Will Ex-Gay become an ex-phenom?

November 30th, 2011

Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out is reporting tonight that Exodus international may be on the verge of collapse, for financial reasons—chiefly a bad real estate investment. The hidden story, apparently, is that this “ex gay” ministry has not been able to continue to raise funds effectively enough, and is struggling to repackage or re-brand itself.

In light of the continued shift of some mainline denominations toward full inclusion of sexual minorities, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada a few months ago, and the Presbyterian Church USA a few months before that, it would seem plausible that the donor base for the anti– and ex–gay organizations may be shrinking if not imploding. More and more people who still don’t really “approve” of gay/lesbian folks, are resigning themselves to the shift of contemporary culture, and are less committed to funding every effort to block civil rights or offer alternative psychiatric methods to erase same-gender sexual orientation.

The “ex-gay” movement, characterized by the derisive slogan “Pray Away the Gay” is especially troubled in that its anti–gay message clashes with the core Christian Gospel that proclaims the unconditional love of God for all people. Their only “yes but” to the open-hearted love of God in Christ is to continue to insist that being a sexual minority is a terrible, wicked sin. That view stuck, of course, for generations. But people today are wise enough to realize that 100 years ago, or 500 years ago, everything was a terrible wicked sin. People today see the honest lives of lesbian and gay couples, transgender individuals who are calmly and rationally asking for understanding, and bisexual persons who are “whoring after” both genders. They see ordinary people who have jobs, homes, relationships and contribute enormously to society. They see married same-sex couples in 6 states, and the U.S. military having opened itself to transparency and honesty with regard to the humanity and sexuality of its service personnel.

So characterizing lesbian/gay people as extraordinarily evil, or crying continually that we will all go to hell is about as convincing as a tattered old Fred Phelps sign and a cranky voice behind a megaphone. Fewer and fewer people pay attention.

Read Besen’s entire posting here: http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2011/11/20563/ where he also has links to every fact or rumor he cites.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

The elephant of privilege.

November 26th, 2011

One of the ELCA blogs caught my eye because of this single word:  “privilege.”  It is about time that it gets called out in public discussion. 

RE: Hunger Rumblings http://blogs.elca.org/hungerrumblings/post/privilege-22112011/

I was surprised that this post, while taking two paragraphs to set a context for his observation, never connected the dots between lack of privilege, hunger and justice. People with privilege— certainly a group larger than “the 1%” identified by the Occupy Movement—actively resist not only the loss of their privilege but even the identification of their privilege as such. They rationalize what they have as necessity, or earned, or in their contract or as the result of doing “nothing illegal.”

There are many voices in the current strident partisanship in America who decry the sense of “entitlement” in programs for people at the bottom of society, and from that argument they are earnestly trying to unweave our badly-frayed safety net for the poor/elderly/hungry/vulnerable. Ironically, the most strident voices are themselves coming from the most privileged segment of our society.

Privilege itself has balkanized our society. It is the “elephant in the room” of political discourse on many hotly-debated matters, including federal bail-out programs, immigration reform, and access to health care, education, jobs, and criminal justice. Even the sexuality wars of our times stem from the sense of entitlement which heterosexual people typically feel gives them the right to deny equality before the law to LGBT people.

Unfortunately, a sense of privilege has long since permeated the mainline church, especially in those denominations and congregations that cater to suburban upper/middle class (and mostly white) people. This sense of privilege is a cancer which continues to attack the very heart of the Gospel of Jesus. Need we look any further than the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–12, the Parable of the Judgment (Mt. 25:31–46), or the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19–31) to see where privilege or lack of privilege is found in Christ’s teachings?

But privileged Christians can begin the “critical self-reflection and repentance” to which Creech refers, and hopefully resist the corrosive power of privilege by seeing what we have not as privilege but as gift. It is easy to rationalize our privilege as entitlement. Before God none of us has, or deserves, privileges. But that truth should not be easily “spiritualized” as simply a matter of forgiveness or justification by grace (gift) alone. All that we are, and have, and hope to do with our lives, are gifts of God. Even that we can get up every day, and use our health and wealth productively, is a gift. We do not deserve life itself. Life is a gift.

We have all heard the lame jokes about a family sitting down to a table of leftovers where someone who thinks it is unnecessary to give thanks says “This food was already blessed once before!” But when I give thanks at each meal, it is not the food which is blessed. I am blessed that I am able, once again, to eat. So recognizing that our whole lives are gifts may help us to begin to see those all around us for whom food, health, shelter, safety, dignity and justice are all still deeply felt hungers.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Prop 8 Defenders Have Standing?

November 17th, 2011

This news item is just in from Lutherans Concerned/North America:

Today, November 17, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision that the proponents of Proposition 8 had the right to appeal the August 2010 decision of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, U.S. District Court, that the law was unconstitutional.

This ruling answers the question asked of the California Supreme Court by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, when the proponents of Prop 8 submitted an appeal to the 9th Circuit following the refusal of the then Governor of California and the State Attorney General to appeal the decision of the District Court.

In its ruling the California Supreme Court said, “The inability of the official proponents of an initiative measure to appeal a trial court judgment invalidating the measure, when the public officials who ordinarily would file such an appeal decline to do so, would significantly undermine the initiative power.” The court was unanimous in its decision. The court said that it made this ruling solely on the issue of process, and not on the merits or issues of Proposition 8 itself.

Both sides of the action before the 9th Circuit have said that they fully expect the appeals court to accept and abide by the ruling of the California Supreme Court as to the standing of those bringing the appeal.

Though some LGBT advocacy groups have expressed disappointment with the California ruling, the lawyers who brought the original suit by two same-sex couples and are directly involved in the case before the 9th Circuit have expressed confidence. In press reports, Theodore Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General during the Bush administration, has said, “This frees up the 9th Circuit to go ahead and decide the constitutional issues on the merits. We’re anxious to get to a decision on the merits that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

The case has already been briefed and argued before the 9th Circuit; so, on that basis, the court could move to deliberation and decision. However, the proponents of Prop 8 have raised the issue of Judge Walker’s being in a long-term, same-gender relationship at the time of the trial and his ruling as grounds for overturning because of presumed bias. This argument was previously made to Chief U.S. District Judge James Wade and rejected earlier this year. His ruling has now been appealed to the 9th Circuit, as well.

The saga that is Prop 8 moves now to and through a 9th Circuit decision, since those who are unhappy with whatever the 9th Circuit says about the case will undoubtedly take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Phil Soucy
Director Communications LC/NA
communications@lcna.org

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Safe to be ourselves, to be relevant.

October 16th, 2011

Over the last two decades, I’ve had opportunity to at least sample what gay life is like in Latin America, Canada and Europe.  We have visited bars and other establishments in Mexico City and Monterrey, Toronto, Milan, Barcelona, Paris, etc.  We also traveled with the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles to Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia, and Berlin.  We’ve had a few beers in Prague, where gay life has been quite open for a long time.

Tonight I am writing from San Jose, Costa Rica, in a “gay hotel”– a place that probably could not have existed two decades ago.  It is run by an “expat” American and caters mostly but not exclusively to U.S. and Canadian tourists who, thanks to the internet, can find a place like the Colours Oasis Resort.

What I find most interesting is that “Ticos” (Costa Rica’s term for its own people) also come here from elsewhere in the country because they can be themselves, or vacation as lesbian or gay couples with relative openness.  I might add, in case you are curious, that this is a legitimate, well-run boutique-sized establishment where nudity is not an option and momentary sexual encounters are not part of the scene.

In addition to the safety for guests, this is an oasis for gay employees who can find jobs and futures without shame or fear.

Costa Rica is relatively “open” to gay people, but mostly in a “don’t ask don’t tell” sense.  A one-page essay inside the guest book of the hotel explains in English what is appropriate and what to expect.  But it is  heartening to see that the host/waiter in the restaurant and the cook in the kitchen can test out and strengthen their one-year relationship in the safety of this resort.

For LGBT people in the United States, worrying about safety in 2011 seems almost quaint.  But for Latin America, it is amazing progress.

What seems to be lacking, of course, is any reference to the Christian church.  Everyone mentions the church only as geographical reference point, such as a gay bar which is several blocks east and south of the Cathedral.  But when we asked one person whether he was Catholic, he smiled and said  “mas or menos.”  As with millions in the United States, the church continues to speak in a largely irrelevant manner to its own people, and by adulthood they drift away.

I am convinced this is not because the church is morally strict and people do not want to live up to that strictness.  It is because the church is not listening, does not walk with people in their real life experiences, and therefore has little which is relevant to say.

But although we have not located a worship service yet for Sunday morning, there is a small group of Lutheran missions in Costa Rica and a bishop who oversees the church.  It appears from the web that they are trying very much to be relevant with ministries for those with HIV/AIDS, refugees, the poor, etc.  Because the Lutheran church here is not the establishment church, it has much less to risk in ministering among the marginalized.  We can only hope that it would some day also recognize its mission to LGBT people in its midst.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Will disobedience be successful?

September 7th, 2011

U.S. Catholic’s web site is running a story (thank you Eric for letting me know!) that trouble is brewing in the Catholic Church in Austria, where more than 400 priests are calling for disobedience if there are not massive reforms in the church.

Perhaps Martin Lutheran was nearly 500 years ahead of his time. Or not, since it is quite possible that official retaliation for disobedience will simply come down on the heads of at least some of these 400 priests. Remember who is Pope right now, after all.

But the issues, which all revolve around the church’s medieval attitudes on human sexuality and hierarchical authority, are worth reviewing: the celibacy rule, the treatment of lesbian and gay people, and divorced/remarried people.

From the British Tablet editorial on this disobedience, “point: “They are right that what Catholics hunger for, and not just in Austria, is a Church of integrity, without hypocrisy, doublespeak or pathological denial.”

The pastoral reality–the reality in the parishes and among faithful Catholics—and everybody else in the world of faith—is that official teachings are not only often at variance with how people need to live their lives, those teachings do not enhance the credibility of the core Christian message.

I am reminded of developments in the business world, where major corporations in the last several decades have spun off or sold off subsidiaries when times get tough. Often their official spokespersons tell us that the company will now focus more tightly on its “core business.”

Although the church is not a business, it does need to jettison what ever doesn’t serve its core message, and that message is the grace of the Gospel of Jesus, and the call to follow him in paths of generosity, mercy and compassion in this broken world. Upholding twisted or strained official rules of extreme moral strictness has become an impediment to telling the world about the love of God in Christ.

Yes, celibacy is an ancient Christian practice, but it never caught on universally until it was forced on the priesthood in the Dark Ages. Yes, the Scriptures frown on unchastity, divorce and remarriage, but the definitions of those terms has slipped over and over down through time, and Jesus never condemned the woman at the well who had apparently been married five times and was living with a man who was not her husband, nor did shame her for her difficult life. In other words, it was not a “deal breaker” for her hearing and receiving grace.

As for the treatment of gay/lesbian people (can we be more inclusive, with bisexual and transgender people, too?), history has ample evidence that the modern condemnations being read out of the Bible by conservatives and fundamentalists were not read that way for more than 1,000 years after Christ. I am still impressed with the scholarly work of Prof. Theodore Jennings, who authored The Man Jesus Loved, which lays open some of the covert gay stories of the Gospels.

We have struggled with the issues surrounding homosexuality in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for several decades, and the conclusion of thousands of people is that we simply cannot summarily condemn gay and lesbian people because of two or three references in the Bible any more than we can forbid Christian women from serving in ordained ministry because of one or two citations. The grace, acceptance and reconciliation of God overshadows everything else. Period.

John Paul II commented officially years ago that women could not be priests because Jesus chose only male disciples. Well, Jesus only had Jewish disciples too, so that logic would have kept both John Paul II and Benedict XVI out of the priesthood. My point is that arguing over the trivial rules of the church is ultimately not successful—even if the conservative side insists it has a lock-tight argument—because its logic, authority, high-handedness and even cruelty to individual believers is increasingly rejected by 21st century people of faith.

One of the most appalling weapons used in the Catholic Church is to silence dissent with papal authority. Significant theologians have simply been banned form public teaching, speaking or publishing—not much different than burning dissidents at the stake as the Catholic Church did 500 years ago. I would not be surprised if the leaders of this “disobedience” move in the Austrian church will face similar silencing moves from the Vatican.

But how long will it take before all the thinking faithful are silent and faith itself will simply wither away because the content of what is left will only be faith in authority, not in the Gospel of God’s gracious reconciliation with humanity. Sooner or later, the church must also reconcile with the world as God has done, or it will continue to be working with futility against the will of God.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Not all are negative on same-sex marriage.

August 31st, 2011

Thanks to Elizabeth for this link. The Atlantic Wire (Atlantic Monthly Group) has a brief article on American attitudes on same-sex marriage ~ they call it “gay marriage” ~ that shows that not all religious people are of the same mind.

Well, duh! We knew that but it’s helpful when the general public is given information to help them separate the sheep from the goats on this issue.

breakdownongaymarriage.jpg

According to the chart, based on a study from the Public Religion Research Institute (based on data collected in July 2011), Catholics and “White Mainline” churches line up as slightly positive on the issue (52 and 51% in favor), and Black Protestant and White Evangelical church people decisively negative on the issue (60 and 76% opposed respectively).

Three years ago in the post mortem hand-wringing as to why Proposition 8 passed in California, you will remember, it was these two groups which helped to push Prop 8 to victory. the LGBT community in California was especially dismayed that we had not communicated our core message effectively to the Black churches. That reality appears to prevail today, even while general attitudes and even “White mainline” Christians have been moving steadily into our column.

Read the article linked here, because the most important finding is not represented in the Atlantic chart:

” the main theme of the study was that younger people are supporting gay rights at much higher rates than their elders. It found “at least a 20-point generation gap” between 18 to 29 year olds and adults over 65 on every public policy issue concerning gay rights. And seven in 10 people in that younger age bracket say that religious groups that come out against homosexuality are alienating them.”

This last sentence confirms a finding from the Barna Group published four years ago. See Indwelling Spirit comments here, which was based on a September 2007 Barna news article.

Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a “bigger sin” than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Touch us gently.

August 30th, 2011

As many of readers of Indwelling Spirit may realize by now, I scribble little “Notes to Self” and don’t get back to them right away. They clutter my desk and brief case and bedside table. Sometimes, months later, these notes take some deciphering, and as I get back to this blog after many months of being overwhelmed by other responsibilities, I am evaluating some of my own scrawled notes:

 paingently.jpg

Each of us probably remembers this feeling from a doctor or dentist visit: We have pain. The “spot” is very sensitive. We know that this needs the attention of a professional, perhaps even a specialist, but we brace ourselves against what might be careless or overzealous medical attention. “Please be gentle!” we scream under our breath just before we are touched, poked, probed —or drilled!

When someone tells me about a pain they are having, or their story of a recent doctor visit, I am thinking, “I know exactly how you feel,” because I have had similar experiences where a pain was deep or sharp and I found myself pleading for gentle treatment.

Spiritually, there is an important parallel here. We may be living with a lot of pain, spiritually. It takes awhile for it to build up to the point where we recognize its symptoms, or are ready to talk about it. Yet we are really reluctant to take our inner emotional/spiritual pain to a specialist—to a counselor, confessor, pastor or spiritual director.

Why do we avoid getting spiritual help when we are in pain?

I suspect that often the reason is that we don’t expect we will be treated gently, either by a counselor/pastor or by God. Many people have experienced so much judgmentalism, rejection, and threats of punishment from religious figures —and told they can expect the same from Almighty God!—that they avoid taking their spiritual symptoms to them.

All of us have been poked, probed, drilled, scolded, and pushed away at some point—at a very sensitive point in our lives—when what we really needed was a gentle touch or a hug, not a lecture, scolding, ultimatum or damnation.

Time and time again this has been especially true for LGBT people. We have symptoms of emotional and spiritual distress. We hurt. It has taken a lot of time for many of us to bring this pain to the surface, and to recognize the symptom of our deep discomfort. We’re not sure of ourselves let alone sure of our relationship to God.

But because of either our own experiences or those of friends, we avoid seeking counsel or guidance for our spiritual lives, because we cannot take any more harsh treatment. Some of us just go on living with the pain rather than seeking a specialist that can help clear it up, because of the risk of spiritual mistreatment or harm. The so-called Ex-Gay campaign, for example, has been unmasked as an effort that subjects gay people to immeasurable pain and mistreatment.

Often I try to explain to non-gay church people what the significant pastoral and spiritual issues are for LGBT people. Some of these people are sympathetic enough to recognize the prejudice and rejection that lesbian/gay people especially have experienced. But because they are in the sexual majority, not sexual minority, they do not fully understand or fully feel the pain that we talk about.

Yes, there are many other Christian people out there who are not sympathetic at all. They continue to finger the same few “clobber” passages in the Bible, and point to them with a sharpened index finger, like a doctor thumping on a medical manual at the possible diagnosis. And because they are so certain of their allegiance to God as they understand him, they almost aggressively attack the wounded or the hurting with this “immutable” word of the Lord. An old saying expresses this pretty well: The church is the only army that shoots its own wounded.

God does not approach us that way. If anything, God touches all who are in pain, all who have open wounds, more gently. God’s approach to our pain or suffering is an embrace, not a probe or poke or drill. From the Lutheran rite for Confession and Forgiveness (Summer 2011), “As tender as a parent to child, so gentile is God to us. As high as heaven is above the earth, so vast is God’s love for us. As far as east is from west, so far God removes our sin, renewing our lives in Jesus Christ.”

If we would simply look again at even a handful of the stories in the Gospels about how Jesus approached people in pain, we would clearly see this gentle approach: the woman caught in adultery, the woman at the well (who had already been married 5 times), the rich young ruler, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, Thomas the Doubter, Judas Iscariot, the soldiers who crucified him, and the thief on the cross.

To be sure, Jesus often does challenge people to put greater trust and faith in him, or to turn their lives around (“Go, and sin no more”). But his spiritual approach is always gentle. I might even speculate that Jesus had heard of the Hippocratic Oath (5th Century B.C.), to which this classic phrase is often traced: primum non nocere, “first, do no harm.” It certainly calls for reflection for those of us who are spiritual guides, counselors, confessors and pastors, and especially for those who are LGBT people of faith.

I have a definite sense of what God’s gentle touch means. (See my essay, “About Jesus,” for example.) Obviously, a lot of rock-hard conservative clergy and laity wouldn’t agree with me, and they can drill their forefinger into the pages of the Bible to “prove” it. But as I’ve said before, “God’s Word for us is always an invitation, not an ultimatum.” And you can quote me on that.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Justice delayed, again and again.

June 23rd, 2011

It is more than a mere “cliff-hanger,” that the New York state legislature went home for the night without voting once and for all on the same-sex marriage bill. It is justice denied.

William Gladstone, the 19th century British politician is attributed with the quote “Justice delayed is justice denied” —something that politicians forever have simply ignored. But again tonight, the citizens of New York are being denied justice while the Neros of the Senate fiddled with funding and financing and pensions and economic matters over which the two major parties love to disagree.

It is becoming quite clear that the Republican lawmakers want the clock to run out on the legislative session (which was supposed to have adjourned last week) without having to take a vote either way on Governor Cuomo’s bill. The last count was that 31 of the necessary majority of 32 Senators would vote for it. The rest of them apparently don’t want to vote for it, and don’t want to identified as being against it either. So the bill could die again because justice was delayed.

This is our legal system in America, folks. This is our court system, too, because legislators (not judges) hold the cards on appointing judges. Dozens and dozens of federal benches sit empty because the U.S. Senate refuses to confirm the nominees—another political maneuver to deny justice by postponing it.

Lawsuits take years to work their way through the courts, because attorneys afford themselves all the time in the world (someone else is paying them by the hour at prices they set without any form of regulation) to argue over technicalities. All the time in the world is justice denied while justice is debated, deferred, derailed, in courtrooms full of detached parties. In California, neither the state courts nor the federal courts seems to be able to get to the core issues raised by the ludicrous manipulation of our voters’ initiative system to shove Proposition 8 into the state constitution. While New York Senators fiddle, no one is taking charge over the clearly unconstitutional denial of fundamental human rights for gay and lesbian people because they have to think about whether outside parties—who are not harmed in any way by my marriage or yours— have the legal standing to defend the proposition in court. If the legal issues about “standing” aren’t clear by now, is it unfair of the citizens to ask, “what the hell have you attorneys and judges and legislators been doing with your time for the last century or more?”

The filibuster is another device with which everybody is familiar. It ought to be outlawed—absolutely and forever—but the bastards who filibuster are the bastards who write the laws, and do it to favor themselves rather than justice. But the filibuster is a blatant and intentional abuse of the democratic process to delay and therefore deny justice.

It isn’t that New York’s legislative “good night” this evening at 11:00 p.m. is so awful in and of itself. But it is simply one more nail in the coffin of democracy. What’s been holding up the vote for weeks? Republican lawmakers want to argue some more over whether there are enough legal protections for religious groups who don’t want to perform same-sex marriages. Was that an issue with Loving v. Virginia, that religious groups who didn’t believe that interracial marriage was moral wouldn’t be compelled to perform them? To my knowledge, no minister, rabbi, imam or other religious figure is ever compelled to preside over a marriage ceremony of any kind. We all have the freedom to say no. So the Republican misgivings about the bill in New York is an obvious stalling maneuver—to suggest that there are just too many unresolved issues to move forward. I’m not buying it.

—Dan Hooper

A June roller coaster.

June 21st, 2011

This is an unusual month so far for “gay pride,” even by the unusual standards of contemporary life. The President of the United States formally proclaimed it as LGBT Pride Month ( a first). Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa declared June as the city’s first LGBT Heritage Month and the City Council had a special (and amicable) pre-session observance on June 3.

But the word “pride” doesn’t convey both the challenge and the agony we face. HIV/AIDS turns 30 this month (the first identified cases were labeled in June 1981) and AIDS is still a curse on the world, especially to minorities and nations where medications are not readily available. I will post my article on AIDS in the prison system separately.

In the meantime, both a federal Bankruptcy Court and U. S. District Court made decisions to bolster the appropriate legal recognition of gay people. The Bankruptcy Court (Central District of California) basically found that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed into law by our friend Bill Clinton—during a senior moment when he forgot to be our friend?—is unconstitutional. This ruling comes down beside the Justice Department’s announcement that they aren’t going to defend DOMA in court cases any more, so it will be interesting to see how an appeal plays out.

Meanwhile the original federal Proposition 8 is still working its way through the appeal process, but Judge Walker’s finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional will not be tossed out because of Walker’s personal prejudice. “Protect Marriage” [sic] had argued that, since Walker is himself gay and did not reveal he was in a same-sex partnership for ten years until after the trial was over, his decision was somehow tainted. The conservative fringe has trouble understanding that if their “logic” was sustained it would eliminate white, Black, Asian, married, single, or indeed all human judges from deciding all cases because their own existence would somehow prejudice their view of the law.

We thought, too, that New York’s state legislature was about to legalize same-sex marriage by June 17, but that hasn’t happened yet. June 17, 2008 was the date that same-sex marriages briefly became legal in California, before Proposition 8 blew then out again that November. Reuters reported last night that we should look for a vote by mid-week (in a hold-over legislative session), which may make New York the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, … or not.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Another June “First.”

June 20th, 2011

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/06/un-adopts-groundbreaking-resolution-affirming-that-lgbt-rights-are-human-rights/

UN Adopts Groundbreaking Resolution Affirming that LGBT Rights are Human Rights

By Paul Guequierre • June 17th, 2011 at 10:34 am

The following post comes from Mark Bromley Chair of the Council for Global Equality:

For the First time, the UN’s Human Rights Council in Geneva has adopted a resolution expressing concern at acts of violence and discrimination committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The text calls on the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a global study outlining discriminatory laws, practices and acts of violence directed at LGBT individuals, with recommendations on how to put an end to such fundamental human rights abuses. The study will be reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council next year. The resolution was tabled by South Africa and it enjoyed strong support from the United States and a broad coalition of voting states from all regions of the world. It was adopted in Geneva today by a vote of 23 countries in support, 19 against and 3 abstentions.

The United States was represented at the adoption by U.S. Ambassador Eileen Donahoe and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Baer. Baer noted the importance the United States placed on this vote, emphasizing that “this resolution confirms to millions of people around the world that every person – every human being on this planet – matters. As Secretary Clinton said, ‘Gay rights are human rights.’ So are the rights of religious minorities, the disabled and so many others who have been historically ignored or persecuted, not for what they do but for what they are. This is an important step in the quest for dignity for all. And I am proud that the U.S. is a part of it.”

This is the first official UN resolution to focus exclusively on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, and it is the first time that gender identity has ever been included in such a formal UN text. A vocal coalition of civil society advocates, coordinated by ARC International, also gathered in Geneva to push the UN to adopt the text. Those advocates, together with non-governmental leaders in South Africa, worked with the South African government to refine the text and then lobbied hard for its adoption. See the full text of the statement from the NGO coalition that supported the resolution here.

The United States was an official co-sponsor of the resolution and worked with South Africa and other co-sponsors from Europe, Latin America and Asia to secure its passage. Under President Obama and with the leadership of Secretary of State Clinton, the United States has become a strong voice for LGBT rights at the United Nations. The Human Rights Campaign is a founding member of the Council for Global Equality whose mission is to bring together international human rights activists, foreign policy experts, LGBT leaders, philanthropists and corporate officials to encourage a clearer and stronger American voice on human rights concerns impacting LGBT communities around the world. You can find more information on the Council for Global Equality and their work on this action here.

— Dan Hooper

Baptists are far from clear.

June 18th, 2011

On the religious front, a “teachable moment” mysteriously opened up this last week in– of all places–the Southern Baptist Convention’s convention being held this year in Phoenix Arizona, when a coalition of representatives for the LGBT movement met for a half hour with the President of the SBC.

img20116157702hi.JPG 

Apparently the meeting was “entirely cordial,” but the Baptist President Bryant Wright didn’t budge from his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out was there, as was Mitchell Gold and Brent Childers of Faith in America and Robin Lunn of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists. The Baptist Press, quoted by Besen, indicates that Wright refused to budge, “saying that Scripture is clear on the issue.” (Any resemblance to Scientology’s use of the word “clear” is coincidental and irrelevant.)

Right there we have a great example of sheer posturing, since any serious theologian in the last 100 years has said that Scripture is not clear about what we now call homosexuality, because the Biblical writers didn’t have any understanding that homosexuality even existed.

(Other things that are “clear,” meaning that they’re in the Bible in black and white, but far from clear, include other sexual matters including polygamy and adultery, marriage and divorce, celibacy and even masturbation.

To his credit, Wright admitted to his own “incredible amount of sin,” and admitted that God loved everybody in the room with him (the homosexuals). But he attempted to mask his rigidity by saying “I hope you all would respect that we’re just seeking to follow Jesus.” Ahem, Mr. Wright: Jesus never condemned adulterers, healed the “boy” (lover) of the centurion, and had his own serious boyfriend, the “beloved disciple.” Sexual wrong-doing or even excess simply didn’t figure highly in Jesus’ message or ministry, but condemning self-righteousness did.

The only thing that is really clear is that the SBC is clear that it is unwilling to re-think its superficial, rigid, lock-step interpretation of theology on sexual matters—and a lot of other matters as well. In short, the SBC answer to the reality that different Christians have come to differing conclusions about human sexuality and homosexuality is that everybody else is wrong.

At least the Southern Baptists were cordial throughout, according to their own press corp. It is was a historic first for some significant gay spokespersons to actually sit face-to-face with an “enemy” leader.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

One vote away from a slender majority?

June 14th, 2011

The New York Times is reporting this afternoon that the New York Senate is only one vote away from passing the bill that would legalize same-gender marriage in that state, making it the sixth state and the largest state to do so. It is important in the larger struggle for rights and recognition because it will come as a result of legislative action, not court opinion.

Lawmakers are fond of counting their chickens before they hatch, and the vote count stands at 31 out of 62 votes. Only one more is needed for passage by simple majority. Two Republican lawmakers are already behind the bill.

A Senate vote is likely to come up this week in the Senate. The lower house of the legislature has passed this bill twice before and is considered likely to pass it again if the Senate comes through. Governor Cuomo had introduced the bill in both houses simultaneously. If passed by both houses, the law would take effect in 30 days.

Catch the New York Times story here. The Human Rights Campaign, which has delivered 25,000 postcards to New York law makers in support of this bill, is also offering instantaneous voting results directly to your cell phone: “Be the first to find out the result! Text “NY” to 30644. You’ll join HRC’s Mobile Action Network – and we’ll let you know as soon as the vote tally is in.”

If the New York vote happens by Friday, it will make an interesting and bittersweet historical footnote in the struggle for marriage equality. It was on June 17, 2008 that the first same-gender marriages were performed in California (and the last ones were performed in early November when Proposition 8 passed on the general election ballot—by a slender majority).

— Pastor Dan Hooper

We are a Sanctuary.

June 2nd, 2011

As our church polishes us and celebrates the recent completion of new things in our sanctuary (such as flooring and pipe organ), my mind turns to the significance of the sacred space, what it has meant historically as a place of prayer and sacrament for nearly 90 years, and what it should mean in the lives of Christians—not just here but everywhere.

chancelandaltarmay2011.jpg

The idea of Sanctuary is an ancient one. A sanctuary is not merely a sacred space where we can pray to God, but a safe space from the anxieties, terrors and violence of the world around us.

From time to time, churches also serve as a refuge or sanctuary for illegal immigrants, for runaways and for the hungry and homeless. Battered wives have fled to the church as a place of safety, hiding and understanding. After natural disasters, many people who have been displaced by fire or flood have come to churches seeking help and temporary shelter.

Hollywood Lutheran Church is a sanctuary for sexual minorities (LGBTQ etc.), people in recovery from alcohol, drugs and other addictions, people living with HIV/AIDS, people of color and everybody else who suffers discrimination, and even inmates and parolees who are shunned even after they have “paid their debt to society.”

We don’t just sit in a Sanctuary to pray! The purpose of the Christian Church everywhere should be to enlarge the Sanctuary of God’s love and compassion, and to become a living sanctuary of people committed to mercy, safety, healing and wholeness.

There is no place in our church for judgmentalism, rejection, hatred, prejudice or fear. The Christ we know in faith—who on the Cross gave up his life for our sake and took away the sins of the world—is a Lord who seeks the lost, upholds the weak, feeds those who hunger and thirst, and reveals the light of God to anyone who struggles against the darkness.

If that sounds over-dramatic, it shouldn’t. Christians are in a life-and-death struggle with evil in the world. Every day I see the ruins and results of evil—broken lives, fearful people, indifference or hatred. In the midst of this world, there is no reason to be “religious” if not to follow in the steps of Jesus Christ. And if we follow Christ, we must be the change we want to see in the world. We must be the sanctuary to which others may come and rest and pray and feel safe. This is true religion . This is the life of faith.

—Pastor Dan

P.S. If you’re curious, here are some key Bible passages about sanctuary: Psalm 20:1–5, Psalm 28:1–3; Isaiah 8:13–14; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Hebrews 10:19–24.

Perspective is everything.

May 31st, 2011

I am always browsing the internet for graphics and photos to use in illustrating articles, web sites and this blog. But this one I took myself last week. I haven’t seen this particular vehicle before or since, but its owner certainly has a different perspective on things than I.

everythingishorrible-550.JPG

And I can’t help wondering what level of frustration, anger or rage against the cosmos would drive a person to further deface his/her/probably his own vehicle as an editorial on one’s own life. Everything is a pretty inclusive word, after all, and no one person’s perspective is quite so vast. Okay, I know, it’s rhetorical. But we’re looking at a mental case, folks, and this driver needs help.

A second equally plausible explanation: the painter of the message is not the owner of the car.  That opens up another entire set of assumptions and conclusions.

How are things for you? Is this your car?  Is this your life? Feel free to comment.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Is there a trend going?

May 23rd, 2011

Just weeks after the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. finally opened its doors to lesbian and gay clergy, today’s breaking news is that the Church of Scotland is doing the same.

The British Guardian reports the story, which also touches on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The Church of Scotland is the largest Protestant body in Scotland (although not large, only some 450,000 members). Since the Reformation four centuries ago, the Church of Scotland has been a part of the Reformed movement which is essentially Presbyterian in polity.

church-of-scotland-007.jpg

“The church’s general assembly, its law-making body, voted on Monday to lift that moratorium, officially allowing gay ministers to take on parishes for the first time since its formation 450 years ago.”

The story, however, dies not indicate whether the Church of Scotland voters were in any way influenced by the ratification of changes in policy in the PCUSA earlier this month.What is fascinating in the Guardian story are the competing predictions of potential disaster (before the vote was taken by the church’s general Assembly): the number of ministers and congregants who would leave the church if homosexual clergy are permitted, and the number of ministers and congregants who would leave the church if homosexual clergy are not permitted. It seems human nature cannot resist the making of polarizing threats.For the record, there were hundreds of clergy and thousands of believers in my own Evangelical Lutheran Church in America who never promised to leave or threatened anything for the decades it took to shift the thinking of the entire churchbody. Although we have certainly not won over every heart and mind, the scale tipped in favor of openness and tolerance in August 2009, and all efforts to rescind this new liberal policy have thus far failed miserably.

Although the Guardian story is too brief and vague, it notes that “In addition, the church has set up a commission to investigate the theological issues raised by the acceptance of gay clergy.” In contrast, the ELCA studied the issues almost to death, including the adoption of a comprehensive statement on Human Sexuality, before it recommended action two years ago.

churchofscotlandhome1.jpg

We shall stay on the look-out for more information coming directly from the Church of Scotland.

—Pastor Dan Hooper