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.(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

(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

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

(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

(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

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

(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

(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'

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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.