amount of our time and energy in the last couple of months, but it is far from what we see to be the greatest challenge facing the Church today. LGBTQ ordination is merely an instance where we felt we could make many very powerful arguments in favor of inclusion, and could further refute many poor arguments put forward against equality for LGBTQ persons.

There are not even selfish reasons to retain G-6.0106b and continue to unjustly exclude LGBTQ persons from ordination. That single clause will not prevent frustrated congregations from leaving the denomination, nor will it convince parishioners frustrated with decades of conflict over this issue to remain. It will not maintain even a veneer of peace, unity and purity in the church. G-6.0106b does not put our current debates over ordination to rest. What it means is that barely more than half of the denomination is able to force its interpretation of ordination on every individual Presbytery, congregation, and member of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Getting rid of G-6.0106b will not force a single Presbytery or congregation to ordain or accept a single candidate they do not vote to accept. What it will do is enable thousands of congregations and dozens of Presbyteries who have been a slight minority in the denomination right now to consider, just consider, LGBTQ persons for ordination where they might be called to serve.

In a situation where believers disagree in good faith according to their conscience, where 30 years or argument has not made any progress in producing consensus, it seems most reasonable, most just, and best to allow freedom of conscience. Nothing is preserved when 51% of the denomination maintains a specific litmus-test and forces 49% to apply it. There is no other clause like G-6.0106b which is aimed at a specific issue in the same way in all of the Book of Order. G-6.0106b is an aberration in our polity, and we are better off in every conceivable way without it. It is not justified ethically, rationally, politically nor theologically. It is time for us to vote in favor of inclusion.

The Church is currently lending tacit support to mocking, bullying, torment and exclusion suffered by LGBTQ persons

2011-01-08T04:16:00.000-08:00

(1)LGBTQ persons are being mocked, bullied, tormented, and discriminated against at this very moment, possibly jailed or even executed overseas.(2) Some in recent days have taken their own lives as a direct result of this hateful treatment.(3) Every second we fail to stand up and declare unequivocally that God loves them and they are welcome, is a second we acquiesce to bigotry and tacitly support bullies.(4) It is time to begin undoing the harm official church policies of exclusion have wrought.

Commentary
1. We can be thankful that the Church is no longer, in the United States, and other industrialized countries at least, able to lend it's open support to mocking, bullying and torment of LGTBQ persons, any more than the Church can any longer support anti-Semitism, as it did for many centuries. This is not the case in most of the rest of the world. The Church still can and does lend it's open support to exclusion, of course - that is part of what is at issue here.

2. Here we are of course speaking of the most notable example of Uganda, where homosexuality may become a capital offense. Rather than winking and nodding at such reprehensible legislation, the Church should be denouncing it thoroughly and clearly in every possible venue.

3. We have seen in the news that mocking, bullying and torment can drive LGBTQ persons, as well as others in groups which are the targets of derision, to commit suicide. Again, as with the case in Uganda, the Church should take pains to distance itself from such reprehensible behavior. Instead, the position of the anti-inclusion crowd isn't that the bullies and mockers are wrong, only that they use the wrong methods.

4. And not only bullies, but possibly execution-squads and lynch-mobs as well. What in affluent, industrialized society is an issue of bullying is much more serious in failed or tenuous states which do not provide their citizens with the many protections we enjoy.

No church that does not choose a LGBTQ minister, Elder or Deacon will ever have to ordain one

2011-01-05T04:15:00.000-08:00

(1)Even if the PC(USA) is to begin ordaining LGBTQ persons this very moment, there is no church anywhere in the denomination which would be forced to accept any particular LGBTQ pastor, Elder or Deacon against its will.(2) It is the Presbytery’s function to examine candidates for Ministry of Word and Sacrament, and that will continue without interruption when G-6.0106b is erased from the Book of Order.(3) The fact is that G-6.0106b does not protect anyone from anything. All it does is ensure that people who are demonstrably called to pastoral ministry are not allowed to live that calling out, and churches in need of pastoral leadership are unable to find it.(4)

Commmentary
1. This was one claim that we made which Rev. Tom Hobson called dishonest, but in our response to him we demonstrated very clearly why this is the case, and will be the case for the foreseeable future.

2. This is not, nor ever has been, an issue of somehow forcing squirming Presbyterians to accept ministers, Elders or Deacons their congregations and Presbyteries do not choose. That is absurd, as well as beyond the scope of Amendment 10A.

3. As we said earlier, G-6.0106b adds nothing whatsoever of value to the Book of Order, and in losing it, we lose nothing but a shackle on the Gospel.

4. What we have in our current system is the enforcement of a particular stance on a non-essential in the Reformed faith. Intelligent, faithful people of good conscience can and do disagree on LGBTQ ordination. For this very reason, we should expunge G-6.0106b.

LGBTQ persons already serve in other denominations

2011-01-02T04:14:00.000-08:00

LGBTQ persons are serving in ordained ministry in various denominations currently and the predicted denominational collapses have not taken place.(1) The real harm is being done however by our continuing to fight over this issue, which damages the peace, unity and purity of the church particular and universal, as well as the witness of the church to the world.(2)
Furthermore, we must never shrink from doing what is right for the sake of protecting our denomination. Even if acting justly causes a mass exodus from our denomination, that is no reason to continue to act unjustly.(3)

Commentary
1. This issue has been addressed in the UCC, ELCA, UU, Episcopal Church, MCC, the GAAAP, the RPI, Religious Society of Friends, the Swedenborgian Church of North America, the Uniting Church in Australia, and others, all of which ordain "practicing" LGBTQ persons. Other churches like the United Methodists and even the Moravian Church are where the PC(USA) is - actively moving toward LGBTQ ordination. As you can see from the long, robust, and growing list of churches ordaining LGBTQ persons, there has been no great collapse. Their ministry and witness is not compromised. In fact, these open and affirming denominations and organizations are in a better position than the PC(USA) currently is - they are benefiting from the calling, gifts and fruits of their sisters and brothers.

2. What is certainly tearing denominations apart is the lethal attempt to combine the Gospel with bigotry.

3. We cannot imagine one who loves and follows Jesus Christ choosing the life and health of the denomination over their life with God. The Protestant Reformation, which resulted in so many denominations today, was a catastrophe for the Roman Catholic Church, breaking apart its stronghold in Europe at the time. Should we then say that the Reformation should never have happened?

Exclusion of LGBTQ persons adds nothing of value to the ordination standards we already have

2010-12-30T04:14:00.000-08:00

Ignore for the moment that the average American becomes sexually active at 16 and gets married at 28, and that simple ‘chastity in singleness’ does not begin to address this societal reality in believers’ lives.(1) Apart from the exclusion of LGBTQ persons from ordination, G-6.0106b does nothing whatsoever to further or deepen the Book of Order’s definition of ordained office or requirements for those seeking ordination.(2) It can be omitted without losing anything of value.(3)

Commentary
1. Turning specifically to the 'fidelity and chastity' clause of G 6.0106b, we find a standard that at least 95% of Americans have entirely abandoned - that of total chastity outside of marriage. This standard arose in a context where it was common for 14 year-olds to be married, and to be parents before they would be allowed to vote in the United States. Education and rising standards of living have made it so that this way of life will likely never return. What we currently demand is that the vast majority of ordained persons in the last few decades simply and quietly buy into the duplicity of our polity. We do not ask; they do not tell about their actual sexual practices, because we don't dare. The most effective way for G 6.0106b to be repealed is for it to actually be enforced. As it stands, our policies encourage heterosexual hypocrisy as well as exclusion of called LGBTQ persons.

2. Our ordination standards say that we should ordain no person who fails to repent of anything which Scripture and the Confessions call sin. That, right there, makes every single Presbyterian minister, Elder and Deacon utterly undeserving of ordination. There are so many things called sin, many of which are such sweeping categories that thorough repentance is utterly impossible. Are you ever stubborn? Do you ever doubt or exhibit any unbelief in anything scripture or the confessions say? Have you ever "done works which have no other warrant than the invention and opinion of man?" Meaning - do you ever do anything that is not positively commanded or at least permitted by analogy in scripture, such as watch a movie? Have you ever made, displayed or viewed any picture of God? Do you fail to hate sin with your whole heart? Do you ever ascribe any good at all to anything besides God? Do you make bold or curious searchings into God's secrets? G 6.01016b is not only an impossible standard, it is vague to the point of uselessness. Applying it consistently would require a degree of interpretation of scripture and the confessions which no group of people could possibly consent to as it would invariably include behaviors many people simply do not agree are sinful.

3. 10A does more than simply delete the section of the Book of Order in question - it replaces it with a statement that is far superior and which draws upon Presbyterian history for an answer that empowers Presbyteries and allows for freedom of conscience in the non-essential issue of the status of LGBTQ persons.

Kind of Cuts to the Heart

2010-12-28T23:15:00.000-08:00

Here's the link to the comic.

The Priesthood is composed of all believers

2010-12-27T04:13:00.000-08:00

(1)In the Reformed tradition, from the very beginning, it was understood that every believer is responsible as part of the priesthood - that priesthood was not a special ontological status conferred by the church, but was rather a general calling conferred by the grace of God on all baptised believers.(2) The fact is that every LGBTQ Christian is already called to ministry.(3)

Commentary
1. This post follows upon the theme and logic of the previous one, and is once again simply recapitulating a basic Reformed theological understanding and applying it to LGBTQ ordination.

2. Again, we are all priests. Every one of us, despite the failings we are aware of and those we don't even have the discernment and wisdom to see.

3. This discussion is not about ontology, it is about polity. What are we to do with these individuals, called by God but denied certain functions in our polity? Continue to ignore God's calling, or change?

In For A Sheep, In For A Herd

2010-12-26T06:59:00.000-08:00

These are my sermon notes, what I write out and then use to create bullet-points to preach from. I get the overall movement down, the ideas, a few of the pithy phrases, and then I discard it and go from notes. These notes are more complete than usual, and I think the illustration is kind of cool, so here you go. This is what I'll be preaching in 30 minutes:

Luke 2:8-20
Luke 15:1-7

I want to give some illustration around the idea of shepherds - I recently read an article that changed my image, my viewpoint, and let me to understand something more deeply than I did before. If you want me to point you in the direction of the article, I can after the service, but it was written by Professor Richard Beck on his blog Experimental Theology.

Go back to the text and our imagery - what is a shepherd like? Relatively poor, might be watching someone else’s flock, considered scruffy and somewhat dangerous.

What is a farmer like?

Herdsmen tend to be more violent than farmers. You can see this in Westerns - cowboys are rowdy and carry six-guns. Farmers primarily provide daughters for cowboys to marry. They do so, settle down, and do what? Go into farming.

The reason is simple - it’s really hard to steal a farm, or to steal food from a farm. There’s too much of it. It isn’t very mobile. And for most of the year, a lot of it isn’t in edible form. The farmer might have neighbors who will stick up for him, and so on.

Stealing a herd is really easy. Cattle-rustlers, right? From the same westerns.

Imagine life for these shepherds: the sheep are everything they have. All of their wealth; their investment portfolio; their medicare and medicaid when they get old; their 401k retirement plan; their day to day paycheck - all of that.

To illustrate this, I did something I probably shouldn’t have. I went to the bank a few days ago, and I withdrew all of the money we had there in cash. Mostly small bills, actually, just to illustrate. There’s what’s in our checking account, as well as all we’ve saved in order to pay taxes this year - my taxes don’t come out of my paycheck, for the most part, as a pastor, so at tax-time we’ll be paying a huge bill all at once for the whole year.

Anyway, in this box is everything we have.

And this is what it’s like to be a shepherd. (Dump it out)

There it is, all we have, lying out there where anyone can take it, any time. Imagine this being your life - all you have in the world wandering around, bleating. You bet your behind you’d be watching your flocks by night. And by day. Would you dare sleep? Say a stranger comes near your flock - would you be welcoming? Hell no. You’d be locked and loaded.

That’s what it’s like to be a shepherd - constant anxiety that in a moment of neglect, you can lose everything. The difference between prosperous herdsman and starving beggar is one bad night.

And now we return to our cute pastoral story about the angels coming to sing carols with the shepherds. Only it doesn’t look much like that anymore. We already talked about how terrifying angels are - shepherds are little better. Come up to a shepherd in the dark and startle him and see if you live to see the dawn. Not likely.

And yet these shepherds, when they hear the news about the birth of the Messiah, leave their flocks and go into town looking, door to door one imagines, seeking Jesus.

We don’t know if their flocks are there when the shepherds return. All it would take is one cynical shepherd to see everyone else was leaving their flocks, and he could take off with everyone else’s investment portfolio. In a heartbeat. Not to mention wolves, or other predators. Or the fact that sheep are stupid, and they just wander off sometimes.

This is not just “Hey, let’s go see a cute baby guys”. This is a group of tough, sleepless, violent men dropping everything, risking losing everything they own, to go see Jesus.

Then - the shepherds could have returned to find their flocks gone. The question is - given that, did they make a mistake? Should they have stayed in the field, guarded their income, and ignored the baby Jesus?

Should we do that? Is it the prudent thing, the wise thing, the right thing? To remain ever concerned about our income, our retirement, and to neglect the times when Christ calls us into the world to do something? To live out our calling?

Would we be the shepherds who stayed behind? Because when we hesitate to risk, that’s who we are. We don’t make it into the story. We miss Jesus entirely.

***

Let’s continue on the shepherd theme. Not only is Jesus birth attended by shepherds, but Jesus is later, as an adult, referred to as the Good Shepherd.

Now, this is not because Jesus acts like a skillful shepherd. If Jesus was caring for actual sheep, he would be broke in a heartbeat.

Jesus tells a parable about a good shepherd - but no one who heard this story would have agreed with him at first. It is more like a parable of an idiot shepherd who is destined for poverty.

(Illustrate with fake money again - get a pile and walk and drop a bill somewhere)

This is Jesus’ so-called good shepherd. He’s going along with his herd, a hundred sheep, or, let’s say, ten thousand dollars. He drops a hundred dollar bill, and later realizes it. (Throw money up in the air) He goes off looking for this lost one hundred dollar bill, leaving nine thousand, nine hundred dollars lying out on the ground for anyone to take. He risks 99 for the sake of 1 lost sheep.

This shepherd is a moron. In economic terms, this shepherd is a failure.

This shepherd is Jesus.

The incarnation, the Christmas story, is among other things, the Good Shepherd loving us so much, valuing us so greatly, that he comes to find us where we are, seeks us out, and risks everything in the process.

So we do not go seeking a God who is indifferent, or who is removed from us, waiting for our approach. We go seeking a God who has already sought us, so passionately and relentlessly, that he takes on flesh, and every weakness, and absolute vulnerability, in order to find us when we are lost.

That is a God like no other.

And so here we are, watching our flocks by night - guarding our interests even when we are at rest, ready to go to war, to fight, to defend what is ours.

And our calling is to set it all down and to go seeking Jesus while he can be found.

Mother of God

2010-12-24T16:09:00.001-08:00

A sermon for Christmas Eve

Luke 2:1-20

As the bright lights and noise of this anything but silent night began to dwindle into the pre-dawn stillness which is not very still with a newborn lying near you Mary did the best sort of thing you can do in those hours besides sleep – she pondered. She treasured.

The footsteps of the Shepherds and their shouts of alleluia receded into the distance, the angels gave their singing a rest, and I’d wager anyone that Joseph was completely comatose from overload, snoring in a corner. I know because I’ve been there. But Mary sat awake next to her newborn son wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger, pondering. Treasuring.

The tendency of artists, poets, songwriters, theologians and everyone else has been to interpret this attitude of Mary’s as nostalgia. Mary looks down at the child in the manger with the kind of gentle glowy love and amazement that suggests she has just been a part of something miraculous. In our imagination the post-labor glow is a suffix on the end of the annunciation: the resolution of the story which began when Gabriel came to tell a frightened young girl from Nazareth that her life was about to change forever.

But though it makes a nice holiday card to think of the scene this way we can only do so by forgetting who Mary is. This is no shrinking violet. This is the composer of the magnificat, who said that God would cast out the rich and powerful and feed the poor and hungry – and would do so through her. This is the woman who faced a general in the army of Heaven giving her orders that would have seemed impossible to any of us, and said, in essence, “I can do that.” Having traveled 80 miles on foot from Nazareth to Bethlehem while in the last stages of pregnancy, and just toughed out labor and childbirth without any painkillers or even any assistance but her inexperienced and most likely terrified fiancée… she was not now going to sit there and blush at her accomplishment like it caught her by surprise. This is not your meek and mild Disney heroine. This is Theotokos – the Mother of God.

Mary was not pondering what had just happened, so much as she was treasuring what she knew was coming ahead.

You see, though giving birth is a miraculous feat it pales beside what Mary did next. Without choirs of angels, or shepherds or wise men, or strange stars, or kings, or any of these things she would be a mother to God. When Gabriel had announced that she had been chosen it was not for just those 9 months to carry some extra weight around, feel her organs and bones shifting, her womb expanding and then suddenly to end one wild night in Bethlehem. Gabriel was saying in essence that God trusted her to be the person who would take him to her breast when he cried. God trusted her to keep him warm and safe when his eyes couldn’t even see the full spectrum of color, let alone the ends of the universe. When God couldn’t recognize a human face, let alone design one. When God couldn’t conceive of time, or self, or good, or evil… God would trust her to be the person who shelters and sustains and teaches all these things. God would trust her to be his mother.

As Mary looked into that manger, while the world slept, she pondered the job ahead of her. She would be the one to teach Jesus to walk, to play, to love, and to forgive. She would be the one to dust off scraped knees, and scold him for misbehaving. She would help him grow to know himself as a man, as the first man – the human being on which all other human beings are modeled. The word made flesh.

Not only for the role she played on that night in Bethlehem, but for the role she played over decades we have known her as Mary, the Mother of God.

Our first and most important ordination is in baptism

2010-12-24T04:13:00.000-08:00

Our first and most important ordination is in Baptism, where we are adopted into Jesus Christ and given the ministry of every disciple.(1) Ordination to a specific ministry in the church, whether of an Elder, Deacon, or Minister of Word and Sacrament does not confer any ontological change, override, supersede, or even amend the prior ordination into the ministry of the baptised.(2) The distinction we make in the offices of the church is one of function and not of holiness.(3) By saying that a baptised, called, and gifted individual is ineligible for a particular ministry by virtue of supposed insufficient holiness we are denying their Baptism.(4) If one’s Baptism can be annulled by supposed sin, or is dependent on our effort and perfection, then we are all doomed.

Commentary
1. Every baptized Christian is a minister - the only differences we need to work out are whether a particular person is called to ministry of Word and Sacrament, or as an Elder or Deacon, as a Chaplain, and so on. As adopted children, we have a lot of very difficult chores - fortunately, one of them is not deciding which of us is worthy of the call of Christ. We are all called, and we are all unworthy. Rather, we must discern what our specific work is to be, and how we are best to go about it.

2. The view that ordination is magical, that it confers an ontological change in a person, is not a Reformed or Presbyterian view.

3. In fact, Jesus is at pains to point out that those who focus on distinctions of holiness are to be the most severely judged. For the most part, they serve as counter-examples of self-righteousness and spiritual blindness, and it is the humble and despised who Jesus consistently lifts up.

4. Not only that, we are denying the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying them - but that is not the point we are making here. The point we are making here is that every Christian disciple is called to ministry, long before that Christian has any hope whatsoever of fulfilling that ministry.

Jesus is silent on homosexuality

2010-12-21T04:12:00.000-08:00

(1)Though Paul mentions it twice, Jesus does not talk about homosexuality at all in the Gospels that we have as canon.(2) An argument from absence isn’t necessarily very compelling, but it is worth mentioning that for over 30 years we have energetically argued over something that the authors of the Gospels did not feel was worth mentioning even once one way or another.(3) Paul, the first to write about Jesus whose manuscripts we have, encouraged people not to marry at all because he expected the imminent return of Jesus in his lifetime.(4) He did not speak of committed LGBTQ relationships any more than the Hebrew scriptures did.(5)

Commentary
1. It is possible, when trying to shoe-horn homosexuality into Jesus' concerns is to mention his use of the word aselgeia in Mark 7:22, and that this word possibly may have referred to homosexuality - or any number of sexual sins. The fact is that no translator, all of whom were quite willing to show an anti-homosexual bias in translating toevah as 'abomination' in the OT only where it apparently referred to same-sex acts, saw fit to translate any word of Jesus in the gospels as referring to homosexuality. In mistaken etymological inventions like the term "sodomy", we see clearly that they were inclined to do so if the opportunity presented itself. It is also the case that only Tom Hobson and one other Biblical itnerpreter he is aware of would even make this argument. So of all the Biblical interpreters he might be aware of, only 2, one of which being himself, would argue that Jesus mentions homosexuality at all.

2. And in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, Paul only makes mention of 'coitus' between two males, not mentioning 'coitus' between females at all. Why is this? This mistake on his part precludes support for complementarianism. Perhaps it is similar to his concern with 'effeminate' men in both of these passages? (Using a Greek word that can be taken to mean more broadly 'soft' - again, translator's bias, in this case, misogynistic bias). Should we take the fullness of this list of 'sins' and begin booting men who wear pink shirts from the pews? In short, no.

3. So silent is Jesus on the matter that no translation we are aware of uses the word homosexual, or a derivative thereof, anywhere in the four Gospels. But, again, an argument from silence is not a powerful argument. Jesus is also silent on solar energy and embryonic stem cell research - that doesn't mean the gospel implies nothing about these things. In fact, the Gospel implies that justice and inclusion are part of God's plan for salvation, especially inclusion of groups that the religious establishment looks down upon and views as 'unclean'.

4. As we have mentioned before, for Paul, marriage was at best a grudging allowance for those who simply could not remain abstinent until Christ's return. As for Christ, he clearly demonstrates that even "family" far exceeds the traditional roles, being not about blood, but about living out one's faith.

5. His focus, like that of many opponents of justice for LGBTQ persons, is on the particular sex acts themselves, almost exclusively a focus on sex acts shared between two males. One could account for this myopia entirely with reference to the well-established connection between homophobia and misogyny. The concern is that a man defiles, or demeans himself, in behaving like a woman and having sex with a man. Women are not mentioned in this misogynistic construct because feminine honor is of far less concern. It is possible that none of this is really about sex at all, but about sexism - homophobia's Siamese twin.

We are made a community of equals in Christ

2010-12-18T04:12:00.000-08:00

Male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free.(1) Neither how we are born, nor who we are politically or socially organized, nor how we are economically related to each other, is to have any impact on our status as children of God in Christ.(2) All children of God should be welcomed in ministry. We extrapolate this powerful good news in many ways already - beyond ‘Jew and Gentile’ to other races and nations; beyond ‘slave or free’ to other economic systems and injustices.(3) The community of equals in Christ extends to LGBTQ persons as well.

Commentary
1. This is a message so radical that not even Paul fully understood it, no more than we fully understand it now, with our continuing struggles with racism, misogyny, cultural hubris, empire, violence, wealth and poverty, and yes, heterosexism. We are living into the reality of God's reign, but it is far from fully realized.

2. Male and female are in-born, genetic categories of sex, as well as socially-constructed categories of gender. Jew and Gentile are ritual-purity categories as well as cultural, linguistic and religious categories. Slave and free are socially constructed, economic categories. The point here is that none of these categories define us anymore, when we are made a new creation in Christ - neither in-born genetic differences, nor socially-constructed, nor ritual-purity, nor cultural, nor linguistic, nor theological, nor economic, etc. It would be foolish to assume, for example, that only literal Jews and Gentiles are to be included in the dissolution of cultural distinctions which separate us. How much more so for biological and social distinctions? The church has always assumed that these are categorical statements of equality and fellowship.

3. And yes, beyond 'male and female' to other in-born sexual identities and proclivities. We have come a long way since Paul, but in many ways, we share his struggle, his excitement, and his blindness. Let a few pieces of scale fall away, and let us ordain our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Why God Breaks God's Rules

2010-12-17T12:06:00.000-08:00

Drifting around in a variety of forms in the sea of ideas in our culture is this persistent kernel that there is a big difference between the contents and meaning of the Old Testament, and the contents and meaning of the New Testament. This idea may be expressed in the word Testament itself which suggests there were multiple different contracts God engaged in with human beings which contradict or overlap with one another. This idea may also be imported into the very identity of God as if we have a God of wrath and judgment on the one hand, and a God of love and peace on the other.

At a surface level I simply concede the point that there are indeed differences between parts of the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament. I believe the differences are usually exaggerated in conversation. The roots of all of Jesus' and Paul's preaching can be found all over the place in the Old Testament. Ideas of peace, and forgiveness, and love of neighbor are prevalent in the Torah and the Prophets. Furthermore, many of the real differences are, in my opinion, cosmetic - more a function of the gap in time between the writing of the documents, shifts in the culture, and the audience for whom the authors were writing than a deep theological divide. There are as many or more differences within the Old Testament itself, or within the New Testament as there are between the two testaments, but it is no skin off my nose to concede that one could easily find apparent conflicts between the Old Testament and the New if you wanted to.

This leads to a big problem though, because it puts us in the silly position of asking questions like "Why does God break God's own rules?" In the Torah God is depicted dictating the laws of the covenant to Moses who writes them down and delivers them to the people of Israel. In the New Testament, God is depicted as Jesus the Christ who comes in person and precedes to dismantle a number of the laws of the Old Testament. Paul and Peter follow suit in proclaiming God's covenant open to Gentiles, even those who follow none of the kosher food laws and who are not circumcised. There are a variety of possible (bad) solutions to this contradiction:

#1 - God changed God's mind. This is the solution of Open Theists and others who argue that God evolves over time and can change her opinion on things. There is Biblical support for the idea that God can change her mind- God does it several times in Genesis alone. To my mind this idea is lacking because it raises our understanding of God above God. It suggests that we understood God correctly then, and understand God correctly now and if the situation has changed the factor which is mutable must be God. As though it weren't more likely that it was we humans of limited perception that had misunderstood rather than that God had been unclear or inconsistent.

#2 - God's Laws Had An Expiration Date. This is very similar to solution #1, it is the idea of dominionists who believe that the history of God's providence is divided into eras and certain rules apply only in their respective era. I can agree with the idea that laws and ideas are contextual - ie: they matter to a certain time and culture in ways they may not to other cultures in other times, but I don't think this way of reading scripture really flies. Firstly, it chops the Bible up in ways that scripture doesn't seem to support. Jesus seemed to believe that his mission was the continuation and fulfillment of God's previous covenants with Israel, not a replacement for them. God's promises to Abraham and David didn't contain expiration dates. This ultimately makes God into an Indian Giver who promises things, but then takes them back after some hidden annulment clause triggers.

#3 - Only Some OT Rules Were From God. This solution basically says God is perfectly consistent, but only some parts of the OT were truly divinely inspired. Others were mistakes. Those mistakes got corrected in the NT and now we have it right. While I am agreed that the Bible isn't a "flat" text, meaning not every verse is equally important, I think this idea is ultimately unhelpful. How can we be sure we know exactly which rules were from God and which ones were not? The entire Torah is supposedly dictated by God directly to Moses. If they got that wrong, why should we believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and the others got it so right? We can't start going at our Bible with scissors, that undermines the entire idea of inspiration.

All of these solutions are bad in my opinion because they are using the Bible incorrectly. The assumption behind each one of these approaches is that inspiration is in the text, as though it were a mineral to be mined out of the words on the page. All we have to do is use the right tools and we'll get the answer out of there. The truth (God) is contained in the black ink. That is why the solutions above either entail changing our ideas about God (#1) since the text itself seems contradictory we resolve the contradiction by making God flexible to our interpretation; or they involve adding something into the text (#2) like an entire mythological structure to history which makes sense of the contradictions; or they cut out the parts of the text we don't like (#3) until we can force it to make sense.

A better understanding of inspiration is that it is what occurs when the Holy Spirit intervenes between the believer and the text to reveal something true about God. The text is a dead letter. It is nothing but the human record of various people who had experiences of God through the Holy Spirit and tried to write them down. We return to them because of the witness of millions that they receive the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by faithfully engaging with them as scripture. Believers are what get inspired, not books. So here would be my solution to the apparent contradiction of God breaking God's own rules:

#4 - She Doesn't. The rules in Scripture are not God's rules and they never were. They are rules people of faith have written based on their best understanding of God's will. They are rules that people have sometimes followed and sometimes found that they led to a deeper relationship with God. But they are not "the Truth". Only God, revealed in Jesus is "the Truth" - and she is forever transcendent, forever undomesticated, forever surpassing our comprehension. All of our rules, and words, and images, and beliefs, and theologies, are sand mandalas that should be swept away every so often to remind us how fragile and impermanent our ideas about God are. To borrow a parable from Buddhism, we are standing on the shore of a vast lake and we want to get to the other side. Christianity is a raft that will take us to the other side of the lake. We should get into the raft and trust it to carry us across the lake, but when we get to the other side we're going to leave the raft behind, because the raft was never the goal. The raft was a vehicle to get us to the goal - the other side of the lake.

We call unclean what God calls clean

2010-12-15T04:11:00.000-08:00

“What I have called clean, let no one call unclean.”(1) In this story, God is encouraging Peter to break the Law of Moses regarding purity - God is explicitly encouraging Peter to commit the ‘abominations’ we mentioned above.(2) Peter’s vision is about the continuing expansion and inclusion of God’s call, begun in the OT with the many calls to hospitality and love of neighbor as well as aliens in the land.(3) Even if we pretended that the OT condemned consensual, adult same-sex love (which it does not mention, much less condemn), that love would be right there on the table-cloth...with the shellfish.(4) This is not Peter’s innovation, nor his revisionism, nor his denial of God’s authority, any more than it is for those who support LGBTQ rights and inclusion now. It is merely the continuation of God’s ever-expanding call, breaking down barriers wherever the Spirit is found.(5)

Commentary
1. To be clear, this is a statement of the problem we currently face in the church. Peter heard these words in a dream from God when God commanded him to commit an "abomination" by eating unclean animals. As for God calling LGBTQ persons clean, we can't imagine clearer evidence than God calling and equipping them for various ministries, including ministry of Word and Sacrament, both with outward evidence and with an inward sense of conviction and call, not to mention the agreement of the communities they serve. Whether you choose to trust them when they and their communities say they are called, or you look to the fruits of their calling, it is clear that our current polity defies the movement of the Holy Spirit.

2. Apparently injunctions in the OT regarding ritual purity are not intended to stand for all time - they are temporary measures. We can speculate on why God broke God's own rules, but it should by now be more than evident that simply because we locate a verse in scripture which implies an impurity, we cannot simply accept it unthinkingly any more than Peter could.

3. The trajectory of salvation history is that of greater and wider inclusion, especially inclusion of groups Israel or the Church treats with contempt.

4. This is in reference to the fact that in the OT, sex with same-gender ritual prostitutes and eating shellfish are both described using the exact same Hebrew word. The Bible never mentions loving, monogamous same-sex relationships at all, but even the extreme of same-sex ritual prostitution is described with the term used to describe eating shrimp cocktail.

5. We're sure that Peter got called a 'revisionist' at the time, that he was accused of heresy and of 'going against the Bible', and so on. These accusations hearken back to Jesus - scribes and liturgical lawyers never like it when someone goes off the reservation following a wild and undomesticated God, a God who might do wild and previously-unthinkable things like ordain women or bless interracial marriages or re-marriages. For better or worse, we seek to follow a barrier-breaking God, which is most clearly demonstrated in the boundary-breaking life of Jesus Christ, but can be seen throughout the whole of scripture.

LGBTQ persons have clearly demonstrated spritual gifts for ministry

2010-12-12T04:11:00.000-08:00

There are among us at this very moment LGBTQ individuals with an interior sense of call who many have testified are gifted with spiritual charisms for ordained ministry.(1) That there have been in the past, are currently, and will be in the future, powerful preachers, teachers, leaders, and caregivers who happen to be LGBTQ persons is amply witnessed.(2) Since ordained ministry in the Reformed tradition is strictly a division of function, and not of holiness, there can be no justification for denying their gifts for service.(3) With Peter we ask “surely no one can stand in the way of the Holy Spirit?”(4)

Commentary
1. If this was not clearly the case, there would be no issue to debate. If LGBTQ persons were not gifted for service by the Holy Spirit, we could all easily walk away from this discussion. The problem arises when we acknowledge the fact that they are clearly the recipients of gifts for ministry, demonstrate these gifts alongside their sisters and brothers, and are yet denied ordination.

2. Again, this can easily be observed at any seminary which admits LGTBQ persons, and if one looks and thinks carefully, has already been demonstrated publicly many times by those who find a way to serve despite our mistaken polity. We genuinely hope no one believes it is reasonable to argue to the contrary.

3. See the previous arguments - holiness is a gift from God. Ordination to ministry of Word and Sacrament is a particular calling in the context of a priesthood of all believers, all of whom are called to ministry of some kind. This means that the best test for a particular call is: how well equipped is the person in question?

4. We believe this to be true. In the long run, we cannot stand in the way of the Holy Spirit, which is breaking into our mistaken polity even now. Though we can drag our feet and bray and squirm, the power of God will not be denied. God has called, is calling, and will continue to call our LGBTQ sisters and brothers. Period. All we can do is temporarily stand in the way.

Brief Interlude: Another Conversation

2010-12-11T10:33:00.000-08:00

The Stated Clerk of Muskingum Valley Presbytery has set up a blog for posting and discussion on the many votes before the PC(USA) in the near future, including not only 10A but also the Belhar Confession and the New Form of Government. Given our focus on 10A, we may not get a chance to talk much about these things here, so if you're interested in these conversations, head over to the Stated Clerk's new blog.

He's also set up a pretty thorough study guide on the various issues and amendments the PC(USA) is voting on, including a certain ordination resource by yours truly, and Tom Hobson's response to said resource (which we have subsequently dealt with in depth.) The study guide is interesting for seeing a few different views on the various issues.

We now return to your regularly-scheduled arguments in favor of LGBTQ inclusion.

We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and gifted for service

2010-12-09T04:10:00.000-08:00

(1)The Holy Spirit is the source of all holiness.(2) Just as we are not saved by our own effort, we do not grow in grace by our own sweat either.(3) There are no actions of repentance, charity, or mercy that any individual could perform which would make them worthy of the Ministry of Word and Sacrament.(4) Our worthiness lies not in our personal righteousness but in the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, evidenced by the gifts of the Spirit.(5)

Commentary
1. We are not sanctified by buying into heterosexism any more than we are sanctified by buying into regular ol' sexism. Similarly, LGTBQ persons are no less gifted for service by the Holy Spirit than heterosexual persons.

2. Just like with justification, there is no holiness-meter, much as some pretend that they have one in their possession. The fact is that homosexuality itself is not a sin - like any consensual sexuality, it can be expressed sinfully or not, just like heterosexuality.

3. That would of course not count as 'grace' at all, it would count as achievement. This is something that in a Reformed context we take to be a given.

4. Again, to be clear, where worthiness for the call to Ministry of Word and Sacrament is concerned, LGBTQ sisters and brothers are indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts; in inward conviction, in outward verification of call, in demonstrated gifts for ministry, and in capacity for right or sinful behavior, indistinguishable - except insofar as our polity forces us to make an unjustified distinction.

5. That being said, it is abundantly clear that LGBTQ persons have been gifted by the Holy Spirit for ministry in similar ways to their heterosexual counterparts. The only difference is in whether they are allowed by our mistaken polity to exercise those gifts for the edification of the church.

Justification is by faith

2010-12-06T04:10:00.000-08:00

Justification comes by grace through faith and not through any human effort.(1) Establishing a suspect standard of holiness for service in the Church contradicts our confessions where we proclaim that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,(2) but equally that all have been set free from bondage to sin and death in Christ.(3) We are freed for service - a service which we unjustly and selectively deny to some who Christ has claimed.(4)

Commentary
1. Unlike suspect theories like complementarianism, which have almost no support in scripture, much less in reason, justification by faith is essential to Reformed theology.

2. That having been said, let it not be taken to imply that we believe that LGBTQ persons are somehow intrinsically sinful because of their good and inborn sexual identity. We do not believe this is the case - only that LGBTQ persons are just as capable of sin as any other persons, and are no more able to justify themselves by their good works than any other persons.

3. That is to say, our brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to be LGTBQ are indistinguishable from our brothers and sisters who are heterosexual where justification is concerned.

4. This claim of Christ upon us is something we can never demonstrate decisively nor prove. The evidence of this claim is in our inward conviction and in our outward behavior. Again, this is exactly the same for heterosexuals and for LGBTQ persons.

Half-time Reflections

2010-12-04T07:36:00.000-08:00

Perhaps you've noticed this blog has taken on a little bit of a theme lately? I wouldn't blame our readers, new or old, from thinking that this was a single-topic blog, when in fact, we hope it will be much more than even a blog. We're in a process of building something we think is quite exciting, which is difficult to explain, but you're free to try and glean what it will be from reading our identity statement.

But for the time being this space is what it is, and it is largely dominated by this conversation about ordination standards in the Presbyterian Church (USA). That is because two of the proprietors here, Doug Hagler, and myself, are ministers in the PC(USA) and have been passionate about this issue for a long time, and now we find ourselves in the midst of a vote on Amendment 10-A and actually in a position to do our small part for greater justice. What you would probably never realize based on our recent activity is that this issue is far from the top of our list of things we are truly passionate about. Circumstances, an observed need, and our own pedantry are responsible for the current flurry of activity on this subject, but it isn't without a tinge of irony that we look at how much time we're dedicating to the subject and sigh.

That doesn't mean we regret having engaged on this course. Far from it. Speaking for myself personally, it has been a fantastic learning experience. The research required to acquit ourselves respectably on this subject has taught me a great deal, sharpened my thinking, and been an exercise in sustained attention to rival most other work I've attempted. More significantly, it has been interesting observing its spread through the very tiny pond of our denomination, and even rippling out into neighboring denominational ponds.

We are at the half-way point in terms of the structure of the original document. We've completed our expanded responses to the arguments against LGBTQ ordination, and are moving into our expansion of the arguments in favor. It is easier from here on out, though. The heavy lifting was mostly in the first half.

So far, I have been pleasantly surprised at the lack of personal attacks directed our way. I don't know if that is because most people just don't care about our tiny corner of the blogosphere, or if we have written the document in such a way as to discourage them, but I'll take it. I have no illusions of our incredible importance, or superior argumentative prowess. I believe we have done as good of a job as we're capable of doing, but whether that is good enough to have any impact is beyond my knowledge.

Due to requests from others we will be releasing a pdf of the entire expanded document with citations for those who are really bored. We will also be producing a non-denominational version of the document which we hope will be useful to fellow mainline denominations having similar conversations. Some churches have discussed using it as a curriculum for adult education, which we are surprised about, but happy to support. We may offer some help in that direction, eventually.

My hopes for this project are the same as they were at the start - that it be useful in any small measure for the accomplishment of inclusive ordination standards. I hope it will be read at presbytery meetings, in committees, in churches, and anywhere else that it may provoke fruitful conversation toward that end. And then I hope we can produce articles on the stuff that we are really passionate about that will generate half as much interest as our posts on this subject have.

Ordaining LGBTQ people makes it harder to work with churches in the rest of the world

2010-12-03T08:09:00.000-08:00

To what degree are we willing to compromise our conscience and our polity for the sake of ‘getting along’?(1) Many churches in other countries do not ordain women either - it is a fact that our ordination of women makes it more difficult to work with ultra-conservative denominations and some international churches. Shall we cease to ordain women then?(2) There are places in Africa that are currently debating whether to jail and execute LGBTQ persons. Must we deny our reason and conscience to support jailing and executing sexual minorities as well?(3) We are better off as a witness of justice, equality and conscience for the whole world to see. This is what the church has always been at its best, choosing the love of God for all persons over the injustices of the world, loving the unclean as Jesus did.(4)

Commentary
1. The ecumenical movement has so many hurdles to overcome we find it incomprehensible that this argument gets brought up selectively with respect to inclusive ordination. Is communion for anyone? Or only the baptised? Or only the confirmed, and confessed and approved by the appropriate ecclesiastical authority? Is baptism for infants or adults? What is the role of bishops, and how shall we treat the authority of the Pope? Which books belong in the canon? Can ministers/priests marry? So many theological issues are far more fundamental than this that the idea a gay minister would be the one gap we cannot bridge is disappointing. It reveals that the priorities of some are so far out of whack with those of God that they cannot even see what is a central theological issue, and what is adiaphora. The gospel of heterosexism rules the day.

2. Break-away denominations recently formed by people leaving the PC(USA) are reverting back to refusing to ordain women, or at best, making it into a 'local option'. So it is up to each Presbytery to decide whether women are equal to men, or less. This is true in the EPC and the OPC.

3. The most publicized example of laws aiming to jail and even execute homosexuals is the one now coming into action in Uganda. The law not only opens the option of capital punishment for something called "aggravated homosexuality" and those who test HIV-positive, it makes it illegal not to report anyone you suspect of being homosexual. The situation in Uganda did not arise in a vacuum. Here is a list of countries where homosexuality is criminalized in some degree, including in our own country where they are still denied open military service and marital rights in most states. Furthermore, the connection between evangelicals in the United States and the oppressive laws in Uganda and elsewhere is well established and shameful. We should not assume the law will trend toward greater justice as shown by the recent UN vote to remove sexual orientation from a resolution that protects people from arbitrary executions.

4. Again and again we have to be reminded that Jesus' table-fellowship practices, his healing miracles, his working on the Sabbath, and other behaviors were not mere symbolic actions of compassion. Rather, he was saying that the unclean, the socially-undesirable, the dispossessed, the hated, the outcasts, and sinners are precisely those who make up the kingdom of God. To stand with sexual minorities in a climate of hate is to stand with Jesus. We take an exclusive stance at great peril to our salvation.

Paul condemned homosexuality

2010-12-02T08:09:00.000-08:00

The passage from Romans 1 popularly cited as the most damning New Testament condemnation of Homosexuality is a warning against the dangers of self-righteousness, not a polemic against Homosexuality.(1) If anything it ought to be read as a strong caution against the belief that we can keep the church pure by keeping the wrong kind of people out.(2) We are all in exactly the same position before the grace of Jesus Christ and no rule, least of all one as arbitrary as G-6.0106b, can ensure the faithfulness of the body.
Furthermore, we do not support every claim we can cherry-pick from the epistles. Paul also condemns women speaking in assembly or uncovering their hair.(3) As a church, our polity should not, and does not, depend on proof-texts lifted out of context. Rather, Paul and the early church consistently defied social boundaries as they welcomed, as equals, many excluded and supposedly ‘unclean’ persons.(4)

Commentary

1. This is even a stance that conservative commentators take. Paul is not talking about homosexuality, nor is he doing any work in constructive sexual ethics. He is setting up his readers for the reversal, wherein he warns against hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Judge not lest ye be judged.

2. For reasons of efficiency, we only dealt with one example, but we now have the space to deal with all of them, at least briefly. This is done knowing that one can easily find conservative scholars who will disagree and other scholars who will agree, but for different reasons. The core point is that simply making the above claim is nowhere near enough. Intelligent, well-intentioned, scholarly people can and do disagree.

Romans 1: 26-27: here, Paul is making the argument we dealt with above, that homosexuality is 'unnatural', but only as part of a long litany of sins, as discussed above, and only as a setup for the turn toward the true point - speaking against hypocrisy. It is not even clear what [antimisthia] is referring to. If we have science as our guide, it is referring to...nothing.

1 Corinthians: 6:9: here we have another sin-litany, another list Paul is using as a rhetorical device rather than as a cornerstone of any constructive theology. He is laying out why unrepentant sinners will not see the Kingdom of God. Fortunately, homosexuality is not necessarily a sin, any more than heterosexuality is necessarily a sin. Either can be practiced sinfully. What prompted Paul here seems to be the problem of Christians taking each other before magistrates, in public, rather than judging or reconciling among themselves. Paul is lumping in litigation with other acts he feels are more obviously sinful to make a point.

1 Timothy 1:9-10: yet another sin-litany, this time the English translations giving us a taste of the variety of possible translations for the word [pornos]. Once again, we have lesbians unmentioned. That aside, here the argument is, seemingly, that those who teach doctrine should aim for inspiring love, good conscience, and faith - how different from the seeming fruit of our own doctrinal arguments. Ultimately, following this 'clobber passage', Paul makes an argument for his own call that LGTBQ persons make for their calling in turn. Paul has no more evidence of his call than anyone has. We take him at his word that he has been chosen, justified, and is being sanctified, gifted for service. We can look at his writings and his actions and decide. That is exactly what amendment 10A asks Presbyteries and Sessions to do, but without one specific issue lifted above all others and made into a litmus test.

3. While some individuals and congregations have left the PC(USA) for the EPC or the OPC, denominations which do not guarantee the equality of women in their polity, the PC(USA) remains committed to the equality of women as disciples of Christ - something that was part of the early church from the very beginning. Yes, one can cherry-pick passages from Paul which seem to denounce women in authority. One can also realize that these brief passages are not part of the core of Paul's argument at any point, and that in other places Paul contradicts these biased verses when he comes to a core aspect of the Gospel - that there is no Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free, but all are made new in Christ.

4. "This man eats with sinners!" Jesus, in his life and ministry, took many opportunities to dismantle the prevailing biases about clean and unclean, insiders and outsiders. It seems foolish to imagine that he would not be doing the same now - in fact he is, through his Spirit, breaking the short-sighted boundaries we continually construct around ourselves.

Responding to Rev. Tom Hobson, PhD

2010-12-01T04:31:00.000-08:00

Here are our responses to Rev. Hobson's various arguments. Rev. Hobson was kind enough to correspond briefly with us by way of email, and gave his permission to post his document. We informed him that we would be posting our responses on this blog, and we will let him know when this post goes live.

Below are Rev. Hobson's arguments in block quotes, while our replies follow in italics. In a number of cases, we have already addressed some of these arguments in our expanded treatment of each of our refutations of anti-inclusion arguments and our pro-inclusion arguments. In those cases, we will reference the post in question.

In the event that Rev. Hobson wishes to reply to us, after posting these replies and counter-arguments to our blog, we will give Rev. Hobson the last word. This is not to say that we doubt we could continue to go back and forth for a very long time, only to set a limit ahead of time so that we remain pithy and thorough the first time, insofar as we can.

“Homosexuality is an abomination.” [My advice to conservatives: skip this argument. It is not central to our case.] Non-kosher food is an “abomination” (Deut 14:3), not to God, but in the sense that it is to be utterly despised by Jews. Jesus sets aside the kosher food laws for Christians (Mark 7:19), but there is nothing else in the Hebrew Bible described as an “abomination” that is not reaffirmed as sin in the New Testament other than cross-dressing (Deut 22:5). Male and female prostitution are specifically an abomination “to YHWH” (Deut 23:19), as are any form of idolatry, witchcraft, adultery, homosexual behavior, bestiality, and incest. Non-kosher food is the only ritual-cleanliness category for which this term is used.
It is claimed here that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 does not describe a “committed, monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender” because this was “not a category considered in Bronze Age Middle Eastern thought.” No such distinction was necessary. In both Leviticus and 1 Corinthians, we see that love, consent, and commitment are irrelevant. Both active and passive partner are held equally guilty, no matter what their motives or the quality of their relationship.

We believe this is a case of missing the forest for the trees. The use of [toevah] through the Old Testament demonstrates that it is culturally relative. This is why something can be [toevah] for Egypt that is fine for Israel. This does not change whether the object is described as taboo for Israel or taboo for the God of Israel as some things were certainly taboo to Ba'al and Marduk and their respective peoples. It is about maintaining cultural identity. The issue with idolatry, witchraft, and temple prostitution is that these are practices of cultures surrounding Israel. Israel is enjoined from doing them to protect their uniqueness. It is precisely this logic which Jesus assails in going far beyond merely setting aside kosher food laws, to violating the sabbath, not washing, associating with foreigners, the unclean, sinners, and tax collectors. Jesus programatically assaults the ritual-purity system at the roots.

It is false that incest (as we now understand it) is an abomination before God in the OT - what we would define as incest was perfectly acceptable to the culture that produced the Hebrew Bible. There are also more abominations than are mentioned here, including cutting one's hair a particular way, or mixing threads in fabrics. One gets the impression that the concern here is for maintaining distinct philosophical categories - that mixing of categories is what is detestable, and that this is an issue of natural philosophy where it is not also an issue of idolatry. To be clear, ordained LGBTQ persons should not engage in idolatry of any kind.

The idea of an active and passive partner is interesting: it is a very common misunderstanding of sexuality in general, and is very likely connected to the idea, which we will return to in future posts, that a male dishonors himself by being the 'passive' or receiving sexual partner. In brief, if your sexual partner is passive, that may be a sign of disinterest, but it is not a necessary aspect of the act itself. Women are not 'passive' sexual recipients, nor are those on either end of a same-sex encounter (as long as things are going well that is).

The idea that love, consent and commitment are irrelevant needs to be put out of the conversation as soon as possible. This is ethically, morally, legally and theologically an unacceptable position to take with regard to any sexual act, no matter what one's biblical interpretation may say. A theological or ethical system where love, consent, commitment, intent and context don't matter at all is incoherent at best.

“Homosexuality is the ‘sin of Sodom’.” How can you deny the obvious?? One can say that intended rape is the real issue, but clearly implied is the sense that Sodom is depraved because they demand sex with their own gender. Homosexuality is never named specifically in other Biblical references to Sodom because the audience already knows the story (although see 2 Pet 2:7, which connects Sodom with the sexual sin of aselgeia). Ezekiel mentions inhospitality, but it also says Sodom did “abominable” deeds, an obvious categorical reference to the abominations named in Leviticus (Ezek 16:50).

These references are 'obvious' only to a reader who has a pre-existing anti-homosexual bias, which I can only imagine most readers in the ancient world had. In fact, the claim that this sin is 'obvious' makes Biblical silence on the issue a more powerful argument in favor of the sin of Sodom being inhospitality, not less. The term [aselgeia] is not translated as having to do with homosexual behavior in any major translation that we are aware of, ever. Given the demonstrated anti-homosexual bias of many translators in their selective use of 'abomination' for [toevah], and the linguistic fallacy of 'sodomite' for [qadesh], we think it is probable that if they were convinced [aselgeia] referred to homosexual behavior they would have translated it that way.

“Homosexuality is like pedophilia or bestiality.” True, we cannot lump homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia together, but why is the person who is attracted to children to be viewed as dirt, while everyone else is loved by God? The real issue is not whether those who practice same-sex intercourse are loved by God, but the fact that all three practices in question here both grieve God and harm the person who does them.

First of all, no one is to be viewed as dirt, including pedophiles. Pedophiles are loved by God. The problem is that acting on one's pedophilia is necessarily rape under all circumstances - unlike consensual sexual acts. It is a violation no matter what, because it is forcing sex on a child who is not physically nor psychologically prepared for sex. Unlike consensual sexual acts, it is necessarily harmful in the extreme, and to compare pedophilia to homosexuality is without ethical or logical grounds.

We agree with Rev. Hobson, however, that the crux of the issue is harm - most importantly harm to the victims of pedophilia and bestiality. Homosexual practices do not necessarily harm anyone any more than heterosexual practices do, because there are no exclusively homosexual practices which we could consider in the first place. To claim otherwise is to make a (very common) fallacy.

“Homosexuality is like incest or polyamory.” The Bible does NOT teach the goodness of behaviors that it tolerates in its characters. That is a deliberate falsehood. The Bible’s central teaching is stated three times, in the Torah, by Jesus, and by Paul: “The two [man and woman] shall become one flesh.” God intends sex only for a lifelong one-flesh relationship between a man and a woman. Any other practice is a departure from God’s intention, including fornication, concubinage, polygamy, and divorce.
What 50% of Americans practice is serial monogamy, not polyamory. With regard to Christian leadership, we regard divorce as sin redeemable by repentance and fidelity to one’s subsequent spouse. In the current debate, we are being asked to affirm homosexuality, not as sin redeemable by repentance, but as a good gift of God and a human right.

The last sentence is the only one which we can accept without argument. Rev. Hobson is preferencing a tiny minority of the Bible's teaching on sexuality and relationships, but to claim that this tiny minority abrogates all other passages which describe even God-ordained arrangements which differ is a bit baffling. One could just as easily argue that, particularly in the NT, the vaunted lifelong one-flesh relationship is merely a grudging allowance for those who cannot practice celibacy. If the Bible's central teaching is as Rev. Hobson says, why does Paul consistently disagree? Granted, we have talked about another way to view marriage, for LGBTQ folks as well as heterosexuals: as a school of virtue in the virtue-ethics sense.

“Homosexuality is unnatural.” When we say “unnatural,” we mean that God did not design us to do this. In his book What We Can’t Not Know, Budziszewski argues from God’s design: Our lungs were designed to take in air, not food. The same is true for the issue of practicing sexuality in total defiance to God’s design.
Same-sex relations are a part of nature. But so is sex between different species. So are cancer, schizophrenia, and AIDS. So are black widows and praying mantises who kill and eat their mates, and mackerel who kill purely for sport. “Go and do thou likewise”? And again, why is the natural sexual attraction to children not a part of God’s good creation? If we get rid of our arbitrary notion of consent, and/or if we can ever prove (as some in the APA have tried to do) that sex with children can sometimes be healthy, our objection to it becomes pure hatefulness.

(Added link is ours :) The argument comparing sexuality to respiratory function is a false analogy. Lungs cannot take in food without putting our life in danger. Many (most) sexual acts can be engaged in without doing the same, and it is a simple thing to say that sex acts which threaten one's life should not be attempted. Once again, there are no homosexual sex acts which heterosexuals do not engage in in far greater numbers (if not greater proportions in some cases). This means that whatever the category of "unnatural" acts we are so unspecifically discussing is cannot possibly be defined as purely same-sex acts.

False analogies follow between same-sex relations and sex between different species, cancer, schiziophrenia, AIDS, black widows, praying mantises and so on. "Go and do likewise?" Obviously not, fallacy aside. (How would one "do" cancer anyway?)

Once again, the third false analogy returns: comparing consensual same-sex acts to pedophilic sex acts. We have dismantled that argument more than once, and don't need to do so again.

We have no idea who in the APA have tried to demonstrate that adults violating children can sometimes be healthy - all we can find are some refences to a single symposium where a few participants made a limited case, and were rightly rejected. Pedophilia remains on the APA's list of mental disorders. Simply because a few APA members made a poor argument, do we have to accept further poor arguments equating consensual sex to non-consensual sex? Ironically, this is precisely what Rev. Hobson is doing when he argues that pedophilia and homosexuality are similar. And who is it who thinks that consent is 'arbitrary'? Unclear overall, but consent in issues of sexuality is not arbitrary.

“Homosexuality is dangerous and/or unhealthy.” Homosexuality is no more or less dangerous and/or unhealthy than heterosexual immorality when practiced to the same degree. Both should be avoided.

This seems to contradict a claim Rev. Hobson made above, where he said that bestiality, pedophilia and homosexuality are all intrinsically harmful, comparing them once again by way of false analogy. We also wish Rev. Hobson would define what he means by heterosexual immorality. Since we know he believes homosexual behaviors are all immoral, we are left to assume that he means "all heterosexual behavior that overlaps with homosexual behavior". Is he saying in essence that the only safe or moral sexual act is vaginal intercourse in the bounds of marriage? Given that vaginal intercourse can transmit disease as readily as most other sex acts we don't believe his position is either palatable or coherent.

“Homosexuality is a choice.” We concur that same-sex desire is not a choice. As in the case of substance addiction, the choice is how we respond. We expect a pedophile to make the right choices in response to their attraction to children, even though they did not choose to have these desires. Those with same-sex attraction who choose not to get involved sexually with their own gender tend to have more success breaking free from their desires than those who do become sexually involved.

The agreement here is a good start. Unfortunately Rev. Hobson follows with an implied false analogy, comparing inborn sexual orientation to substance addiction. The two are not really comparable. For an LGBTQ person, the right response to their sexual orientation is identical to the right response to heterosexual attraction - except insofar as anti-LGBTQ bias makes their life needlessly painful, leads to ostracism from their community, and denies them rights afforded to other couples. But in both cases, the exact same ethics apply.

We're also curious about the 'tend to have more success', since success rates in altering sexual orientation are abysmal across the board, such that therapies aimed at accomplishing this are not endorsed by any major US scientific organization. The General Assembly of the PC(USA) agreed a decade ago, in fact, about the uselessness and ethical problems of conversion/reparative therapy (here is the 1999 GA decision's text in full).

“Sexual orientation can be changed with ‘reparative therapy’.” The claims that reparative therapy is a cruel hoax are sweeping and unsubstantiated. Reputable reparative therapy has been shown to have a 70% success rate in reducing unwanted same-sex desire, a rate comparable to substance addiction treatment. Both kinds of treatment have a similar rate of recidivism, but no one claims that treatment for addiction is useless or harmful.

We very much want a citation for the 70% success rate. In all of our research, we never found anything like that. On the contrary, we found that no US scientific organization endorses reparative/conversion therapy, and as mentioned above, neither does the PC(USA). For more on the many problems and fundamental weaknesses of reparative/conversion therapy, see our expanded argument here. (And again we have the false analogy with substance abuse, an entirely different issue, except possibly in a case of genuine sex addiction, against which heterosexuality is no protection.)

“Homosexuality damages society and/or traditional marriage.” Here I defer to page 13 of Alan Wisdom’s article “Is Marriage Worth Defending?” (http://www.theologymatters.com/TM100216.Part1.pdf) He argues that divorce and adultery around us tends to erode the marriages of all married couples. The same would be true for cohabiting couples, and for the acceptance of gay marriage as simply one more lifestyle option.
Again, I reject the claim that the Bible approves of eight different kinds of marriage. The marrying of female captives after a one-month waiting period is the Bible’s unique humane alternative to what everyone else in the Near East: rape and sale into slavery. Marrying a slave promoted her to family status; what’s wrong with that? Jesus rejects polygamy, and Leviticus 18 makes it extremely difficult, since it forbids marriage to any in-law. The only reason we do not favor levirate marriage is because we no longer have the same level of concern for preserving offspring for a man who has died. And the supposed forced marriage of a rape victim is actually marriage of a girl who has been seduced, which the girl’s father can prevent if the male is a jerk. (Here is a case of gratuitously seeking to distort the Bible by exaggeration to make it sound unworthy of belief.)

Suffice to say - Alan Wisdom makes an argument in his article, but it is neither strong nor compelling, and is founded on his presuppositions rather than on facts about the social impact of committed same-sex relationships. One example: his claim that two parent households are better for children is correct - in fact, same-sex households are measurably, if slightly, better for children. Furthermore, even if we accept at face value the argument that divorce and adultery have a deleterious effect on marriages around them it does not follow at all that the acceptance of gay marriage would have the same effect. In fact, it would seem to have the opposite effect, since it would reduce the number of unwed couples in society and increase family stability. A point which has been exhaustively demonstrated. It would also provide more homes for foster children and for children to be adopted into, which would further benefit society, not to mention those children.

As for "gratuitous distortion" - we think that this is gratuitous ad hominem, seeking to imply that our intent is dishonest and geared toward making the Bible sound unworthy of belief. It is not. We take the Bible as seriously as Rev. Hobson does, though we do not have PhDs in exegesis; we simply disagree with him.

Rev. Hobson describes more of the context in which the many kinds of Biblical marriage arose, but does not refute their existence. We are arguing over the details of the context of various kinds of marriage in the Bible, not on whether there is more than the one which Rev. Hobson lifts up (anachronistically, we think) as normative in all cases. The point is that "Biblical marriage" means more than one thing, and Rev. Hobson seems to agree, while disagreeing on the details. We do think that if anyone cannot see what the problem with forced marriage of slaves is, or the forced marriage of a girl who has been "seduced" (what we now often call date rape, statutory rape or a number of other less flattering terms), then we certainly don't want them influencing our sexual ethics. Simply because in the original context an arrangement was better than prevailing cultural options does not make it adequately ethical.

“Paul condemns homosexuality.” Hagler and Clark’s reading of Romans 1 bears no resemblance to the text or context. Clearly, in Romans 1, homosexuality of both kinds is presented as a warning light for the depths of human depravity, not a gift of God if only it were practiced properly. It is not “cherry-picking” to take Paul’s sin list in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 as timeless and universal, both because it reaffirms many Old Testament commands that carried a death penalty (indicating their seriousness), and because it warns that those who continue such practices “shall not inherit the reign of God.”

Our reading of Romans 1 is not novel and is, in fact, widely accepted even by conservative interpreters. Our point is simple and correct - Paul is not writing a treatise on the evils of homosexuality. Paul is not even writing about sexual ethics. Paul is describing a variety of behaviors he regards as sinful, including gossiping, boasting, and disobedience to parents, but also some form of same-sex behavior, possibly ritual, saying that these are the behaviors of an outside group, but he then turns the force of his rebuke on his readers saying that they are even worse because they are self-righteous. The entire passage is a condemnation of pharisaic self-righteousness, the moral of which is judge not lest you be judged. To read Romans 1 as a text about sexual ethics is to completely misread it.

As for Paul's sin list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 it is absolutely cherry-picking to take a list given in a specific time for specific people, without context, and assume it is timeless and universal. Paul is fond of lists as a rhetorical device. He lists fruits of the Spirit in many different places and they are not identical lists. We should not assume he is being exhaustive or prescriptive in his lists. We should assume he is doing what preachers do and being illustrative.

Let us turn to the death penalty issue for a moment. Every person who claims to uphold a "Biblical" (albeit highly selective) definition of sexual ethics derived from Leviticus should also support the death penalty for people they believe Leviticus describes, should they not?

“Ordaining LGBTQ people makes it harder to work with churches in the rest of the world.” The Two-Thirds World is a reminder to us that our rejection of Biblical sexual ethics is a heresy of Western white revisionists.

Is ordaining women also a heresy of western white revisionists? How about not having a death penalty for homosexual acts? Or a death penalty for dishonoring one's parents for that matter? Or a death penalty for adultery? Is giving women equal property rights western white revisionism? Is marrying out of love with an ideal of equality between spouses also revisionism? How about treating mental illness with counseling and medication instead of exorcism? If we have to bring out the broad "western white revisionists" brush, we should paint everything with it, shouldn't we? Is it 'revisionism' every time we improve upon the past, ethically or politically?

“Justification is by faith.” Here is where the writers, in the words of Jude, “twist the grace of God into licentiousness” (Jude 1:4). “Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him,’ but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist” (1 John 2:4; see also 1 John 3:6). The issue is not pure sinlessness (1 John 1:10 says we make God a liar if we claim we are sinless), but the unrepentant persistence in sin. 35 years ago, I never thought I would find myself quoting James’ “Faith without works is dead” and insisting on repentance, but that’s because I never dreamed there would be such open rebellion against the will of Christ within the church.

Open rebellion? Twisting into licentiousness? Throughout his reply Rev. Hobson has engaged in ad hominem attacks on our motive and uncharitable assertions about our intelligence. We are willing to chalk it up to writing passionately for his beliefs and an impersonal medium. For the record, though this is at times a very frustrating interaction over a clumsy medium, we assume that Rev. Hobson is intelligent, well-intentioned...and wrong on a number of points.

Grace is always too profligate and mercy is always lawlessness to some. We believe Rev. Hobson has the order of things all backwards, but it is beyond the scope of our argument to get into a full-fledged debate about justification, repentance, faith and works here. Suffice to say grace conquers all - even the hearts of those still hindering the full inclusion of those whom Christ has chosen and called.

“We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and gifted for service.” Not without repentance! Sexual immorality “should not even be named among you” as an acceptable Christian form of behavior (Eph 5:3). The issue is not what we have done in our past, but whether it has stayed in our past, or remains part of our present lifestyle.

The Holy Spirit blows where it wills. It is at work in the lives of even those who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ. Various individuals were called righteous by Jesus without having ever accepted him as Lord and savior, decided on a life of discipleship to him, or announced their guilt and asked for forgiveness. Consider the rich young ruler who is called righteous by Jesus before he is even presented the opportunity to repent - and then refuses to do so. Does it negate what Jesus said about him before, that he was a righteous (sanctified) man? We don't want to read too much into very little room, but it seems to us by the theme of his replies to these first three positive arguments that Rev. Hobson has made it not about God's work for us, but about our own proper acceptance of that work.

The whole point is moot, furthermore, since as we have continually argued, homosexuality is not a sin.

“LGBTQ persons have clearly demonstrated spiritual gifts for ministry.” So have many heterosexual offenders, whom we rightly exclude from ministry if they cannot desist from their behavior. Powerful preachers and teachers who are living in defiance of God’s revealed will are a threat to the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

Nothing is a threat to the church of Jesus Christ which is already guaranteed the victory. We rightly exclude from ministry only those who are not fit because they lack the gifts, or those who are a danger to others. It seems Rev. Hobson is once again making a veiled reference to analogies of pedophilia which we have already thoroughly debunked. The continual inability or refusal to separate between mutually loving, consensual monogamous relationships between adults and situations where abuse of power, or inability to consent are a part of the arrangement is as troubling as it is, unfortunately, common.

“We call unclean what God calls clean.” Nowhere do the writers ever demonstrate that God calls same-sex intercourse clean.

God calls monogamous consensual same-sex relationships clean the same way God has always done it: in the hearts of believers and through the testimony of many individuals of faith proving that their way of life brings the fruits of the spirit. Reason, science, experience, and the inward conviction of the Holy Spirit all testify that homosexuality is not a sin. Scripture itself prepares us, in many instances, to understand that what was previously seen as even an 'abomination' may at a later time be called 'clean'.

“We are made a community of equals in Christ.” Equality is not the issue.

Equality is never the issue for those in a position of privilege. It is always the issue for people on the margins - the ones Jesus says will come first into the Kingdom. Equality in Christ, as revealed in scripture and in the slow march of justice in Christian history, is at the heart of this entire discussion, as well as at the heart of the gospel.

“Jesus is silent on homosexuality, and nowhere in the Bible are loving monogamous LGBTQ relationships dealt with at all.” False on both counts. Jesus says more about homosexuality than he does about the environment, health care, and numerous other issues. Aside from affirming the central teaching of the Torah on sexuality (quoted above), Jesus also names the sin of aselgeia on his sin list in Mark 7:22. Aselgeia is a term used by Jews for shocking violations of the sex laws of the Torah beyond adultery and fornication, and is likely to have been his term for homosexual behavior. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Bible’s prohibitions of homosexual behavior do not deal with loving mutual LGBTQ behavior. The term Paul uses in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy is a generic masculine noun, “he who has koitos with a male.” There is no indication that the act is not loving and mutual.

See our response to Rev. Hobson's translation of [aselgeia] above. We are not Biblical exegetes, but his is clearly one translation of many which are justified.

As for Jesus repetition of the "central" teaching of the Torah on sexuality, it is highly ironic that it occurs in the context of a screed against divorce and not in reference to homosexuality, though this is the purpose to which Rev. Hobson wants to put it. It is also interesting that for the "central" teaching on sexuality, the Song of Solomon is never mentioned, even though it says more than the rest of the Bible combined about sexuality.

In 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, Paul only makes mention of 'coitus' between two males, not mentioning 'coitus' between females at all. Why is this? This mistake on his part precludes support for complementarianism. Perhaps it is similar to his concern with 'effeminate' men in both of these passages? (Using a Greek word that can be taken to mean more broadly 'soft' - again, translator's bias - in this case, misogynistic bias). Should we take the fullness of this list of 'sins' and begin booting men who wear pink shirts from the pews? In short, no.

We accept the "burden of proof", and we carry it willingly as far as we are called to carry it. It is a privilege to be part of the struggle for justice, equality and inclusion for our sisters and brothers who are called by God to serve; a privilege to be a tiny part of the in-breaking of the Holy Spirit. Hence this document, and all the argument supporting it, and all of the argument of the many others who are making the same case all over the Church.

“Our first and most important ordination is baptism,” “The priesthood is composed of all believers,” “Exclusion LGBTQ of persons adds nothing of value to the ordination standards we already have.” What a watering-down of ordination into meaninglessness! It ignores Paul’s teachings in 1 Timothy and Titus about the necessity of leaders sending the right message by their manner of life to those they lead and to outsiders. One gets the impression that as long as one has a baptismal certificate, one’s manner of life, calling, and gifts are irrelevant. The writers state that “chastity in singleness” does not begin to address the social reality of the average American who starts having sex at 16 and does not marry until 28. Apparently the crowd and the Gallup Poll determine God’s truth, and if 60% of pastors seduce their parishioners, then God had better get rid of our outdated standards. Seriously, we know we will never stamp out domestic violence and substance abuse among our people, but we rightly allow zero tolerance for them, no matter how prevalent they may become.

Watering-down ordination into meaninglessness is lifting up fidelity-chastity as the primary standard for ordained ministry. Our approach asks the church to take seriously the vows of Baptism and the Reformed commitment to a priesthood of all believers.

We do not ignore Paul's teachings. We do not even reference Baptism certificates, and nowhere do we even imply to the slightest degree that manner of life, calling and gifts are irrelevant. (In fact, we make the opposite argument only a few paragraphs previous - that gifts are deeply important.) Rev. Hobson contributes nothing on the issue of sexual ethics in a context which is entirely different from the Biblical context...and he ends with more false analogies, comparing homosexual love to domestic violence and, for the fourth or so time, substance abuse.

Gallup polls do not determine God's truth, but neither does simply ignoring massive changes in context, as if being celibate for an average of 12 years (from late adolescence to average age of marriage), nearly into one's fourth decade of life, was identical to being celibate until marriage in Biblical times...often by age 14, as was the case in the Bronze Age. Ignoring context does not make it irrelevant.

“LGBTQ persons already serve in other denominations and organizations, proving dire predictions false every day.” This claim ignores what’s going on in the Anglican communion and the ELCA at the moment. Give it time. Unlike the UCC, we are a connectional church, therefore we have yet to see what will happen when we overturn our standards. And if the Bible is merely a book full of fairy tales, then yes, a church with LGBTQ leaders will not be much different from a church without them.

We do not ignore what is going on in the Anglican communion and the ELCA. Of course there will be conflict when injustice is overturned. We're sure ordaining women was no picnic either, but it was the right thing to do, and we did it despite the historical practice of the Church, the biases of Paul, and so on. What we are referring to is the fact that, in the pulpit, serving as Elders and Deacons, evidence will continually mount that LGBTQ persons are called by God, gifted by the Holy Spirit, and entirely as capable of ministry as any other believers.

“No church that does not choose an LGBTQ minister, Elder, or Deacon will ever have to ordain one.” Nonsense! An empty, false promise if there ever was one. The movement for LGBTQ ordination is based on it being a fundamental issue of justice. Justice cannot allow injustice to coexist with it in the same house. The permission to ordain women, within 20 years became the requirement to ordain or else. Already the GA has voted to require local churches to pay for pension and medical benefits for gay partners, whether it violates local conscience or not. We know it will not stop there.

Due to the history of women's ordination in our denomination it is understandable why Rev. Hobson would react this way. There are substantial differences between that situation and this one. LGBTQ ordination has not been, and has no prospect of being raised to confessional status anytime soon, nor having the GAPJC declare it an essential of the Reformed tradition. The language of amendment 10-A doesn't even explicitly permit LGBTQ ordination, but merely restores the historic responsibility of the Presbytery to function as the examining and ordaining body.

Perhaps, one might argue, that language in the BoO for the committee on representation might force the issue when it comes to Elders and Deacons in a local congregation, but this is unrealistic. How many open and affirming LGBTQ individuals do you think are members of congregations that oppose their full inclusion? How many of those do you suppose might desire to seek ordination and have any chance of being elected by the congregation? Or of passing an examination for ordination by the session of that church? Inclusive ordination standards will have no effect on the life of churches that don't participate voluntarily. Even with ordination of women, there are plenty of churches that have never had a female pastor and no one is going to force them to change their minds soon.

“The church is currently lending tacit support to mocking, bullying, torment, and exclusion suffered by LGBTQ persons.” The people who practice bullying do not care what we in the church think about homosexuality or the use of violence, and they do not bother to bully or torment those who fornicate, abuse alcohol or drugs, or commit domestic violence, all of which we also oppose. And I will not be surprised if someday, those who support LGBTQ ordination will support the mocking, bullying, torment, and exclusion of those who hold the historic viewpoint on sexuality.

It is understandable why Rev. Hobson would want to disassociate from the bullying and torment going on in our culture, but it is unfortunately the truth that the people who practice bullying are very often one and the same as "we in the church." Religiously motivated hate speech and violence against LGBTQ persons is well documented. Recent surveys suggest that persons in the U.S. between 16-26 identify the church with "anti-gay ideology" more than any other subject. Conservative Christians have unfortunately made homosexual-exclusion a primary identifying issue. They do not oppose fornication, abuse of alcohol or drugs, or domestic violence to the same degree, and none of those issues involve an identifiable minority group to target for bullying. This argument by Rev. Hobson is a string of bad analogies.

Finally, we do not support the bullying or torment of anyone for any reason, but we do hope one day that the idea of arguing for the exclusion of LGBTQ persons will be as unthinkable as arguing from faith for the continuation of slavery, or the exclusion of women. Sadly, this change will likely take a similarly long time.

Answering "LGBTQ Ordination Resource"

2010-11-30T06:56:00.000-08:00

We received the document below in reply to the pro-inclusion resource we produced. We intend to give a full response, but in the interest of fairness we first present this document unedited and without comment that you may evaluate it on its own merits. We thank Rev. Tom Hobson for engaging with us in a substantive way and welcome further discussion from him or any other interested parties.

***

Here is Rev. Hobson on what he would emphasize from his response, as communicated to Doug via email:

"The two elements of mine I would lift up above all the others are: the thrice-repeated "the two [man and woman] shall become one flesh" as the central Biblical teaching on sexuality; and my insistence that both OT & NT forbid all sexual behavior outside this context, regardless of whether or not it is loving and mutual. Loving, mutual same-sex relations are well-documented in Paul's world (see my Outlook blog "A Progressive Myth", 10/4/10), and the burden of proof is on those who deny that they existed (and are forbidden) in the Bronze Age world of the Hebrews. A lot of this material is in a book I have recently finished for which I am currently seeking a publisher: What's On God's Sin List For Today?, including discussions of OT law, sexuality, alcohol and drugs (including marijuana and opium in the Biblical world), and gambling (which was well-known in the NT world, but not condemned until after 200 AD)."

ANSWERING “LGBTQ ORDINATION RESOURCE”
By Rev. Tom Hobson, Ph.D., Biblical Exegesis

Here are brief point-by-point answers to the 11 objections to homosexual ordination and the 12 arguments in its favor presented by Rev. Doug Hagler and Rev. Aric Clark. We begin with their answers to objections:

“Homosexuality is an abomination.” [My advice to conservatives: skip this argument. It is not central to our case.] Non-kosher food is an “abomination” (Deut 14:3), not to God, but in the sense that it is to be utterly despised by Jews. Jesus sets aside the kosher food laws for Christians (Mark 7:19), but there is nothing else in the Hebrew Bible described as an “abomination” that is not reaffirmed as sin in the New Testament other than cross-dressing (Deut 22:5). Male and female prostitution are specifically an abomination “to YHWH” (Deut 23:19), as are any form of idolatry, witchcraft, adultery, homosexual behavior, bestiality, and incest. Non-kosher food is the only ritual-cleanliness category for which this term is used.
It is claimed here that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 does not describe a “committed, monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender” because this was “not a category considered in Bronze Age Middle Eastern thought.” No such distinction was necessary. In both Leviticus and 1 Corinthians, we see that love, consent, and commitment are irrelevant. Both active and passive partner are held equally guilty, no matter what their motives or the quality of their relationship.

“Homosexuality is the ‘sin of Sodom’.” How can you deny the obvious?? One can say that intended rape is the real issue, but clearly implied is the sense that Sodom is depraved because they demand sex with their own gender. Homosexuality is never named specifically in other Biblical references to Sodom because the audience already knows the story (although see 2 Pet 2:7, which connects Sodom with the sexual sin of aselgeia). Ezekiel mentions inhospitality, but it also says Sodom did “abominable” deeds, an obvious categorical reference to the abominations named in Leviticus (Ezek 16:50).

“Homosexuality is like pedophilia or bestiality.” True, we cannot lump homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia together, but why is the person who is attracted to children to be viewed as dirt, while everyone else is loved by God? The real issue is not whether those who practice same-sex intercourse are loved by God, but the fact that all three practices in question here both grieve God and harm the person who does them.

“Homosexuality is like incest or polyamory.” The Bible does NOT teach the goodness of behaviors that it tolerates in its characters. That is a deliberate falsehood. The Bible’s central teaching is stated three times, in the Torah, by Jesus, and by Paul: “The two [man and woman] shall become one flesh.” God intends sex only for a lifelong one-flesh relationship between a man and a woman. Any other practice is a departure from God’s intention, including fornication, concubinage, polygamy, and divorce.
What 50% of Americans practice is serial monogamy, not polyamory. With regard to Christian leadership, we regard divorce as sin redeemable by repentance and fidelity to one’s subsequent spouse. In the current debate, we are being asked to affirm homosexuality, not as sin redeemable by repentance, but as a good gift of God and a human right.

“Homosexuality is unnatural.” When we say “unnatural,” we mean that God did not design us to do this. In his book What We Can’t Not Know, Budziszewski argues from God’s design: Our lungs were designed to take in air, not food. The same is true for the issue of practicing sexuality in total defiance to God’s design.
Same-sex relations are a part of nature. But so is sex between different species. So are cancer, schizophrenia, and AIDS. So are black widows and praying mantises who kill and eat their mates, and mackerel who kill purely for sport. “Go and do thou likewise”? And again, why is the natural sexual attraction to children not a part of God’s good creation? If we get rid of our arbitrary notion of consent, and/or if we can ever prove (as some in the APA have tried to do) that sex with children can sometimes be healthy, our objection to it becomes pure hatefulness.

“Homosexuality is dangerous and/or unhealthy.” Homosexuality is no more or less dangerous and/or unhealthy than heterosexual immorality when practiced to the same degree. Both should be avoided.

“Homosexuality is a choice.” We concur that same-sex desire is not a choice. As in the case of substance addiction, the choice is how we respond. We expect a pedophile to make the right choices in response to their attraction to children, even though they did not choose to have these desires. Those with same-sex attraction who choose not to get involved sexually with their own gender tend to have more success breaking free from their desires than those who do become sexually involved.

“Sexual orientation can be changed with ‘reparative therapy’.” The claims that reparative therapy is a cruel hoax are sweeping and unsubstantiated. Reputable reparative therapy has been shown to have a 70% success rate in reducing unwanted same-sex desire, a rate comparable to substance addiction treatment. Both kinds of treatment have a similar rate of recidivism, but no one claims that treatment for addiction is useless or harmful.

“Homosexuality damages society and/or traditional marriage.” Here I defer to page 13 of Alan Wisdom’s article “Is Marriage Worth Defending?” (http://www.theologymatters.com/TM100216.Part1.pdf) He argues that divorce and adultery around us tends to erode the marriages of all married couples. The same would be true for cohabiting couples, and for the acceptance of gay marriage as simply one more lifestyle option.
Again, I reject the claim that the Bible approves of eight different kinds of marriage. The marrying of female captives after a one-month waiting period is the Bible’s unique humane alternative to what everyone else in the Near East: rape and sale into slavery. Marrying a slave promoted her to family status; what’s wrong with that? Jesus rejects polygamy, and Leviticus 18 makes it extremely difficult, since it forbids marriage to any in-law. The only reason we do not favor levirate marriage is because we no longer have the same level of concern for preserving offspring for a man who has died. And the supposed forced marriage of a rape victim is actually marriage of a girl who has been seduced, which the girl’s father can prevent if the male is a jerk. (Here is a case of gratuitously seeking to distort the Bible by exaggeration to make it sound unworthy of belief.)

“Paul condemns homosexuality.” Hagler and Clark’s reading of Romans 1 bears no resemblance to the text or context. Clearly, in Romans 1, homosexuality of both kinds is presented as a warning light for the depths of human depravity, not a gift of God if only it were practiced properly. It is not “cherry-picking” to take Paul’s sin list in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 as timeless and universal, both because it reaffirms many Old Testament commands that carried a death penalty (indicating their seriousness), and because it warns that those who continue such practices “shall not inherit the reign of God.”

“Ordaining LGBTQ people makes it harder to work with churches in the rest of the world.” The Two-Thirds World is a reminder to us that our rejection of Biblical sexual ethics is a heresy of Western white revisionists.

The following are responses to the writers’ positive arguments:

“Justification is by faith.” Here is where the writers, in the words of Jude, “twist the grace of God into licentiousness” (Jude 1:4). “Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him,’ but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist” (1 John 2:4; see also 1 John 3:6). The issue is not pure sinlessness (1 John 1:10 says we make God a liar if we claim we are sinless), but the unrepentant persistence in sin. 35 years ago, I never thought I would find myself quoting James’ “Faith without works is dead” and insisting on repentance, but that’s because I never dreamed there would be such open rebellion against the will of Christ within the church.

“We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and gifted for service.” Not without repentance! Sexual immorality “should not even be named among you” as an acceptable Christian form of behavior (Eph 5:3). The issue is not what we have done in our past, but whether it has stayed in our past, or remains part of our present lifestyle.

“LGBTQ persons have clearly demonstrated spiritual gifts for ministry.” So have many heterosexual offenders, whom we rightly exclude from ministry if they cannot desist from their behavior. Powerful preachers and teachers who are living in defiance of God’s revealed will are a threat to the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

“We call unclean what God calls clean.” Nowhere do the writers ever demonstrate that God calls same-sex intercourse clean.

“We are made a community of equals in Christ.” Equality is not the issue.

“Jesus is silent on homosexuality, and nowhere in the Bible are loving monogamous LGBTQ relationships dealt with at all.” False on both counts. Jesus says more about homosexuality than he does about the environment, health care, and numerous other issues. Aside from affirming the central teaching of the Torah on sexuality (quoted above), Jesus also names the sin of aselgeia on his sin list in Mark 7:22. Aselgeia is a term used by Jews for shocking violations of the sex laws of the Torah beyond adultery and fornication, and is likely to have been his term for homosexual behavior. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Bible’s prohibitions of homosexual behavior do not deal with loving mutual LGBTQ behavior. The term Paul uses in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy is a generic masculine noun, “he who has koitos with a male.” There is no indication that the act is not loving and mutual.

“Our first and most important ordination is baptism,” “The priesthood is composed of all believers,” “Exclusion LGBTQ of persons adds nothing of value to the ordination standards we already have.” What a watering-down of ordination into meaninglessness! It ignores Paul’s teachings in 1 Timothy and Titus about the necessity of leaders sending the right message by their manner of life to those they lead and to outsiders. One gets the impression that as long as one has a baptismal certificate, one’s manner of life, calling, and gifts are irrelevant. The writers state that “chastity in singleness” does not begin to address the social reality of the average American who starts having sex at 16 and does not marry until 28. Apparently the crowd and the Gallup Poll determine God’s truth, and if 60% of pastors seduce their parishioners, then God had better get rid of our outdated standards. Seriously, we know we will never stamp out domestic violence and substance abuse among our people, but we rightly allow zero tolerance for them, no matter how prevalent they may become.

“LGBTQ persons already serve in other denominations and organizations, proving dire predictions false every day.” This claim ignores what’s going on in the Anglican communion and the ELCA at the moment. Give it time. Unlike the UCC, we are a connectional church, therefore we have yet to see what will happen when we overturn our standards. And if the Bible is merely a book full of fairy tales, then yes, a church with LGBTQ leaders will not be much different from a church without them.

“No church that does not choose an LGBTQ minister, Elder, or Deacon will ever have to ordain one.” Nonsense! An empty, false promise if there ever was one. The movement for LGBTQ ordination is based on it being a fundamental issue of justice. Justice cannot allow injustice to coexist with it in the same house. The permission to ordain women, within 20 years became the requirement to ordain or else. Already the GA has voted to require local churches to pay for pension and medical benefits for gay partners, whether it violates local conscience or not. We know it will not stop there.

“The church is currently lending tacit support to mocking, bullying, torment, and exclusion suffered by LGBTQ persons.” The people who practice bullying do not care what we in the church think about homosexuality or the use of violence, and they do not bother to bully or torment those who fornicate, abuse alcohol or drugs, or commit domestic violence, all of which we also oppose. And I will not be surprised if someday, those who support LGBTQ ordination will support the mocking, bullying, torment, and exclusion of those who hold the historic viewpoint on sexuality.

Justice

2010-11-29T21:59:00.000-08:00

Wow. This is a sermon by George Macdonald, read by David Baldwin. It is long, but worth it.

h/t Undeception.

Some highlights:

"If anything be against mercy it cannot be called justice for it is cruelty."

"To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do is to lie against God."

"I will accept no explanation of any way of God which explanation involves what I should scorn as false and unfair in a man."

"Such justice as Dante's keeps wickedness alive in its most terrible forms."

"The notion that a creature born imperfect, nay born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having, a creature to whom the true face of God was never presented, and by whom it never could have been seen, should be thus condemned (to hell), is as loathsome a lie against God as could find place in a heart too undeveloped to understand what justice is, and too low to look up into the face of Jesus. It never in truth found a place in any heart, though in many a pettifogging brain. There is but one thing lower than deliberately to believe such a lie, and that is to worship the God of whom it is believed."

"Love, and not self-love, is Lord of the universe."

"Our business is not to think correctly, but to live truly."

"One chief cause of the amount of unbelief in the world is, that those who have seen something of the glory of Christ, set themselves to theorize concerning him rather than to obey him."

Homosexuality damages society and/or traditional marriage

2010-11-27T08:08:00.000-08:00

Claims like these are actually impossible to demonstrate or prove, but they are common nonetheless - perhaps for that very reason.(1) There is little question that fighting over homosexuality damages the members of society who are denied equal rights under the law and are treated as second-class citizens.(2) As for marriage, we don’t think any responsible observer would attribute our current problems with marriage in the US to LGBTQ persons. There is no situation where a societal ill can be legitimately laid at the feet of the LGBTQ community, where no other causes or circumstances can be identified. The above argument is rendered meaningless, and is simply an expression of fear, or perhaps frustration, deserving a pastoral response - but not validation.(3)
Furthermore, ‘traditional marriage’ is a recent social construct. Our contemporary romantic ideal was a terrifying innovation 100 years ago. Traditionally, marriage has involved polyandry, polygyny, surrogate pregnancy, concubinage, arranged marriages, marriage between children, and others.(4) The Bible approves of at least 8 types of marriage, including marrying war hostages, marrying slaves, marrying up to 700 women, marrying a sibling’s widow, marrying one’s rape victim, and others.(5) We rightly reject these many forms of ‘traditional’ marriage.

Commentary
1. This argument, that homosexuality is damaging to society, is so common it is difficult to even begin citing it. This is amazing, given that there is no support for it whatsoever.

2. LGBTQ suicide rates, rates of substance abuse and depression, are often higher than that for heterosexuals. Opponents of equality for LGBTQ folks might say that this is due to despair of being trapped in "the gay lifestyle" (as if such a thing even existed). Recent attention has been drawn, however, to suicides due to the bullying of gay teens (or teens who are perceived to be gay).

3. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because some people perceive a decay in society does not mean that the decay is caused by a decrease in discrimination and abuse directed toward homosexuals.

4. Some of these still persist today, but for the most part, the industrialized idea of marriage is of two people who are societal equals marrying because they love each other and they choose to. This is a modern innovation in a lot of ways - not the least of which the idea that men and women are equals (something that one could easily find Biblical passages to refute, if one were so inclined).

5. Polygamous marriage, which was common throughout the ancient Near East, as well as elsewhere; Levirate marriage (Gen 38:6-10); a man marrying his 'property', a female slave (Gen 16:1-6, Gen 30:4-5); concubinage (Judges 19:1-30); a male warrior and a female prisoner of war (Deut 21:11-14); a male rapist and his victim (Deut 22:28-29); a male slave to a female slave without consent, and of course; monogamous marriage, which was often arranged marriage, and occurred between what we would now define as children. We need to note that in some of these cases, these forms of marriage were created as protection for women, such as women taken as 'spoils of war', or rape victims, or slaves whose masters force them to marry. We would now rightly see even the concept of taking a human being as 'spoils of war' as reprehensible, and we rightly reject slavery in all forms. We therefore reject as immoral these definitions of marriage even where the original intent was to protect against a worse possibility.

Sexual orientation can be changed with 'reparative' therapy

2010-11-24T00:07:00.000-08:00

(1)Even in cases where “reparative” therapy isn’t simply abuse, this is not true in the vast majority of cases.(2) The fact remains that some “reparative” therapies are abusive and even criminal.(3) Beyond Ex-Gay is one example of an organization and conference for the survivors of these therapies. Truth Wins Out is another.(4) Attempts to change a person’s sexual identity overwhelmingly fail (except in a few rare cases)(5), which leads to an escalation of force used by those who are committed to the false idea that a person’s sexual identity is a malfunction of some kind. This is a view that is not shared by any credible American scientific organization, and should not be encouraged by the church.(6)

Commentary
Here is the General Assembly of the PC(USA) recommending against reparative/conversion therapy, joining with every US scientific organization in condemning it's use with LGBTQ persons. The full text is in italics below. Ten years ago, the General Assembly said what we are saying now.

1. In rare cases where a person's natural sexual orientation has been corrupted through abuse or trauma, therapy is the loving response, in order to restore a person to healthy consensual sexual expression. The false argument here is that sexual orientation can (and should) be changed with therapy. "Reparative therapy" is also one term for therapies used to alter sexual orientation - here it is meant as a place-holder for all such techniques, including conversion therapy and reorientation therapy.

2. Here's an example of some extended analysis of whether reparative therapy of adolescents constitutes child abuse or neglect. Here's the APA's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. They found two things: methodological problems in many studies, and no evidence of significant change in same-sex attraction.

3. Here's the British Medical Association making the claim that conversion therapy is in itself harmful.

4. Beyond Ex-Gay; Truth Wins Out. It seems that the ones truly needing reparative therapy are the survivors of reparative therapy, and what needs to be 'repaired' is not their sexual orientation, but the effects of attempts to force another orientation on them in order to fit the heterosexual norm.

5. See above. Again, it is possible for therapy to help someone recover a healthy sexual orientation after trauma or abuse.

6. If the assumption is that one must be forced into heterosexuality, then when attempts fail, it makes sense that efforts would escalate. Trying to convince can become coercion; coercion can become worse and worse. Here are some stories from survivors of this kind of 'therapy'. Here is the American Psychiatric Association's position paper in opposition to any kind of 'reparative' therapy to change sexual orientation. In doing so, they join the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the National Association of Social Workers, among others mentioned above and otherwise. The church should under no circumstances support therapies which are ineffective, sometimes abusive and damaging in themselves, and which are repudiated by every major American medical or psychological association.

"The 211th General Assembly (1999) affirms that the existing policy of inclusiveness welcomes all into membership of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as we confess our sin and our need for repentance and God’s grace. In order to be consistent with this policy, no church should insist that gay and lesbian people need therapy to change to a heterosexual orientation, nor should it inhibit or discourage those individuals who are unhappy with or confused about their sexual orientation from seeking therapy they believe would be helpful. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) affirms that medical treatment, psychological therapy, and pastoral counseling should be in conformity with recognized professional standards "

Banner Fealty

2010-11-21T08:49:00.000-08:00

A sermon for Christ the King Sunday

Luke23:33-43

Oh say can you see, by the waning evening light

What so timidly we followed, from Galilee to Jerusalem.

Whose broad stripes and livid scars, wake the fear in our heart,

That our Lord was a lie, and his death kills our hoping.

From the top of Calvary hill, a place called Golgotha, meaning “the Skull” a flag waves. Planted by centurions, and raised up a staff it declares to the world in Hebrew, Greek and Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews.

It is a cruel joke. A taunt to the followers of the man crucified under that banner, who had considered him much more than King of the Jews. They had believed him to be the King of the World. They followed him here expecting a great victory, and now they are reduced to weeping, and hiding for shame, for fear. Their victory has become a bloody execution. The King is dead. The war is lost.

And now they have to ask themselves whether they are still loyal to that banner: Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews. Were they ever loyal?

Banner Fealty is an ancient practice. Leaders assembling their army plant a banner, a flag, a symbol on a high place and summon their subjects to swear their allegiance. Those willing to risk their life in battle pledge their “fealty” an oath of service and loyalty to the banner. In ancient warfare fought on a field face to face, the Banner is how you organize and direct the movements of your troops. The banner goes first into battle, leading the loyal warriors against the banner of the enemy. Every soldier hopes that he will follow his banner to victory. That at the end of the day his own banner will be standing tall, while the enemy’s flag is buried with the dead.

This is what a flag is – that symbol you pledge and promise to follow into danger. The thing you hope will lead you to victory.

This ancient practice has not varied to this day. We no longer have kings, but we still have banners. We still swear our fealty to the symbols of our national pride. We pledge allegiance to the flag. And the meaning of this allegiance is precisely the same – it is a promise that if we were to go into battle we would fight for our flag against the flag of our enemy. It is the hope that our flag will be flying high when the flag of our enemy has been brought low. It is a bloody reminder of our commitment to tribal divisions – that we are willing to kill other people to protect those in our clan.

Loyalty is a powerful and dangerous thing. It cannot be divided and remain true. You cannot serve two kings. You cannot follow two different banners into battle. You will either walk with one or the other and either uphold one or the other. Even if you believe these two kings are allied, you must still choose which one you will march with. Which one you trust to lead you to victory.

Flying from the top of that hill in Jerusalem, a lonely flag, which read: Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews. And those who had sworn their allegiance to that banner wondered whether they had won or lost. Caesar believed he had claimed the field, and won the day. The cross is a stand in for Caesar’s banner, a warning to those who march with other kings “this will be your fate.”

But Caesar could not predict, because Caesar could not comprehend, the nature of Christ’s victory. Jesus is a king like no other whose battle plan the enemy cannot defeat, because even in defeat, especially in defeat, the banner of Christ is raised most high. The army of Christ marches unarmed. It bears all cruelty and returns good for evil and so disarms the foe. For you cannot destroy that which is under God’s promise of resurrection and you cannot overcome love with hatred. If I am willing to die for your soul, then you cannot take my life from me. The path of the cross makes the walker invincible.

Invincible. If you have the courage to walk it. Because you cannot follow the banner of Christ and the banner of Caesar both. You cannot pledge allegiance to a flag of blood and warfare and nationalism, and be loyal to the prince of peace. You either put down your sword and accept the cross, or you live by the sword, and die by it also.

Therefore, we have a sanctuary divided, and we will as long as we have both the flag of the United States in the corner, and the cross hanging over the communion table. We are hesitating to commit. It is understandable. We are human. Our affections pull us in different directions. We have always been prone to idolatry. Our idols are subtle and cunning and they tell us that we can serve both masters. That we can worship at the base of both flags. That we can trust our lord and savior, but also put our trust in our military, and our political leaders. There has most likely never been a time in your life when you were asked directly to make this choice. I will understand if you reject what I am saying to you now, therefore.

Jesus, the Nazarene, King of the Jews. That is what the banner said which they hung over his head on the cross. By the light of the resurrection the Church came to understand that the banner actually read: Jesus, the Nazarene, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace. His banner will never fall, but will be raised higher every time one of his disciples has the courage to follow him to the cross, rather than march behind Caesar. And for the rest of us Jesus offers these words: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

Homosexuality is a choice

2010-11-21T00:02:00.000-08:00

(1)Putting the ocean of anecdotal evidence against this claim aside, there is no scientific consensus supporting the claim that homosexuality is a choice in the vast majority of cases(2) - quite the opposite, no credible American scientific organization would support that claim.(3) Because sexuality is more than brain chemistry, scientific studies will never tell us all we want to know about ourselves,(4) but the evidence that homosexuality is not a choice in the vast majority of cases is consistent and overwhelming.(5)

Commentary
1. This is a core part of the argument that homosexuality is sin. Sin often involves our volition. We will to do something wrong. In some cases, it is possible for something to be sin and not a choice, but we can deal with that later in more detail. If homosexuality is not a choice as, is becoming increasingly accepted even among conservatives, then an element of moral guilt is removed. This is partly why opponents of inclusion are so eager to separate between sexual orientation and behavior, but the division between being and action is never clean.

2. By ocean of anecdotal evidence, we mean: go speak with a homosexual person and ask them when they decided to be gay. Or, conversely, think about when you chose to be heterosexual. Of course you never did. Neither did they. In a small number of cases, a person's natural sexual orientation might be corrupted by abuse or other environmental factors, in which case the loving thing to do is to nurture them toward healthy, consensual sexual expression. Here's a pastor saying just this from the recent news. For him, his sexual orientation was no more of a choice than the call of God on his life - in his own words. This is true of LGBTQ folks who want to be ordained this very moment.

3. As for scientific consensus, homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and any number of other scientific organizations take the position that in the vast majority of cases, homosexuality is not a disorder and is not a choice. Numerous long term twin studies have come to the same conclusion. If you argue that homosexuality is a choice in most cases, or even in a large minority of cases, you are doing so apart from the best science available.

4. This chunk of counter-argument is leaving aside ethical or theological considerations for the most part, and simply dealing with the false claim about choice that under-girds so much anti-equality rhetoric.

5. In fact, claims to the contrary are essentially the sole purview of religiously-motivated groups which function outside the world of scientific study and peer review.

Homosexuality is dangerous and/or unhealthy

2010-11-18T08:06:00.000-08:00

(1)As mentioned above, this argument is nonsensical because there is nothing, no specific sexual activity, that LGBTQ persons engage in which straight persons do not engage in in greater numbers.(2) If we are going to have sexual-act litmus tests for ordination, we should at least be fair about it.(3) But the above claim, that LGBTQ activities are somehow especially or inherently dangerous or unhealthy, makes no sense whatsoever, because there are no exclusively LGBTQ sex acts for us to consider.(4)

Commentary
1. This is a popular argument, from those who want to claim that they are just looking out for the best interests of sexual minorities, or trying to promote public health. It is also crucial to the aim of opponents of inclusion who know that they will have little traction in convincing most people to prohibit something which is not intrinsically harmful. Unfortunately, out of zeal to prove this point they have relied heavily on the work of Paul Cameron who has been thoroughly discredited. He was expelled from the APA in 1983 for not cooperating with an ethics investigation. He has been publicly rebuked by the American Sociological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association for misrepresenting sociological and psychological studies in his work. His methodology has been repeatedly shown to be a joke, and he pays to have his "studies" published by a non peer-reviewed journal. He is a hack scientist, who somehow has maintained his credibility in certain conservative circles. You still find his work or the work of his organization the Family Research Institute quoted authoritatively by NARTH, Exodus International, Jack Chick, Westboro Baptist, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, One by One and many other individuals, politicians, pundits and others who don't bother to fact check. Whenever you encounter this argument you should dig to find what the sources are and if Paul Cameron is included in there dismiss it immediately for the junk it is.

2. Estimates vary widely, but the most recent survey suggests about 7% of the overall population is homosexual. Every study since Kinsey including the most recent and comprehensive National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior has demonstrated that far more heterosexuals engage in any and all of the sexual behaviors that LGBTQ persons do. You name it, you or your neighbor has probably done it. Therefore any claim we could make about the health risks of particular sex-acts applies at least as much to heterosexuals. Practicing good hygiene and safe sex is important for everyone.

3. Nearly everyone, 95% of Americans, have premarital sex and have for decades. This is true for both genders and going back without any change into the 1940's at least. It is extremely normative. We certainly are not arguing that merely because something is common it is acceptable - far from it, but we currently have a standard in place that is flagrantly, grotesquely hypocritical. Nearly all of our ministers, including the writers of this document, are made liars by this standard. Worse, we make liars out of our Committees on Ministry and our Presbyteries every time we examine a candidate or minister member and overlook this standard. Even if we were rigorous in examination it is impossible to enforce. How do you propose we ensure compliance with fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness? 24 hour observation? This standard is and always was a discriminatory regulation intended to exclude some people from full participation while making fools of the rest of us.

4. We sincerely hope no one is still repeating the canard about AIDS being a "gay disease". HIV is transmitted through bodily fluids and is just as likely in unprotected heterosexual sex as in unprotected homosexual sex. In fact, in Africa, where the AIDS epidemic is the worst it is overwhelmingly a heterosexual phenomenon.

Homosexuality is unnatural

2010-11-15T08:06:00.000-08:00

No matter how we interpret the word “natural”, this claim is false.(1) That homosexual activity is observed in nature among other mammals is incontrovertible. Even if no other mammal engaged in any homosexual activity, there is no question that such activity occurs among humans, meaning that it is indeed entirely “natural”.(2)
If the claim is that homosexual activity is “unnatural” because it does not lead to procreation, then we would have to condemn all sex that is not aimed at procreation as equally “unnatural”, and may have to consider preventing married adults who are not parents from being ordained - not to mention anyone on birth control, anyone who masturbates, etc.(3)
If the claim is that homosexual activity is “unnatural” because it is dangerous or perverse, we should bear in mind that there is nothing activity-wise that LGBTQ persons do that straight persons do not do in far greater numbers.(4) Homosexuality is natural by any reasonable definition of the word.

Commentary
1. (For the issue of "complementarity", see below) Let's set aside for a moment the fact that almost nothing the Bible enjoins human beings to do is strictly "natural", and that calling something "unnatural" isn't really a significant argument against it. In many cases, "homosexuality is unnatural" seems to be code-language for "I find homosexuality disagreeable" - where it is not simply a result of a poor working definition of "natural".

2. The most common use of the word "natural" is to mean "occurring regularly in nature", or "in accordance with natural principles". Homosexual behavior has been widely documented in thousands of animal species, including examples of monogamous life-long pairings. It occurs regularly in nature and is in accordance with natural principles.

3. Some people argue that the only 'valid' sex acts are ones that might result in procreation - and this is often the implicit argument when someone is talking about what is "unnatural" with regard to homosexual sex acts. Not only does this line of argument ignore the obvious social, pleasure, health and psychological dimensions of sexual behavior it is used in mysoginistic ways detrimental to public health by condemning contraceptives and prophylactics. This idea is often supported by the clumsy argument from supposed design - object A fits into object B, and therefore, that is the only acceptable configuration. We hope you can see why this is absurd, because stuff like this is beyond parody.

4. Regardless of what sexual activity one is considering - anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, you name it - heterosexual individuals and couples are engaging in it in far greater numbers than LGBTQ persons. The recent National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior reveals, as all past studies of this type have, that human sexual behavior is highly varied and that practices often treated as taboo in our public discourse are in reality widespread. Of course, any sexual behavior carries risks and every one is responsible to take care of their health and the health of their sexual partners, but it is not a unique homosexual issue.

Complementarity, or Complementarianism
Complementarity, or complementarianism, is a core argument often put forward under the rubric of homosexuality as unnatural. In brief, complementarianism is a Christian theology which states that men and women have very specific, God-ordained roles to play in life and society. This idea is nothing new - we can go back to Aristotle and further to find the concept that men and women should both stick to their ordained places. For men, unsurprisingly, this God-ordained function is wielding authority - in contrast to women. If you are scratching your head and thinking "complementarianism is just patriarchy dressed up in drag", you are correct. It is an old argument, that women should remain 'in their place' because they are designed to be subservient child-bearers only, but not an argument we owe any attention.

Certainly, people in the ancient world believed in fundamental differences between the sexes which under-girded their misogynistic societies. Some of these beliefs wormed their way into the Bible as well. Fortunately, the power of the Holy Spirit is present throughout scripture, breaking down barriers between people, undermining arguments against equality, in Paul's majestic restatement of a baptismal creed in Galatians; in the many stories of strong women in the Old Testament including Esther, Deborah, Miriam, Ruth & Naomi; in the priestly expression of the imago dei; in Elizabeth's faith; in Mary's courage who became the only human to give birth to God; in the constancy of the women at the cross and the tomb; and Mary Magdalene's commission as the first evangelist.

Those arguing for complementarianism ordinarily base their argument on the pairing of male and female in the creation narratives, then repeated various times in the Old Testament and the New as the basis of God's design for human relationships. They choose to privilege this theme in scripture over others which affirm a wide diversity of human relationships. Most significantly they overlook Jesus' frontal assault on the concept of family, and Paul's largely negative view of marriage in contrast with celibacy.

Setting the Bible aside, the design of male and female genitals is taken as evidence of complementarianism. Really, however, this is basing a complex argument on a basic observation that simply does not sustain it. It takes little imagination to come up with more than one configuration for sexual activity. Arguing from human design to support inequality is something western society is fighting hard to end permanently. The church should not be propping the door open to allow in poor logic which has been invoked to deny rights to women.

Apart from issues of equality between men and women, complementarianism also fails to justify denying rights to LGBTQ persons for all the reasons it fails to justify denying rights to women.

Homosexuality is like incest or polyamory

2010-11-13T17:50:00.000-08:00

(1)It must first be noted that the Bible openly approves of polyamory and does not share our modern definition of incest.(2, 3) Because of this fact, those wishing to make a purely “Biblical” argument should accept this as a point in favor of LGBTQ ordination. Nonetheless, this argument is false. Incest is very often also rape and sexual abuse, and in cases where it is not rape/abuse it risks offspring with severe genetic abnormalities.(4) Incest is something that, despite the Bible, we have come to define differently and reject over time, even though royal families practiced it well into the last century. Polyamory is also something that the Bible approves of but which we reject.(5) It is now our assumption that fidelity is best expressed, children best raised, etc. by monogamous parents.(6) However, it should be noted that the vast majority of Americans practice serial polyamory since very few people only have sex with one marital partner in their entire life, and this is appropriately no bar to ordination.(7) Homosexuality is not like either incest or polyamory.(8)

Commentary
1. This is another argument that seeks to lump homosexuality in with other other sex practices, logic notwithstanding. Less offensive than the comparison to pedophilia and bestiality, this argument is still quite false.

2. That the Bible at some points approves of polyamory should be apparent to anyone who has read the Old Testament. Solomon had 700 wives. Enough said. The Biblical assumption is that men of means should have more than one wife, and that having many wives is a demonstration of power and wealth - the same as in many other ancient cultures. If someone wishes to make a "Biblical" argument for what are approved ways to couple sexually, polyamory and what we would now define as incest must be on the table. Just ask Betty Bowers.

3. The Bible is not consistent in it's stance where incest is concerned, and does not define incest in the way that we define it now in the United States. The marriage of Abram and Sarai who are siblings is unproblematic, as are the incestuous relationships of Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah and Rachel, among others, while Lot and his daughters are condemned. This chart illustrates the inconsistencies we are referring to. It is also worth noting that what is permissible for men in scripture regarding incest is different from what is permissible for women.

4. That incest is incredibly harmful to its victims is well documented. Consider this information from an organization called RAINN. We do not think people of conscience will read this information and then continue to make the case that homosexuality is like incest.

5. In many cases, the Bible presents things as acceptable that we no longer find acceptable, and vise-versa. Everyone makes decisions as to how they will live, and no one outside the Bronze Age (and for a year, this guy, sort of) lives a "Biblical" lifestyle. We have intentionally used the term serial polyamory here instead of the more common serial monogamy to highlight the hypocrisy among those who lament the destruction of the institution of marriage by non-traditional families and do not themselves adhere to a one man-one woman lifelong commitment.

6. In fact, children raised by committed, same-sex parents do measurably better than those raised by opposite-sex parents. Not a lot better, but significantly, measurably better. There is plenty of evidence that children with two parents fare better than children with one parent - this is not to denigrate the heroic efforts of single parents everywhere, merely to point out that the two-parent ideal is supported by more than anecdotal evidence. (And here is an article that has a different take on the issue)

7. Learn more about actual human sexual behavior from the Kinsey Institute, the National Center for Health Statistics, the NHSSB or any number of other places.

8. The debate over ordination rights has never been a debate between those who adhere to the Bible and those who do not, whatever opponents of equality may say. It is a debate between people who preference ancient purity laws and those who preference God's ever-widening call to those who are outcast, forgotten, and least.

Homosexuality is like pedophilia or bestiality

2010-11-09T15:33:00.000-08:00

(1)Pedophilia in any circumstances constitutes rape because, by legal definition, a minor cannot be a consensual sex partner.(2) Pedophilia is also a violation by any measurement because it is forcing sexual activity on someone who is not physically or psychologically ready for it.(3) Love and sex between two consenting adults who are the same gender has nothing to do with pedophilia whatsoever, whether legally, morally or theologically.(4)
Bestiality is a person having sex with an animal - this comparison is offensive, as if a same-gender partner was not even a human being.(5) Love and sex between two people of the same gender has nothing to do with bestiality whatsoever, whether legally, morally or theologically.(6)

Commentary
1. This analogy is usually proposed as a 'more accurate' analogy for homosexuality than race or gender. Race and gender, goes the argument, are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life, and therefore, intrinsically benign. Whereas, sexual orientation is only partially heritable, somewhat mutable, and behavioral. It is more analogous, they would say, to other sexual behaviors such as pedophilia, bestiality, polyamory, or incest. We reject the idea that it is so simple to separate identity and behavior. Proponents of this argument ignore the degree to which race and gender actually are social constructs - behavioral patterns, which are highly mutable and anything but benign. We reject discrimination on the basis of race and gender, just as we reject discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, because it is possible for a person of any race or gender to live a moral life not because the categories themselves are heritable.

2. It should go without saying that sex with minors is, and should be, illegal. Occasionally, one hears it put forward by opponents of equality for LGBTQ persons that we should consider pedophilia a sexual orientation, maybe even a protected category. This is an extension of the basic mistake underlying the entire analogy which is a misplaced emphasis on the structural characteristics of various sex acts. Whatever you might think of same-sex acts, there is a pretty basic difference between having sex with a consenting adult and having sex with a child or minor, and not just from the obvious legal standpoint, but on a moral level as well. That difference is to do with harm and consent.

3. This is where we would list citations for the fact that victims of pedophilia are emotionally and psychologically damaged by it forever; that they carry the wounds around with them for the rest of their lives. Really, though, do we need to make this case? I hope not.

4. Consent matters, and children are not able to consent either legally or psychologically. In Biblical times, people we consider children and minors now would be acceptable sex partners. Similarly, the consent of a woman was often irrelevant. Thankfully, in many areas, our theology has moved beyond the worldview held by the authors of the Bible. We are not aware of a significant modern theologian who would argue that consent does not matter, or that children are the same as adults with regard to sexuality.

5. If LGBTQ folks are 'the enemy', we would expect some opponents of justice and inclusion to dehumanize them. If 'they' rut about like animals, or if they are no better than those who violate children, if they cannot possibly be making love exactly like heterosexuals make love, then it is easier to deny them equality.

6. Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is bad logic; comparing homosexuality to bestiality is entirely beyond the pale. The issues of harm and consent still apply. Sex with animals is abuse, and animals are incapable of giving consent. Those incapable of distinguishing between cruelty to animals and adult consensual love are not in a position to teach us anything about sexual ethics.

Homosexuality is the 'sin of Sodom'

2010-11-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

The ‘sin of Sodom’ is inhospitality.(1) Nowhere in scripture is the destruction of Sodom linked with same-sex activity of any kind. The story immediately preceding the account of the destruction of Sodom is of Abraham receiving the three strangers and being hospitable to them.(2) This is contrasted with the reaction of the men of Sodom who seek to gang-rape(3) the angel visitors(4) while Lot protects them under the auspice that they have accepted his hospitality.(5) Ezekiel, in listing the sins of Sodom lists pride, idleness, greed and inhospitality, but never mentions homosexuality.(6) Jesus himself cites this reason by analogy claiming that the towns which are inhospitable to his disciples will end up worse than Sodom or Gomorrah.(7) The association between Sodom and homosexuality is largely the fault of bad translation. The Hebrew word, [qadesh], meaning ‘temple-prostitute’ has often been mis-translated ‘sodomite’ though it bears no linguistic relationship to the city of Sodom.(8)

Commentary
1. One need look no further than Merriam-Webster to find out how this false interpretation has been incredibly influential since Medieval times or earlier. In their definition, 'sodomy' includes anal and oral sex as well as sex with animals. Many states in the U.S. had sodomy laws on the books until the Supreme Court struck them all down as unconstitutional in 2003. Now an American can only be prosecuted for sodomy overseas or in the military under special circumstances.

2. Hospitality is a central value of near-eastern culture, and is continually lifted up as a central commandment of God in the Torah. In Genesis 18 Abraham is commended for his hospitality by the very angels which will later move on to Sodom and be received so rudely. For their hospitality Abraham and Sarah are promised a son who is the start of the nation of Israel. The contrast couldn't be more stark: the hospitable family becomes a nation. The inhospitable nation is destroyed apart from one family. The parallelism forms the context of the Sodom account.

3. They men of Sodom seek to 'know' the angels, which often has sexual connotations. The best explanation of the reason behind this is that Sodom had recently been at war and the strangers were likely regarded as spies. Male on male rape was a common way of humiliating enemies, and still occurs in places like prison today. This is no more an instance of homosexual behavior than is prison rape. This story is made even more horrific by the fact that Lot offers to allow them to gang-rape his daughter instead. Frankly, this is not a story from which we can draw much in the way of moral insight without a great deal of discernment. Lot's sexual behavior, including incest and offering his daughter to be raped by a crowd, is despicable by any modern standard, whether one approves of LGBTQ ordination or not.

4. The identity of the visitors as angels is another aspect of this story that speaks against it having anything to do with homosexuality. Whatever acts are contemplated here the gender of the persons involved is less significant than the difference in species. Jude mentions Sodom in passing, describing the inhabitants as "going after strange flesh". Had Jude meant to condemn homosexuality for violating the supposed "two-flesh rule" he would have said they were going after the same flesh. What Jude is instead doing is referring to a popular legend in his time that the women in Sodom had sex with angels. Jude is definitely familiar with this legend as he quotes from the Book of Enoch which tells the same legend about "the watchers" (angels) who seduced human women in violation of God's laws.

5. Given how despicable Lot's behavior is by our standards the only reasonable interpretation of why God saves his family is that his 'righteousness' is the same as Abraham's from the chapter before - he is hospitable to the strangers. It is what distinguishes him from the other men of Sodom. The entire story spins on this virtue.

6. When Ezekiel lists the sins of Sodom (in context) he goes beyond just inhospitality, and offers a litany of sins; none of which have anything to do with homosexual behavior. The oracle does use sexual language: God compares Jerusalem to an adulterous wife. But it is clear that the sins being metaphorically described in sexual terms are economic and political in nature. The problem, as always, is that Israel turned to their neighbors for support and defense instead of God. The problem is that Israel was idolatrous; a fact which matches well with the general trend in scripture of identifying "detestable" sexual acts with idolatry.

7. Jesus in mentioning Sodom has the perfect opportunity to tell us how horrible homosexuality is, but doesn't in either gospel in which this story appears. Again Jesus identifies the problem as inhospitality, specifically: rejecting God's messengers. Which he says is the same as rejecting him and the one who sent him. In other words, inhospitality to those who come from God is turning from God - idolatry.

8. In the story of Tamar, the word for prostitute [zonar] and for temple prostitute are used interchangeably, and 'temple prostitute' can appear with 'prostitute' in a parallelism; ex: Hosea 4:14. There were a number of cults in the ancient Near East which supposedly dealt in temple prostitution, though most of our sources on these cults are later, disapproving historians. Clearly the practice was widespread enough to warrant being mentioned consistently - as 'detestable' because it is idolatrous.

Not only is homosexuality not the 'sin of Sodom', it is Not A Sin. But that was the topic of another series.

In case you're wondering, there's a good chance that as far as the old definition of the word is concerned, almost everyone you know is a Sodomite.

Homosexuality is an abomination

2010-11-03T14:11:00.000-07:00

(1)The Hebrew word, [toevah], sometimes translated as ‘abomination’ or ‘detestable’(2), is also applied to the eating of shellfish(3) in Levitical law, among other things, and seems to be a ritual-uncleanliness term, sometimes used to describe idolatry. Of course, it is not translated as ‘abomination’ when applied to eating shellfish, because abomination is a word specifically chosen in an attempt to paint a particular act as more heinous than the others listed in the same section of law. This is the long-standing translators’ bias impinging on the Biblical text.
Furthermore, the act described as ‘abomination’ was not describing a committed, monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender - which was not a category considered in Bronze Age Middle-Eastern thought.(4) Rather, the ‘abomination’ in question would have been an instance of adultery and/or having sex with ritual prostitutes.(5)

Commentary
1. This line of argument draws from verses like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

2. The more famous word 'abomination' was used in the NRSV, the NKJV, and the NASB. In the NIV it is 'detestable', and the word 'detestable' is more consistently used for the many things described as [toevah].

3. The same word [toevah] is applied to eating shellfish in Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10. We are not Hebrew scholars, but the exact same term is used to describe many things that no sane person would describe as an 'abomination', and it is often just used to mean 'idolatry' (ex: Deut 18:9-12). It occurs 103 times in the OT, but is generally only translated as "abomination" with regard to supposed homosexual acts - clearly and regrettably the translators' bias coming through. Practicing sorcery, human sacrifice, eating shellfish, trimming one's beard, consulting with a medium, are all described using the same word. Perhaps the best definition may be 'taboo' since the same word is used to describe acts forbidden to the Egyptians but perfectly acceptable to the Israelites (Gen 43:32 & Exodus 8:26). The fact is, many things described as [toevah] we do without a second thought. Others are entirely foreign to our culture and society. In our context, it is not enough to say something is [toevah].

4. That is, there is no situation whatsoever where the Bible deals with a same-sex act that is not also either adultery or fornication, if not also idolatry. It is clearly 'detestable' for the ancient Israelites to engage in any foreign forms of worship. It is quite possible that to 'lie with a mankind as with womankind' is 'detestable' because it is a form of adultery. It is also possibly 'detestable' because to treat a man like a woman sexually is to dishonor him in the context of Bronze Age gender roles (read: misogyny). No one seems bothered by the fact that it is 'detestable' with no explanation as to why. We are left to guess.

5. This is of course a catch-22 which has apparently paralyzed ordination of LGBTQ folks in the ELCA. Current debate is around what constitutes a "committed relationship". Since we discriminate with regard to marriage rights for LGBTQ folks, one cannot simply point to marriage as a committed relationship. As long as we discriminate with regard to marriage rights, LGBTQ persons will inevitably be vulnerable to the "adulterer" or "fornicator" claims. To date, sex with ritual prostitutes is not a concern.

LGBTQ Ordination Resource

2010-10-31T08:22:00.000-07:00

Answering common arguments against LGBTQ ordination and making our own in favor of inclusion. Each heading is a link to expanded arguments, with citations, on each point for anyone who is interested.

Answering Common Arguments Against LGBTQ Rights and Inclusion

“Homosexuality is an abomination”
The Hebrew word, [toevah], sometimes translated as ‘abomination’ or ‘detestable’, is also applied to the eating of shellfish in Levitical law, among other things, and seems to be a ritual-uncleanliness term, sometimes used to describe idolatry. Of course, it is not translated as ‘abomination’ when applied to eating shellfish, because abomination is a word specifically chosen in an attempt to paint a particular act as more heinous than the others listed in the same section of law. This is the long-standing translators’ bias impinging on the Biblical text.
Furthermore, the act described as ‘abomination’ was not describing a committed, monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender - which was not a category considered in Bronze Age Middle-Eastern thought. Rather, the ‘abomination’ in question would have been an instance of adultery and/or having sex with ritual prostitutes.

“Homosexuality is the ‘sin of Sodom’”
The ‘sin of Sodom’ is inhospitality. Nowhere in scripture is the destruction of Sodom linked with same-sex activity of any kind. The story immediately preceding the account of the destruction of Sodom is of Abraham receiving the three strangers and being hospitable to them. This is contrasted with the reaction of the men of Sodom who seek to gang-rape the angel visitors while Lot protects them under the auspice that they have accepted his hospitality. Ezekiel, in listing the sins of Sodom lists pride, idleness, greed and inhospitality, but never mentions homosexuality. Jesus himself cites this reason by analogy claiming that the towns which are inhospitable to his disciples will end up worse than Sodom or Gomorrah. The association between Sodom and homosexuality is largely the fault of bad translation. The Hebrew word, [qadesh], meaning ‘temple-prostitute’ has often been mis-translated ‘sodomite’ though it bears no linguistic relationship to the city of Sodom.

“Homosexuality is like pedophilia or bestiality”
Pedophilia in any circumstances constitutes rape because, by legal definition, a minor cannot be a consensual sex partner. Pedophilia is also a violation by any measurement because it is forcing sexual activity on someone who is not physically or psychologically ready for it. Love and sex between two consenting adults who are the same gender has nothing to do with pedophilia whatsoever, whether legally, morally or theologically.
Bestiality is a person having sex with an animal - this comparison is offensive, as if a same-gender partner was not even a human being. Love and sex between two people of the same gender has nothing to do with bestiality whatsoever, whether legally, morally or theologically.

“Homosexuality is like incest or polyamory”
It must first be noted that the Bible openly approves of polyamory and does not share our modern definition of incest. Because of this fact, those wishing to make a purely “Biblical” argument should accept this as a point in favor of LGBTQ ordination. Nonetheless, this argument is false. Incest is very often also rape and sexual abuse, and in cases where it is not rape/abuse it risks offspring with severe genetic abnormalities. Incest is something that, despite the Bible, we have come to define differently and reject over time, even though royal families practiced it well into the last century. Polyamory is also something that the Bible approves of but which we reject. It is now our assumption that fidelity is best expressed, children best raised, etc. by monogamous parents. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of Americans practice serial polyamory since very few people only have sex with one marital partner in their entire lives, and this is appropriately no bar to ordination. Homosexuality is not like incest or polyamory.

“Homosexuality is unnatural”
No matter how we interpret the word “natural”, this claim is false. That homosexual activity is observed in nature among other mammals is incontrovertible. Even if no other mammal engaged in any homosexual activity, there is no question that such activity occurs among humans, meaning that it is indeed entirely “natural”.
If the claim is that homosexual activity is “unnatural” because it does not lead to procreation, then we would have to condemn all sex that is not aimed at procreation as equally “unnatural”, and may have to consider preventing married adults who are not parents from being ordained - not to mention anyone on birth control, anyone who masturbates, etc.
If the claim is that homosexual activity is “unnatural” because it is dangerous or perverse, we should bear in mind that there is nothing activity-wise that LGBTQ persons do that straight persons do not do in far greater numbers. Homosexuality is natural by any reasonable definition of the word.

“Homosexuality is dangerous and/or unhealthy”
As mentioned above, this argument is nonsensical because there is nothing, no specific sexual activity, that LGBTQ persons engage in which straight persons do not engage in in greater numbers. If we are going to have sexual-act litmus tests for ordination, we should at least be fair about it. But the above claim, that LGBTQ activities are somehow especially or inherently dangerous or unhealthy, makes no sense whatsoever, because there are no exclusively LGBTQ sex acts for us to consider.

“Homosexuality is a choice”
Putting the ocean of anecdotal evidence against this claim aside, there is no scientific consensus supporting the claim that homosexuality is a choice in the vast majority of cases - quite the opposite, no credible American scientific organization would support that claim. Because sexuality is more than brain chemistry, scientific studies will never tell us all we want to know about ourselves, but the evidence that homosexuality is not a choice in the vast majority of cases is consistent and overwhelming.

“Sexual orientation can be changed with ‘reparative’ therapy”
Even in cases where “reparative” therapy isn’t simply abuse, this is not true in the vast majority of cases. The fact remains that some “reparative” therapies are abusive and even criminal. Beyond Ex-Gay is one example of an organization and conference for the survivors of these therapies. Truth Wins Out is another. Attempts to change a person’s sexual identity overwhelmingly fail (except in a few rare cases), which leads to an escalation of force used by those who are committed to the false idea that a person’s sexual identity is a malfunction of some kind. This is a view that is not shared by any credible American scientific organization, and should not be encouraged by the church.

“Homosexuality damages society and/or traditional marriage”
Claims like these are actually impossible to demonstrate or prove, but they are common nonetheless - perhaps for that very reason. There is little question that fighting over homosexuality damages the members of society who are denied equal rights under the law and are treated as second-class citizens. As for marriage, we don’t think any responsible observer would attribute our current problems with marriage in the US to LGBTQ persons. There is no situation where a societal ill can be legitimately laid at the feet of the LGBTQ community, where no other causes or circumstances can be identified. The above argument is rendered meaningless, and is simply an expression of fear, or perhaps frustration, deserving a pastoral response - but not validation.
Furthermore, ‘traditional marriage’ is a recent social construct. Our contemporary romantic ideal was a terrifying innovation 100 years ago. Traditionally, marriage has involved polyandry, polygyny, surrogate pregnancy, concubinage, arranged marriages, marriage between children, and others. The Bible approves of at least 8 types of marriage, including marrying war hostages, marrying slaves, marrying up to 700 women, marrying a sibling’s widow, marrying one’s rape victim, and others. We rightly reject these many forms of ‘traditional’ marriage.

“Paul condemned homosexuality”
The passage from Romans 1 popularly cited as the most damning New Testament condemnation of Homosexuality is a warning against the dangers of self-righteousness, not a polemic against Homosexuality. If anything it ought to be read as a strong caution against the belief that we can keep the church pure by keeping the wrong kind of people out. We are all in exactly the same position before the grace of Jesus Christ and no rule, least of all one as arbitrary as G-6.0106b, can ensure the faithfulness of the body.
Furthermore, we do not support every claim we can cherry-pick from the epistles. Paul also condemns women speaking in assembly or uncovering their hair. As a church, our polity should not, and does not, depend on proof-texts lifted out of context. Rather, Paul and the early church consistently defied social boundaries as they welcomed, as equals, many excluded and supposedly ‘unclean’ persons.

“Ordaining LGBTQ people makes it harder to work with churches in the rest of the world”
To what degree are we willing to compromise our conscience and our polity for the sake of ‘getting along’? Many churches in other countries do not ordain women either - it is a fact that our ordination of women makes it more difficult to work with ultra-conservative denominations and some international churches. Shall we cease to ordain women then? There are places in Africa that are currently debating whether to jail and execute LGBTQ persons. Must we deny our reason and conscience to support jailing and executing sexual minorities as well? We are better off as a witness of justice, equality and conscience for the whole world to see. This is what the church has always been at its best, choosing the love of God for all persons over the injustices of the world, loving the unclean as Jesus did.

Arguments in Favor of LGBTQ Rights and Inclusion

Justification is by faith
Justification comes by grace through faith and not through any human effort. Establishing a suspect standard of holiness for service in the Church contradicts our confessions where we proclaim that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but equally that all have been set free from bondage to sin and death in Christ. We are freed for service - a service which we unjustly and selectively deny to some who Christ has claimed.

We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and gifted for service
The Holy Spirit is the source of all holiness. Just as we are not saved by our own effort, we do not grow in grace by our own sweat either. There are no actions of repentance, charity, or mercy that any individual could perform which would make them worthy of the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. Our worthiness lies not in our personal righteousness but in the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, evidenced by the gifts of the Spirit.

LGBTQ persons have clearly demonstrated spiritual gifts for ministry
There are among us at this very moment LGBTQ individuals with an interior sense of call who many have testified are gifted with spiritual charisms for ordained ministry. That there have been in the past, are currently, and will be in the future, powerful preachers, teachers, leaders, and caregivers who happen to be LGBTQ persons is amply witnessed. Since ordained ministry in the Reformed tradition is strictly a division of function, and not of holiness, there can be no justification for denying their gifts for service. With Peter we ask “surely no one can stand in the way of the Holy Spirit?”

We call unclean what God calls clean
“What I have called clean, let no one call unclean.” In the Acts of the Apostles God encourages Peter to break the Law of Moses regarding purity - God directly tells Peter to commit the ‘abominations’ of eating shellfish with gentiles. Peter’s vision is about the continuing expansion and inclusion of God’s call, begun in the OT with the many calls to hospitality and love of neighbor as well as aliens in the land. Even if we pretended that the OT condemned consensual, adult same-sex love (which it does not mention, much less condemn), that love would be right there on the table-cloth...with the shellfish. This is not Peter’s innovation, nor his revisionism, nor his denial of God’s authority, any more than it is for those who support LGBTQ rights and inclusion for now. It is merely the continuation of God’s ever-expanding call, breaking down barriers wherever the Spirit is found.

We are made a community of equals in Christ
Male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free. Neither how we are born, nor who we are politically or socially organized, nor how we are economically related to each other, is to have any impact on our status as children of God in Christ. All children of God should be welcomed in ministry. We extrapolate this powerful good news in many ways already - beyond ‘Jew and Gentile’ to other races and nations; beyond ‘slave or free’ to other economic systems and injustices. The community of equals in Christ extends to LGBTQ persons as well.

Jesus is silent on homosexuality, and nowhere in the Bible are loving monogamous LGBTQ relationships dealt with at all
Though Paul mentions it twice, Jesus does not talk about homosexuality at all in the Gospels that we have as canon. An argument from absence isn’t necessarily very compelling, but it is worth mentioning that for over 30 years we have energetically argued over something that the authors of the Gospels did not feel was worth mentioning even once one way or another. Paul, the first to write about Jesus whose manuscripts we have, encouraged people not to marry at all because he expected the imminent return of Jesus in his lifetime. He did not speak of committed LGBTQ relationships any more than the Hebrew scriptures did.

Our first and most important ordination is in Baptism
Our first and most important ordination is in Baptism, where we are adopted into Jesus Christ and given the ministry of every disciple. Ordination to a specific ministry in the church, whether of an Elder, Deacon, or Minister of Word and Sacrament does not confer any ontological change, override, supersede, or even amend the prior ordination into the ministry of the baptised. The distinction we make in the offices of the church is one of function and not of holiness. By saying that a baptised, called, and gifted individual is ineligible for a particular ministry by virtue of supposed insufficient holiness we are denying their Baptism. If one’s Baptism can be annulled by supposed sin, or is dependent on our effort and perfection, then we are all doomed.

The priesthood is composed of all believers
In the Reformed tradition, from the very beginning, it was understood that every believer is responsible as part of the priesthood - that priesthood was not a special ontological status conferred by the church, but was rather a general calling conferred by the grace of God on all baptised believers. The fact is that every LGBTQ Christian is already called to ministry.

Exclusion of LGBTQ persons adds nothing of value to the ordination standards we already have
Ignore for the moment that the average American becomes sexually active at 16 and gets married at 28, and that simple ‘chastity in singleness’ does not begin to address this societal reality in believers’ lives. Apart from the exclusion of LGBTQ persons from ordination, G-6.0106b does nothing whatsoever to further or deepen the Book of Order’s definition of ordained office or requirements for those seeking ordination. It can be omitted without losing anything of value.

LGBTQ persons already serve in other denominations and organizations, proving dire predictions false every day
LGBTQ persons are serving in ordained ministry in various denominations currently and the predicted denominational collapses have not taken place. The real harm is being done however by our continuing to fight over this issue, which damages the peace, unity and purity of the church particular and universal, as well as the witness of the church to the world.
Furthermore, we must never shrink from doing what is right for the sake of protecting our denomination. Even if acting justly causes a mass exodus from our denomination, that is no reason to continue to act unjustly.

No church that does not choose a LGBTQ minister, Elder or Deacon will ever have to ordain one
Even if the PC(USA) is to begin ordaining LGBTQ persons this very moment, there is no church anywhere in the denomination which would be forced to accept any particular LGBTQ pastor, Elder or Deacon against its will. It is the Presbytery’s function to examine candidates for Ministry of Word and Sacrament, and that will continue without interruption when G-6.0106b is erased from the Book of Order. The fact is that G-6.0106b does not protect anyone from anything. All it does is ensure that people who are demonstrably called to pastoral ministry are not allowed to live that calling out, and churches in need of pastoral leadership are unable to find it.

The church is currently lending tacit support to mocking, bullying, torment and exclusion suffered by LGBTQ persons
LGBTQ persons are being mocked, bullied, tormented, and discriminated against at this very moment, possibly jailed or even executed overseas. Some in recent days have taken their own lives as a direct result of this hateful treatment. Every second we fail to stand up and declare unequivocally that God loves them and they are welcome, is a second we acquiesce to bigotry and tacitly support bullies. It is time to begin undoing the harm official church policies of exclusion have wrought.

Conclusion
There are not even selfish reasons to retain G-6.0106b and continue to unjustly exclude LGBTQ persons from ordination. That single clause will not prevent frustrated congregations from leaving the denomination, nor will it convince parishioners frustrated with decades of conflict over this issue to remain. It will not maintain even a veneer of peace, unity and purity in the church. G-6.0106b does not put our current debates over ordination to rest. What it means is that barely more than half of the denomination is able to force its interpretation of ordination on every individual Presbytery, congregation, and member of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Getting rid of G-6.0106b will not force a single Presbytery or congregation to ordain or accept a single candidate they do not vote to accept. What it will do is enable thousands of congregations and dozens of Presbyteries who have been a slight minority in the denomination right now to consider, just consider, LGBTQ persons for ordination where they might be called to serve.

In a situation where believers disagree in good faith according to their conscience, where 30 years or argument has not made any progress in producing consensus, it seems most reasonable, most just, and best to allow freedom of conscience. Nothing is preserved when 51% of the denomination maintains a specific litmus-test and forces 49% to apply it. There is no other clause like G-6.0106b which is aimed at a specific issue in the same way in all of the Book of Order. G-6.0106b is an aberration in our polity, and we are better off in every conceivable way without it. It is not justified ethically, rationally, politically nor theologically. It is time for us to vote in favor of inclusion.

Download this document as a pdf in 8.5x11 portrait format, or half-fold booklet format.

Stop Doing Your Part

2010-10-20T16:57:00.000-07:00

It is the instantly recognizable thumbnail of a widespread social ethic. The phrase 'do your part' in its various conjugations is universally understood as a good thing. It is an appeal anyone can make with a reasonable expectation it will meet with affirmation. And it needs to stop.

Picture a large heavy object with a crowd of people standing around it at even intervals. Divide the weight of that object by the number of individuals and you have the amount of effort it will take each person to lift it. If everyone just 'does their part' a task is accomplished which one person alone or a few people would find difficult or even impossible. It sounds straightforward and fair right?

The problem is that in life people aren't positioned around that object at even intervals. A great many are piled up in certain areas and other spots have only a few people nearby. Furthermore, the object isn't a nice even density. It is heavier at some corners than others and the heavy spots don't always line up where the large groupings of people are. And the people aren't all equally strong. Some of the people can't expend as much effort as others. And it's really foggy and the people can't see each other and no one really knows how much effort another person is putting into lifting the weight. All we know is how much effort WE are putting in.

'Doing your part' is just another way of letting the weight stay on the ground. It is a moral escape clause. It allows you to feel good about yourself and even seek approval from others without having accomplished anything. The truth is that most difficult things in this world are going to be accomplished by a minority of people doing much more than their part. This is partly because life is unfair. Partly because some people are gifted in ways others are not, and partly because some people get off their ass and get to work while everyone else is doing their part.

An apocryphal statistic that floats about in churches is that 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Usually this is said as a lament. "If only we could get those other 80% to do their part, wouldn't it be wonderful!" Without a doubt life would be improved if everyone was equally motivated, talented, and provided equal opportunities to work on the projects that are important to me. But none of those projects are ever going to get completed if I wait for that miraculous day to arrive, or if I keep putting in mediocre effort expecting everyone else to meet me halfway.

Here is what Jesus has to say about doing your part: "Some workers arrived at dawn. Some later in the morning. Some in the afternoon. Some workers arrived just before the end of the day. All the workers got paid the same wage." Deal.

Why the New Atheists don’t go far enough

2010-10-11T09:19:00.000-07:00

PeterRollins.net » Blog Archive » Why the New Atheists don’t go far enough

This talk, this guy, is brilliant. I so rarely encounter something I really have to listen closely to and think about. If you care at all about what it means to believe, this is worth a listen.

Talking Like Adults

2010-10-06T06:44:00.000-07:00

With the exception of Jon Stewart, the smartest and most interesting commentators in the media are bloggers. Network television is a cesspit of sensationalist drivel. Newspapers are calcified institutions. Most reporters are now nothing but the mouthpiece of their government or corporate "sources". Radio is a bunch of neanderthals grunting at each other. There is precious little reason to read, listen to, or watch any of the mainstream media out there.

Some bloggers though? Some of them are keeping the fire burning.

Allow me to give you an example of some bright minds having a public conversation on matters of substance in a way that edifies everyone.

Hopefully you know by now that President Obama has publicly announced his intention to target certain individuals he designates as enemies of the United States for elimination. On the list of targets are at least four US citizens. One in particular, Anwar al-Awlaki, is the focus of this particular debate, because he is the only one whose identity we know.

This debate began, because al-Awlaki's father sued to get a court order to ban the government from assassinating his son without due process. In response, the Department of Justice on behalf of the White House filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the case without hearing the merit of the claims on the basis of "state secrets". In other words, to quote Glenn Greenwald, "not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality."

Glenn Greenwald, who blogs at Salon, is a persistent progressive civil libertarian. He was joined by Alex Massie at the Spectator in arguing that this represented a massive power grab by the president and a serious threat to constitutionally guaranteed liberties. And here is where it became a true conversation - Andrew Sullivan of The Dish at the Atlantic cited both men and argued briefly against them, saying essentially that this doesn't amount to an assassination, but rather a normal act of war in the context of the global war on terror. Sullivan, having been a vocal critic of the Bush administration torture policies was immediately called out all over the internet for being a hypocrite.

Proving the libertarian strain awkwardly straddles the liberal/conservative divide in this country Sullivan got hit from both sides. Daniel Larison of Eunomia at The American Conservative hit back that Obama defenders who shy from the word "assassination" are no better than the Bush defenders who wanted us all to choke down that Enhanced Interrogation bullshit. Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine used his legal expertise to delve into the issues behind this argument and show why Ex Parte Quirin, the case being used as the major precedent for presidential authority to kill American citizens still requires due process, and probably doesn't even apply in this instance. Greenwald came back the most emphatically with questions for Sullivan to answer, such as would Sullivan be comfortable with a future President Palin having the established authority to assassinate US Citizens without judicial oversight or due process?

They were important, hard-hitting questions. The kind you don't see on CNN or Fox News. Andrew Sullivan took the time to reply, but unfortunately only stoked the fire more since his principal defense seemed to be to reiterate the assertion in the title of his post "We are at war!" as if this justified presidential power-grabs for Obama that he deplored under Bush. Novelist and blogger Barry Eisler took that opportunity to chime in with one of the best essays in the entire conversation tearing Sullivan's arguments to shreds without hyperbole. Greenwald also responded using a parallel example from a current situation in Kenya to drive home how far the United States has gone down the road of authoritarianism when small impoverished countries contending with serious terrorist threats have a higher respect for the rule of law than we do.

The debate may continue, but I think the major points have already been elucidated. Sullivan, unfortunately has not responded to the diversity or strength of the arguments of his opponents, but has chosen instead to rehash his "we're at war" line, which is unpersuasive to say the least. My sympathies lie with Greenwald in this. I can't believe we are even debating whether assassination is a legal option for the President of the USA, but I really appreciate the way this whole conversation has unfolded. No one stooped to ad hominem or hyperbole. Everyone, including Sullivan who I think has got the worst of it, attempted to present reasoned argument for their point of view with relevant factual support. Amazing to see journalists talking like adults.

Good Ministry is Good Poker

2010-10-04T12:31:00.001-07:00

It came out in a text conversation - the idea occurred to me, today, how similar my experience of ministry has been to my experience of playing poker. I'm not a professional poker player by any means, and am not even particularly good at poker, but I know enough of the basics, the tactics involved, to see some definite connections between poker and ministry.

Know What You Have
It's important to know what it is you are dealing with - to have a clear sense of what appears valuable or powerful, and what is in fact valuable or powerful. The suited Ace-King is a good example. It looks good - an Ace and a King, of the same suit! What could go wrong? But the chances of drawing a flush or a straight are not very good, and at the end of the day, if your best cards are an Ace and a King, you will lose to dos deuces. Even if an Ace or a King comes up, you will lose to a starting pair of Aces or a pair of Kings.

It's definitely possible to see a particular program, or volunteer, or vision statement or whatever, and to think of it as powerful, when really the slightest bit of wind will blow it over. Think of your commitment of time and energy as your "bet" - you are betting your life, or a small part of it, that what you put your time and energy into will bear some fruit. But how likely is that, really? Is this just a pet project? An ego thing?

Bet to Learn
The way to figure out what is going on in poker is to bet. You can observe all you want, but until people start putting stakes in what they want, you won't learn much. This starts with you - put a bet out there and see what happens. Commit some time and energy to a new project, and watch the responses. I've done this with a few programs and ideas already at DPC where I'm the new pastor. I've felt good about an idea, I've been asked for something to happen and I make it happen - and then no one shows up. I try it again, ask around, and again get a blank.

That hand I thought was pretty strong? Trash. Toss it aside and wait for the next one.

Obviously, there is the exception to this, which is in the case of a moral imperative. No matter how unpopular the right thing to do is, you should still do it. But we're not talking about moral imperatives - those don't really inform poker, and that's the metaphor of the day. This is for the marginal things, the ideas or programs of initiatives that are interchangeable - just as good as others you might try.

Watch Others' Bets
Your bet is your time and energy - and as paid clergy, I have a glut of time and energy to put into ministry, because I don't have another job. I figure that my 10 to 20 hours is about equivalent to someone else's 1 to 2 hours of commitment, and I act that way. In worship, the liturgist, choir, soloist, person doing the children's sermon, whatever, is an equal, even though I've put 30 hours into worship. Truth is, I had 30 hours to spend, and was paid quite well for it.

But where do the Elders, Deacons and parishioners put their bets? Where do they put their time and energy? Those are the things, like it or not, that they have a stake in. If that happens to be weekly tea with their lifelong friends where they sit and gossip, that tells you something. If that happens to be cooking all the spaghetti for the spaghetti dinner every October, that tells you something else.

I'm learning to basically ignore what people tell me is important, or what they tell me they want. I look at what they actually do with their precious time - what things actually compete with leisure and work and family. As I said, and I'm sure other pastors get this all the time - ten people telling you that they really want something to happen, like a new Bible study or men's group, means nothing if no one shows up to the Bible study or men's group when you schedule it.

Pick Your Spot
Once you've got a good idea of what your resources are (your "hand"), you've committed some time and energy to a few things (your early "bets"), and you've watched where you get some commitment from others (their "bets), it's time to choose something and commit more time and energy to that. You can't do everything - like any poker player, you have a limited amount of resources to deal with - limited time, limited tolerance, limited energy, limited creativity. I think it's important to pounce, however, when you feel that there is some movement afoot; just as important as it is to let go of failing initiatives where the pastor is the only one whose committed.

But there comes a time to make bigger and bigger bets, hoping that all the time and effort will pay off for everyone. That's a huge difference between poker and ministry, actually. When you "lose", everyone in your church community loses. They lose your time and energy that could have been better spent, they lose momentum and optimism about future experiments and initiatives, and they lose whatever time and energy they themselves put into a project just becuase it was the pastor's pet project and they wanted to show that they love and support you.

There are people who will bet with you just because you are the pastor. That doesn't mean you should squander what they give you on a bad bet.

Move All-In
At some point, you need to commit totally. This is the direction we're going. This is the new program we're going to try. This is the ministry opportunity we're going after. Moving all-in at the beginning is, frankly, stupid. Pouring your resources into something new when you have no idea whether it is even viable just seems foolish, and is a great way to burn out in five years, like 50% of pastors do.

It's possible to front-load a project - to go all-in early, to pour effort into a new, untried ministry because you are passionate and motivated, and because the people who volunteer for everything will volunteer for this too, giving you the illusion that there is lots of support. The problem is that you reduce your chances of winning anything significant, and you run a high risk of just flushing your efforts down the proverbial toilet.

At some point, you will run out of resources if you are not making anything back. If your work is not building enthusiasm and joy, bringing people closer to God and to each other, healing your community and the relationships around you, and making peace in the larger world (which all are what I mean by "winning" in the case of ministry) then you will run out. You'll wear everyone down until your ministry is Reverend Overfunctioning's Solo Hour.

Why won't they support these vital ministries? Why will no one volunteer? Why am I so tired and angry all the time? Maybe, just maybe, because you made stupid bets.

Ministry Is Not Gambling...Except When It Is.
There are a hundred ways in which ministry is not gambling. This is probably only a one-blog-post caliber metaphor - but I still think this is worth consideration in ministry, and it is something I will keep in mind. Or, rather, it is a way that I was approaching ministry that I only now articulated clearly.

Given the differences, I don't think that betting is that far off. We only have so long, and so much, before we die. The ways we spend our time are like bets, and as pastors, we are extended a line of credit from our parishioners which runs out if we don't refresh it with some winnings. We can squander time and energy and good-will just as easily as money, or even more easily, since our society values money more than anything else. Money is precious - anyone will tell you that. Time not spent earning money...time spent at church, say, volunteering for the pastor's new pet project?

That's time wasted. Except when it isn't.

Children in Public

2010-09-26T11:17:00.000-07:00

I don't know whether it is because of the growing DINK (double income no kids) phenomenon, or lingering Victorian ideas of kids being seen/not heard, but our society is pretty inhospitable to children in public.

As it relates to children the public sphere is intensely segregated. There are places specially set aside where kids are welcome - matinees of an animated movie, playgrounds, schools, family-friendly restaurants and fast-food joints. But step outside those boundaries and you will hear about it.

I have a pretty rebellious attitude and a thick skin and even I am constantly aware of the rolling-of-eyes, the impatient sighs, and the cruel looks that get shot my way when Curran decides to sing a song in the middle of dinner at a nice restaurant, or Avery turns to ask me a question about the plot during a movie or at a play. To sensitive parents like my wife the scorn is a palpable barrier to participation in adult life. Plenty of parents choose not to go where they know they aren't welcome.

In the short and the long run this attitude is very destructive. Being a parent is hard. No, being a parent is impossibly hard, and we have compounded that difficulty by isolating parents. While we approvingly quote generic proverbs like "it takes a village to raise a child", in fact, we have made children just another individual choice - a commodity. Some people "choose" to have children. Others don't. Since it is an individual choice the individual bears the cost. Why should the single, the childless, and the retired have to endure your parenting trials, the noise, the smells, the inconvenience with you?

I implore everyone to realize that however much the baby on the airplane is making you suffer, the parent is suffering 100x more. If you're conscious of a child making noise in a movie theater, the parent is completely consumed by it. Think it's hard to enjoy your dinner with the rugrats in the next booth bouncing around? Try being the parent.

The solution can't be segregation either. Some people want parents to keep their kids to "family-friendly" environments not just to avoid the awkwardness of having to put up with children, but also to protect the children. The result of this kind of thinking though is to consign parents and kids to ghettos where everything is primary colors and cheesy music all the time. It is bad for the parents, the kids, and society.

First, the parents. Having children doesn't mean we stopped liking music and wanting to go to concerts, or museums, or the theater or whatever activity you think is too adult for us to be bringing our kids to. For sanity's sake we need to continue to engage our interests and passions. Doing so makes us better people and better parents. Leaving the kids at home is not always an option and even if it was, one of the worst things a parent can do is exclude their kids from everything they like to do in life. Not everyone has the same ideas as you about what is "kid-appropriate" (an idea I think is flawed to begin with). Try being less judgmental about what a parent should or shouldn't be exposing their kid to - especially if you're not a parent yourself.

Next, the kids. Segregating kids from adult activities is bad for them. Kids learn to like and understand adult activities by being exposed to them. If you think it is an inappropriate environment for a child, instead of making a snide remark about bad parents, try doing your part to make the environment better. Talk to kids. Explain what is going on. Look out for them and help them, rather than ignoring them. You know what makes an environment unsafe for kids? Adults. But we could just as easily make things better rather than worse.

Finally, society. No matter what you think, raising the next generation is your responsibility as much as anyone else's. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue to cut parents and children off from the elderly, the single, the young, the employed, and so on. We should be doing the opposite. We should have children in the workplace observing and apprenticing. Children should be present at every important meeting of government and business transaction, in every dance club, bar, theater, museum, warehouse, and factory. Far from us teaching them bad habits (which we already do quite well), they might actually teach us a bit of restraint and compassion. There might be less corruption, greed, lust, and hatred if we had to do it in front of innocent eyes.

Jesus said "let the children come to me." We say, "yes, let them go to Sunday School, or Day Care, or the playground or somewhere else away from me." Children are loud, and inconvenient. They don't follow the social rules. They interrupt our lives. They are inconsiderate. They get hurt and they cry. They find something funny and they laugh without regard for who else is listening. They are also people. Not someone else's responsibility. Not someone else's choice. Human beings. Who are especially in need of your care and attention. Quit rolling your eyes and say hello.