We’re here, we’re queer, we’re Christian.

February 27, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Further to my recent post on the “core” of the faith and those congregations voting to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the March 2010 issue of the Lutheran magazine has one entire News page devoted to this mess. From this source, a box with a fraying rope picture reports:

Congregations vote to leaveTwenty-eight of the ELCA’s some 10,200 congregations passed a second and final vote to leave the denomination as of Feb. 4.  The Office of the Secretary also reported an additional 128 passed a first vote, while first votes in 64 congregations failed.  In four congregations the votes are being disputed.  Nineteen of the ELCA’s 65 synods had no congregations taking votes.Synods with the most congregations taking votes were: Montana (17), Southwestern Texas (12), East-Central Synod of Wisconsin (11), Southeastern (11), Pacifica (10) [Orange County, California, etc.] and Eastern Washington-Idaho (10).”The Lutheran magazine is trying to be even-handed and journalistically professional. At least they’re reporting this, rather than hiding or ignoring the conflict.  On the same page, other news briefs indicate that some congregations that had been withholding benevolence money from the denomination over the pro-LGBT vote last August have now decided to begin donating it again.  The news also reports on an Iowa congregation that is disputing with its bishop over the exact count of a 2/3 vote of voting members needed to leave the denomination.  And meanwhile the Northeastern Iowa Synod Council has rescinded two very anti-gay resolutions it had previously adopted.  Iowa, you will remember, has legal same-sex marriage, so it’s an issue that is closer to home than the streets of San Francisco.  But such turmoil! trouble! disagreement! 

And, we are the people who started all this?  Well, hardly.  No.  We refuse to take responsibility for homophobic reactions to our lives.  We are LGBT Christians, in the midst of the larger church, who decided to claim our integrity as well as our inborn sexuality.  We decided to be honest, to tell our church that we are here and that we have faith and that we want to fully participate in the community’s life of faith with honesty. All the turmoil is not coming from us, but from the people who can’t handle the truth. When they are prodded to handle the truth, some of them want to flee from the church, and want to believe they are being driven out.  Hey, we could write the manual on what it feels like to be driven out, and guess what?  We didn’t leave.  We are the people of faith who didn’t cave in or go away when we felt unwelcome because we knew the truth that God welcomes, God includes, God blesses, and God heals.

I know there are thousands—millions—of people raised in the Church of Christ who came to terms with their sexuality and no longer have anything to do with any church.  Some are deeply scarred and have rejected all religion, all Christian spirituality.  Others long to come home, but they are not about to come home unless it is safe to do so.  They need assurance they will not get beat up again.

Watching the ELCA come to terms with its lesbian and gay clergy is kind of like watching a family come to terms with a lesbian daughter or a gay nephew.  You want to walk away—quickly—but it’s your family, and something deeply rooted in you believes that, because you know your family, they will eventually come around.  It’s still painful watching them argue with each other, and bring up their wildly irrational fears and complaints, but after awhile, all the emotion sort of drains out of it, and they are still the same people we’ve lived with our whole lives.  They’ll get over it and life will go on.

All I can do is commend these people, this church, and this process, to the all-embracing arms of God.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in LGBT Christian, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Faith, Public Affairs, Ministry, Coming Out, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

Sudden acceleration.

February 24, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I am reading and watching politics more often lately, and I am absorbed by the similarities between the Religious Reich and the political right wingnuts.

Yes, I know they are in bed together, or they are really the same people. We’ve known that since the days of the Moral Majority (Hmmm. They still have a website is up but it hasn’t been updated in 2½ years! See highlightd above.) and the politically opportune ascent of a B-rated actor named Ronald Reagan to become Governor of California as his first public elected office.

But what fascinates me is that religious, social and political conservatives use the exact same technique to promote their views, as if they are all reading the exact same playbook. Is there a modern-day Machiavellian book like The Prince that the entire right wing is circulating? (See this cynical reference; don’t bother to scroll down.)

What I refer to is this 24/7 streaming of public outrage, which seems to be rapidly accelerating in our society. We “get it” that outrage achieves results. People love to get over-excited, as if their dreary daily lives offer no rewards whatever, and it takes an interactive, 3-D action film to get them out of bed in the morning.

But the media, including blogs etc. also exaggerate the effectiveness of outrage. A few weeks ago, the election of Scott Brown as a darling conservative to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy, the “Lion of the Senate” was supposed to prove that independent voters were outraged with the Obama administration. Now with less than three weeks in office Senator Brown has voted with the democrats on an Obama jobs bill and the right wing is outraged against their own darling.

The outrage I see is more than Rush Limbaugh’s putrid opinions calculated to “stoke indignation” as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow observed. But probably the easy access to media, the explosion of blogs and Twitter, etc., have all aided and abetted noisy anger over everything. The new American paradigm is one continuous, relentless confrontation which continues to accelerate with no responsible “recall” in sight. 

• Road rage on public streets, highways and freewaysguy slams his Toyota vehicle directly into a Toyota dealership, claiming the vehicle had an episode of sudden acceleration which Toyota should have fixed.
• “Light up the Border” outrage (not outage) over illegals coming into America.
• Outrage over the fact that McCain lost and Barrack Hussein Obama is president of the United States.
• Fred Phelps & co.
• Neighborhood gangs who take offense at the slightest slight.
• Making everything into a culture war. (incidentally, www.culturewar.com is probably for sale if you want to trivialize, market, and profit from it. And www.publicoutrage.com is definitely for sale.

• Making people’s private lives (right to marry, adoption of and caring for children) into a a public fury, Armageddon-moment.soggy-brained tea-party Republicanswhite supremacists, neo-Nazis, NRA, and hothead/ red-faced rednecks
• The noisy derision and resistance of the 2010 Census because, after all, it is being done by The Government.

(I don’t count Dick (”heart attack”) Cheney among the professional stokers of indignation. He seems to be more proficient at sneering than stoking anything.)What I find especially ironic, of course, is that the vast majority of this outrage and indignation in American society is coming from what social and religious conservatives still insist on labeling as a “Christian nation.” Is there something about being Christian, or about Christian doctrine, which is inherently angry, indignant and outraged? Did I miss something when I got the message that God is love, and that we are to love one another as a sign of following Jesus? Help me out here, folks.

—Pastor Dan

Posted in Go figure!, wingnuts, Violence, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Public Affairs, LGBT Rights, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Opposition 8.

February 23, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

It was encouraging to read an intelligently-framed and almost-timely presented Op-Ed piece in this morning’s Los Angeles Times. Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist, and Michael Rosbach, a medical investigator, wrote an article entitled “Genetics and Proposition 8.”

They present the case that there is constantly-increasing evidence supporting a biological basis for sexual orientation. There is no single “gay gene” that makes us gay, but neither is a single gene that dictates our height, the color of our skin or predisposition to many diseases. Whether we are left– or right–handed also has a genetic basis but there is no one gene that controls this.

Genetics, of course, plays a huge role in the discussion of whether gay or lesbian people choose to be sexually oriented to a member of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. And as we all know, choice constantly hovers in the background in the discussion of religion and of civil rights.

Civil rights are particularly singled out where there is the possibility of discrimination because of things we cannot choose, for example, having a particular ethnicity and skin color. Some things are protected from possible discrimination which are a matter of choice, however, such as religion. But in the current so-called Culture War, our opponents (dare we say “enemies”?) insist that being lesbian or gay is a choice and so try to make the argument that lesbians and gay men are not entitled to special rights.

Hamer and Rosbach’s pointed connection with Proposition 8 is that genetics was an “elephant in the courtroom” in the U.S. District case Perry v. Schwarzenegger when testimony was heard last month. (See a case profile here; we await further proceedings and Judge Walker’s verdict.)

One point made by the writers is worth singling out here, especially as we are still caught up in the passionate arguments about only one item on the so-called Gay Agenda: the right to enter into a civil marriage. Another major element of the Religious Reich’s agenda, you will remember, is to block any and all efforts to “teach homosexuality” in the schools.

The school angle has been part of their war chant ever since California State Senator John Briggs tried to ram through an initiative that would have prevented homosexuals from teaching in California schools. Such a move seems almost quaint now, except it was extremely real 30 years ago that drove thousands of lesbian/gay teachers deeper into their closets. One public opinion poll during the campaign showed the Briggs initiative leading 61% to 31%. Fortunately, the measure was defeated, in part because former governor Ronald Reagan reassured votes that the measure wasn’t needed to protect children. “We have the legal protection now,” he said, allowing voter bigotry to rest in the arms of complacency. (A sympathetic assessment of Reagan and gay people by Dale Carpenter can be found at the Independent Gay Forum.)

But ever since “protect our children” has been an anti-gay chant. It was used again quite openly in the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 in 2008. For example, the anti-gay ProtectMarriage.com site lists three bullet points on “Why Did Proposition 8 Win?”

“In the campaign, voters were told clearly that voting YES on Proposition 8 would do 3 simple things:  

• It would restore the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined. 
• It would overturn the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
• It would protect our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and would prevent other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.”

If homosexuals can marry each other, they argued, schools will be teaching homosexuality in our schools.On January 12, in Attorney Ted Olson’s opening statement in Perry in support of the lesbian and gay plaintiffs seeking to overturn Proposition 8, he drew attention to this gay marriage–schools connection:

“When voters in California were urged to enact Proposition 8, they were encouraged to believe that unless Proposition 8 were enacted, anti-gay religious institutions would be closed, gay activists would overwhelm the will of the heterosexual majority, and that children would be taught that it was `acceptable’ for gay men and lesbians to marry. Parents were urged to `protect our children’ from that presumably pernicious viewpoint.”

In the summer and fall of 2008, we thought the voters’ natural b.s. detectors would flag all that as a fraudulent argument. But we underestimated the power of a stupid idea to gain momentum through voter complacency corrupted by evil intent.What Hamer and Rosbach do is to pinpoint an aspect of the education issue and the gay agenda which many of us have not made clear to reasonable and intelligent minds.

“Recent studies in college classrooms show that exposure of students to information on the causes of homosexuality has a direct influence on opinions about gay rights. This fits with polling data showing that people who believe that gays are `born that way’ are generally supportive of full equality, whereas those who believe it is “a choice” are opposed.”

Here is where it gets really scary. Hamer and Rosbach go on to say:  

“One national survey found that 70% of those who think being gay is a choice favored the reinstitution of sodomy laws. This would turn some 15 million Americans into common criminals for simply being who they are.”

The point is this: it is not merely the (horror of horrors!) idea that if lesbian/gay people have any “special rights” and win the Culture War, little children will learn all about homosexuality and then decide to become queer (it is a choice you know!). It is the deeper homophobic fear that if students of any age learn all about homosexuality, they will simply be more tolerant and accepting of the reality of sexual variance and be disinclined to try to stamp it out through draconian legal measures.

The drum beat of homophobic fear has not relented–not after defeats such as the failure of the Briggs initiative, nor after victories such as Proposition 8. Our enemies continue to hammer away that the Gay Agenda must be stopped everywhere, because otherwise we will insidiously normalize everything about homosexuality. As I have argued elsewhere, the fabrication of  “choice” of sexual orientation is the linch-pin of the anti-gay wagon, and education (not same-sex marriage) is the slipperier slope, because an educated populace (not just children) will be measurably less bigoted.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Homophobia, "The Closet", Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Three cheers for change.

February 20, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

I got an e-mail a few days ago, a “Special Edition” from the interfaith Religious Institute based in Westport, Connecticut. Yes, we’ve been saying that human sexuality and homosexuality have been balkanizing America and preoccupying both religious and secular organizations and institutions. At least this crowd has decided not to be reactive but proactive in pressing for sexual health and sexual justice.

The e-mail announces the release of a new report, Sexuality and Religion 2020: Goals for the Next Decade, in an audio press conference. Rev. Debra Hafner was joined at this audio news conference by “the esteemed religious historian, Dr. Martin Marty; the director of women’s ministry for the National Council of Churches, the Rev. Ann Tiemeyer; and the president of the National Council of Jewish Women, Nancy Ratzan (left to right below).

 

(Dr. Marty’s presence is notable to me because I can remember less than a few decades ago when he was saying some pretty homophobic things and wishing that “the love that dare not speak its name” would just learn to be quiet. No, I can’t find that actual quote — I think I have it in paper files somewhere, because it was uttered by Marty before everything in the cosmos was on line. But the homophobia and the name of Martin Marty stuck in my consciousness. Thank God he has grown on this issue like millions of others.)

Here is an excerpt of the e-mail announcing the 51-page Report:

The report opens with a new vision: By the year 2020, all faith communities will be sexually healthy, just and prophetic. It goes on to outline 10 goals for the next 10 years that will help to achieve that vision. The goals, listed below, are fully articulated in the report. They call on religious leaders and institutions to

• break the silence around sexuality in congregations and faith communities;
• improve ministerial training in sexuality issues;
• provide better pastoral care on sexuality-related issues and sexuality education for youth and adults;
• forge multifaith coalitions to promote sexual health and justice;
• become more effective advocates for sexuality education, sexual and reproductive health, and the full inclusion of women and LGBT persons;
• include sexuality in movements addressing poverty, the environment and other social justice concerns; and
• mobilize people of faith to advocate for an increased commitment to sexual health, education and justice in religious communities.

Whether the goals are even slightly realistic and attainable is anyone’s guess. But remember that ten years ago Bill Clinton was President, there were twin towers in New York City, gay marriage wasn’t legal anywhere in the United States, Proposition 22 was not yet on the books in California, and Lawrence v. Texas had not reached the Supreme Court (Bowers v. Hardwick was still the supreme sexual law of the land concerning same-gender consensual acts). In 2000, the Roman Catholic Church and its insurance underwriters were still billions of dollars ahead, before the onslaught of lawsuits and settlements of priestly sexual abuse. So in terms of the movement we’re a part of, a decade may see a lifetime of change.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Sex, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, HIV and AIDS, Ecumenical Issues, Public Affairs, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

One screwball after another.

February 1, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Why didn’t I think of it? Queerty, who is more than a little irreverent over LGBT things, is still working on why the Chinese evangelical Christian known as Hak-Shing William Tam wants to get out of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial (Proposition 8). Could it be that as a defense witness he is doing more damage to the defense of Prop 8 than their already-weak case can stand?

Why Does William Tam Want Out of Perry? Because His ‘Sex With Kids’ Claim Is Hurting the DefenseHak-Shing William (”Bill”) Tam, who has, hilariously, so far not been granted his request to leave the Perry Prop 8 lawsuit, which he volunteered to join as an intervenor, became the star of yesterday’s courtroom when his public letter to Chinese-Americans church groups — arguing gay marriage was only a stepping stone in the radical homosexual agenda to get to the ultimate goal of legalizing sex with children — was presented.

And if California didn’t pass Prop 8? Then “other states would fall into Satan’s hands,” the letter read, as footage of Tam giving a deposition last month played for the court.

David Thompson, representing the defendants ProtectMarriage.com, argued that Tam wasn’t part of the official Prop 8 campaign, and thus his letter wasn’t valid to attach homophobic animus to the case. You know, notwithstanding that ProtectMarriage.com handily added Tam to the list of five defendants- intervenors in Perry.

Oh, so it’s Tam’s ridiculous characterization of the gay agenda that has the defendants looking to remove him? Got it.

Forty-eight days before the election, Tam sent this letter, according to Queerty, to Chinese -American Christians. It is utterly amazing. Dear Friends:This November, San Francisco voters will vote on a ballot to “legalize prostitution”. This is put forth by the SF city government, which is under the rule of homosexuals. They lose no time in pushing the gay agenda — after legalizing same-sex marriage, they want to legalize prostitution. What will be next? On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children. I hope we all wake up now and really work to pass Prop 8. We have only 48 days left. Even if you have church building projects, mission projects, concert projects, etc, please consider postponing them and put all the church man/woman power to work on Prop 8. We can’t lose this critical battle. If we lose, this will very likely happen……

1. Same-Sex marriage will be a permanent law in California. One by one, other states would fall into Satan’s hand.

2. Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals. Even if our children is safe, our grandchildren may not. What about our children’s grandchildren?

3. Gay activists would target the big churches and request to be married by their pastors. If the church refuse, they would sue the church. Even if they know they may not win, they would still sue because they have a big army of lawyers from ACLU who would work for free. They know a prolonged law suit would cripple the church. They had sued the California government many times before. They sue until they win. They would not be afraid to sue a church. The church would have to spend lots of money in defending the case. The court fight would be long and the congregation would be discouraged and leave — how long are they willing to shoulder the law suit costs. The church may give in and accept them, their membership would grow and take over the church. Then a righteous pastor would have to leave. Such scenarios have happened in Scandinavian countries. At that time, churches would keep quiet, hoping that they won’t be picked as the next target.

If your church is sued, don’t expect others to help your church. You would be in the battle alone, and chances are you would lose. If that happens, whatever nice building your church have built now would become meaningless.

In order not to let this happen, we better team up at the current battle to defeat same-sex marriage. Collectively, we have a chance to win. Right now, each church sacrifice a little. For 48 days, delay your projects, put your resources ($ and manpower) into Prop 8. We’d have great power if we pool our resources together. Let’s win this battle. After victory, your congregation would be energized and go back to the original projects with joy and cheer. They may want to give more and build a bigger building to thank God. Our God would be pleased and bless us more. But if we lose, our congregation would lose heart. They might not want to work as hard. Our opponents would be overjoyed. They would do more and change more laws so as to persecute us easier. Churchs would have a much much harder time to survive. We would be collecting offerings to fight law suits instead of building new buildings. I pray that day would not come. The choice is yours. Talk to the leaders of your church. Your actions would change the history in either direction.

Thanks for your efforts,

Bill Tam

Traditional Family Coalition

June 16, 2008, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon became the first lesbian couple to wed legally in California. (Heterosexual) San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom looks on from behind the camera. Who would have guessed that these women, who were together for more than half a century, really wanted to have sex with children?

What can I possibly do to dismantle the right wing’s flaky case any more?

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Go figure!, Sex, History, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Pink Mountain? How’d I miss this?

January 31, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

This one really twists the mind. A communist legislator?… advocating for gay tourists?… to get married? It gives a whole new meaning to “commie pinko.” (And for the record, the full insult is “commie pinko fag” – there’s a site where you can purchase mugs, t-shirts andmagnets!) If you’re interested, you can read the U.S. State Department’s overview on Nepal (which hasn’t been updated since October). The world she is a changin’. – P.D.

Nepal to legalize gay marriage, offer weddings on Mt. EverestBy Ruth Schneider, 365gay.com .  01.29.2010 2:24pm EST

Want to get married on top of the world? Not a problem, says a travel agency promoting gay marriage in Nepal.

In May, the country is set to ratify a new constitution that legalizes same-sex marriages, according to a report in The Telegraph.

Sunil Babu Pant, a Communist legislator and leader of the country’s gay rights movement, launched Pink Mountain, a travel agency offering wedding ceremonies on Mount Everest, the world’s tallest peak.

Pant’s company will offer regal, elephant-back processions and wedding ceremonies at the mountain’s base camp.

“Most Asian countries don’t welcome gay visitors, so we can have the maximum benefit for the Nepal economy which is fragile after years of war,” Pant told the Telegraph. “The government is hoping to increase the number of tourists from 400,000 to one million next year and has taken a positive attitude to welcoming gay and lesbian visitors to help meet their ambitious target.”

Posted in Go figure!, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Pastors, polygamists and beastialists, oh my!

January 30, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Proposition 8: Pastors Say Prop. 8 could lead to Polygamy, Bestiality

Huffington Post sometimes has bad or misplaced headlines, but this one, posted January 25, is a doozy. Apparently, though, conservative clergy are worried about polygamy. For the record, Proposition 8 cannot lead to polygamy, and what Huffington should have said was overturning Proposition 8 could.

Or at least in the views of the pastoral wing-nuts out there:

Earlier Monday, a team of lawyers led by prominent litigators Theodore Olson and David Boies rested the plaintiffs’ case after spending more than nine days presenting evidence on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.The last volley in their attempt to prove Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias and served no legitimate public interest was videotape of a simulcast in which supporters of the ban said gay marriage would lead to polygamy and bestiality.The footage was shown as an example of the work of San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, who helped organize evangelical Christian support for the ballot measure.In one video rally led by Garlow, an unidentified pastor warned “the polygamists are waiting in the wings, because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument, and they probably are going to win.”

It appeared the lawyers were introducing the material to demonstrate the campaign for the ban appealed to religious-based, anti-gay bias to scare voters into supporting the measure.

Proposition 8 sponsors objected to the video, saying the content of the simulcast was not controlled by campaign managers or leaders.

However, Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker allowed the material to be put into the record because the coalition of religious and conservative groups behind Proposition 8 paid for Garlow’s work.

Garlow wants to project an aw-shucks kind of attitude. His 2,500 member Skyline Church is really in La Mesa. He has a Protect Marriage link on his site, but doesn’t plaster it with anti-gay or pro-marriage materials. According to the Los Angeles Times article he barely mentioned the gay marriage issue when Proposition 22 was on the California ballot. but in June 2008 he took the lead to enlist a thousand conservative pastors and call for a 40-day fasting period to stop gay marriage.

Even more fringy, Garlow is trying to keep himself in the limelight—on health care reform! On Right Wing Watch, watch this:

Prayercast: Jim Garlow .  Submitted by Kyle on December 17, 2009 - 9:36amPastor Jim Garlow explains how health care reform legislation violates just about every one of the Ten Commandments:

On Wednesday December 16, Reps. Michele Bachmann and Randy Forbes and Sens. Jim DeMint and Sam Brownback will be joining forces with the likes of Lou Engle, Tony Perkins, Jim Garlow, and Harry Jackson for a “prayercast” organized by the Family Research Council during which they will seek God’s intervention to prevent the passage of healthcare reform. . . .

I‘m still looking for details on what Garlow was paid, and whether that is a violation of the church’s non-profit religious exemption under law.

But the last word in the 2008 story seems to underscore the point that was being made in the Perry courtroom in the last few days:

The dueling messages of the state’s clergy reflect passionate divisions in many faiths about the question. But in the political arena, there is no question that opponents of same-sex marriage will rely heavily on religious leaders to carry their message about marriage and to mobilize their congregants to vote.Civil marriage has been taken away because one specific religious point of view decided to enforce it’s concept of marriage. My constant question is why don’t open-minded and open-hearted clergy have the same energy to organize their voices?

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Go figure!, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Do family values live in a house of cards?

January 28, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

As we await the resolution of this federal case on Proposition 8, we will be hearing more about David Blankenhorn. He is no friend of gay rights, and yet as a witness called by the defense (on behalf of keeping Proposition 8 in place), his testimony under cross-examination certainly must have left the defense attorneys muttering under their breath. It leaves me wondering who will really succeed in destroying heterosexual marriage. – P.D.

---

Newser, a headliner summary site, has this:US Marriage So Weak, Opening to Gays Will Kill It: WitnessPolygamy will follow, Prop 8 supporter addsBy Will McCahill| Posted Jan 26, 10 9:02 PM CST

(Newser) – The institution of marriage is so weak in the US that opening it to same-sex couples will likely kill it completely—and perhaps even lead shortly thereafter to legalized polygamy, a supporter of California’s ban on gay marriage testified today. David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values think tank, was called as a witness by lawyers defending Proposition 8 in the San Francisco trial.

Earlier in the session, lawyers for the gay couples challenging Prop 8 got a defense witness to agree that anti-gay stereotypes rooted in religion had a large role in the 2008 passage of the measure by state voters—the very type of admission that could get Judge Vaughn Walker to strike down the measure, the AP reports.

---

And another one: NewserDefense witness says institution of marriage would be threatened if gays allowed to wed Witness says marriage threatened if gays can wedBy LISA LEFF | Associated Press | Jan 26, 10 6:15 PM CST in USThe head of a family values group testified Tuesday that marriage is in such a weakened state in the U.S. that extending the institution to same-sex couples could be its death blow.

David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a private think tank, took the witness stand for the defense in the trial challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

“My best judgment, if we move toward a widespread adoption of same-sex marriage, I believe the effect will be to significantly further and in some respects culminate the process of deinstitutionalization of marriage,” Blankenhorn said.

Blankenhorn acknowledged that heterosexuals were responsible for the decline of marriage but said allowing gays to marry would accelerate the trend and possibly lead to the legalization of polygamy.

Earlier in the day, a political scientist said powerful churches, religious views of voters and anti-gay stereotypes played a big role in the passage of the ballot measure in 2008.

Claremont McKenna College Professor Kenneth Miller said under cross-examination that he could not say what proportion of voters supported the ban because of bias or theological beliefs.

But he acknowledged that at least some people voted on the basis of anti-gay stereotypes and prejudice, and that in the election a critically important factor was the religious character of Democratic voters.

Miller was also called as a defense witness in the trial, the first in a federal court to examine whether state laws limiting marriage to a man and woman violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

Plaintiffs lawyer David Boies spent several hours trying to draw admissions from Miller to bolster the argument that Proposition 8 was a product of prejudice rooted in religion rather than sound public policy.

“You are saying the general principle that a religious majority should not be able to use law to impose their views on others is a generally accepted principle in political science?” Boies asked, citing some of Miller’s early writings that were critical of California’s initiative process.

Miller replied, “There might be exceptions, but that is a generally accepted principle.”

Boies also prodded Miller to explain why voters in a state known for being gay-friendly overwhelming supported Barack Obama for president yet denied gays the right to wed.

“I believe religiosity is a critical factor, among other things,” Miller said. “I didn’t list any other that were critical, but I haven’t done any other investigation whether those factors were critical.”

When Boies was finished, David Thompson, a lawyer for Proposition 8 sponsors, asked Miller to clarify his earlier assessment of the political power of gays and lesbians.

“There have been very few initiatives across the United States that affect gays and lesbians, if you set aside the marriage initiatives, and so it can’t be said the initiative process is stripping away rights,” Miller said.

Thompson also asked Miller if concerns he expressed early in his career about the initiative process being used to deny vulnerable minorities their rights applied to the gay marriage controversy. Miller said it did not.

“In my view, taking that decision out of the hands of the people in general is an example of the courts taking too strong a position on this issue, this fundamental issue of social policy in the country,” Miller said.

The exchange prompted Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to chime in with a question of his own.

“Are you saying it’s never appropriate for the judiciary to intervene in the initiative process,” Walker asked.

“My view is it is appropriate when an initiative, just like any other statute enacted by a legislature, violates, in this case, the federal Constitution,” Miller answered.

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

You can hide your money but not your behind.

January 21, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Well, the Proposition 8 lawsuit in federal court right now is churning up a lot of stuff, and airing a lot of “dirty linen.” What would it be like if all of us had to live our everyday lives “under oath” to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? How much sooner would the Catholic bishops have had to confess they were hiding the real child molesters, for example? but that’s another story.

Mormon Church Aimed to Cover Tracks on Marriage Ban — Directed funds to outside organizationBy Will McCahill| Posted Jan 20, 10 9:45 PM CST

(Newser) – The Mormon church wanted its members to support the 2008 effort to ban same-sex marriage in California, but urged they do it through an outside organization to give the leadership “plausible deniability,” according to documents released today in the Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco. The Catholic church also helped bankroll the operation, an executive says in one email, while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provided “financial, organizational and management contributions.”Later in today’s session, a Stanford professor testified that although high-profile politicians pay lip service to homosexual issues, “Gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power. They are not able to protect their essential interests.” Though President Obama describes himself as a “fierce advocate” for gay causes, lack of action on the military’s ban on openly gay service members and other issues shows he “is not a reliable ally.”I can corroborate at least part of this. In the wake of the Prop 8 victory in November 2008 I spent several hours pouring over the donor list posted by the state of California, trying to find the contributions of the Mormon Church. Nothing significant turned up, and I was quite surprised. It began to dawn on me and many others that they had covered their behind successfully.It is no coincidence that Catholic and Mormon money funded a large part of the Proposition 8 campaign, however. Both have moral issues of their own they would just as soon hide or at least forget. It seems logical that the best way to distract the public memory from Mormon polygamy or Catholic priestly child molestation is to try to take the “moral high ground” when it comes to marriage.But the “moral high ground” lies quite bare and fallow when a court of law focuses its attention there. The high ground and plausible deniability simply don’t congeal. The moral high ground benefits from transparency, and it is quite obvious that the donors—major and minor—that literally “bought” Proposition 8 for the California Constitution—fear transparency and want their identity concealed as much as possible.Shame! Shame! Shame!

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Go figure!, Catholic matters, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

More weight tipping the scale.

January 12, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

On the heels of the no vote in New Jersey (where they only needed 4 or 5 more votes in the Senate), little by little, the objections to same-gender legal marriage continue to wither in other countries. This past week, the Parliament of Portugal voted to permit gay marriage, according to an Associated Press story.

This unites the Iberian peninsula, because Spain already did this five years ago. Although both are heavily Roman Catholic countries, they have not fallen off into the Atlantic for their left-leaning liberalism! At what point will the international change reach a tipping point for the United States too? Why are we so, well, anal?

Last summer, according to the Huffington Post, Portugal’s highest Constitutional Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage and rejected a suit by two lesbians, Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao. the high court considered the appeal brought from a lower court, and “the Constitutional Court said in a statement posted on its Web site that the constitution does not state that same-sex marriages must be permitted.”

But catch the prophetic outlook of one of the plaintiffs, which seems to anticipate this week’s shift:

The court said the question before it was not whether the constitution allows same-sex marriages, but whether the constitution compels them to be accepted, which it does not.       Paixao told The Associated Press by telephone she regarded the decision as “a victory” because the split decision demonstrated that attitudes are changing in Portugal. “It shows there’s a change coming. Bit by bit people will come around” and accept gay marriage, she said.www.Change.Org carries Michael Jones’ commentary from last Wednesday, “Portugal, Gay Marriage, and a Visit By Pope Benedict XVI“: Prime Minister Socrates made legalizing gay marriage a big component of his re-election campaign last year. When he won, in September, gay marriage activists saw the marriage equality writing on the wall. By the end of this week, the writing may be all over the country’s laws.       Meanwhile, even the Catholic Church is Portugal is sounding a bit conciliatory. Lisbon’s Catholic Cardinal Patriarch Jose Policarpo weighed in and said that same-sex marriage was “parliament’s responsibility,” and not something that Portugal’s Catholic Church should focus on. Ah, would that this philosophy spill over to the U.S. Catholic Church. Instead of leaving marriage up to state legislators, the U.S. Catholic Church gets involved regularly (hello Maine, hello California, hello New Jersey) in the same-sex marriage debate.

Meanwhile, Australian Catholic Cath News notes that the parliament rejects allowing gay couples to adopt children. And further meanwhile, Aljazeera (!) notes that it was as recently as 1982 that homosexuality was a crime in Portugal. Is there any doubt that we are clamoring to a tipping point when (a) decriminalization to legal marriage is only 28 years apart; (b) Aljezeera news carries an objective news story on this without calling for death to the “infidels”?

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Catholic matters, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Ecumenical Issues, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Good news, religious lunacy.

November 30, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

The web newscaster www.365gay.com does a cool job of monitoring AP news releases as well as publishing its own reports. One AP post recently (which I’d missed) is probably the best little tidbit of news I’ve seen in awhile, indicating that there is no smoking gun of gay priests behind the widespread Catholic sex abuse scandal.  Read the story:

Report: Homosexuality no factor in abusive priests 

by The Associated Press • 11.18.2009 9:22am EST

The report, commissioned and financed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the tune of $2 million, did not find that the homosexual orientation of priests was any predictor of who would be involved in sexual abuse. In spite of a policy coming from the Vatican itself a year or so ago to essentially “weed out” homosexually-oriented candidates for the Catholic priesthood, the behavioralists and criminologists who have extensively studied sexual predation and pedophilia do not find a gay = child molester link.

According to the AP report, Margaret Smith of John Jay College of Criminal Justice reported to the Bishops meeting in Baltimore: “If that [Vatican anti-gay] exclusion were based on the fact that [a gay person] person would be more probable than any other candidate to abuse, we do not find that at this time.”

Also another finding from other reports, that I see as good news, is that clergy sexual abuse cases are on the decline ever since the 1980s. Most of the cases still shaming churches and emptying their coffers stem from abusive behavior in the 1960s and 1970s. Perhaps the “transparency” and media attention of more recent times is telling pedophiles and sexual opportunists that they won’t be able to hide their behavior as well as they once did.

On the down side, there is nothing on the horizon to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church will any time soon become more realistic about human sexuality in its moral theology. Its rule of celibacy (a rule of the Church, not a Christian doctrine) for clergy and its iniquitizing of any sexual activity outside of a heterosexual-and-procreative context continues to make its moral teaching seem ridiculous in the larger world and puts many Catholic faithful into a hypocritical bind.

Most ridiculous of all (another rule, not dogma) is to continue to ban women from the priesthood while male priests are deserting the ranks of the clergy if not bankrupting the Church. It has been reported that one-fourth of all Catholic parishes world wide have no priest. The numbers who have quit the priesthood to get (heterosexually) married continues to climb. And the molesters, guilty of some 14,000 sexual abuse cases since 1950, have cost the Church an estimated $2.3 billion in the same time period, according to the AP story.

I know that many of the rank-and-file are outraged at by all of this. The expenditure of money alone (yes, a lot of it paid by insurance companies) is appalling and disgusting. You would think the Church would be broke, but somehow it still finds the funds to fight against civil rights for gay and lesbian couples in California and Maine, too. What else can we do but shake our heads in astonishment and resignation to this religious lunacy. — Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Sex, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Catholic matters, Go figure!, Doctrine, Ecumenical Issues, Public Affairs, LGBT Rights, LGBT Christian, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

Get on with repeal or ditch the constitution!

October 30, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Three cheers to Roland Stringfellow’s blog on Unite the Fight’s web site.

Here we are a year later and where do we find ourselves in the fight for marriage equality in California? Two major camps debating on whether to return to the ballot in 2010 or 2012 and we have to ask ourselves the question, “Have we learned from our mistakes?” Are egos and attitudes being altered in order for power to be shared and different voices heard? Has a clear strategy been created and presented? And what about our motivation – are we still angry and humiliated from our loss a year ago that we are planning to return to the polls with revenge? (”I’ll show you who is a second class citizen.”)

Stringfellow writes on behalf of the faith communities in California who are organizing to overturn Proposition 8.

There are many wonderful, hard working individuals who are putting their hearts on the line as they strive to make our world a more accepting and loving place for LGBTQI people and to make marriage equality a reality for us all. If our goal is to repair the divisions that exist in our society as we work for equality, we must examine and ask ourselves, “Do divisions exist within our movement for equality”?I agree with his view that we ought not to be divided over the 2010 vs. 2012 issue. It is an absurd dissipation of energies, and the supposed merits of each idea (get on the next ballot at all costs, or get on the presidential ballot when more liberals turn out) are probably stirred with personality issues that bubble over behind closed doors–even in the LGBT communities.Unfortunately, well-intended internal battles are part of human nature. You may have read or heard that another proposal is out there to completely revamp or replace the California Constitution, which would of course blow away the Proposition 8 language now enshrined by amendment.But even in this, there is division. Repair California is interested in “incremental change”, and filed ballot language yesterday for a measure that would call a limited Constitutional Convention (see press release; ballot language; fact sheet). Meanwhile, California Forward (www.caforward.org) has a different agenda: “fundamental change.” The two groups talk to one another, which is hopeful that there won’t be unnecessary intra-agenda fighting. But what worries me is that Repair California says it won’t touch our issue. What does that mean?

Mark Carlson in the Lutheran Office of Public Policy in Sacramento stated in an e-mail yesterday, “Jim Wunderman, the leader of Repair California, emphasized that the convention would not deal with marriage, abortion, gun control, or prayer in the schools” [italics added]. But the lunatic cesspools of power and money which seek to control those very things have to be drained of their toxic influence. But California Forward, so far, only addresses “fundamental change” in the area of money and budget, not civil rights.

It is all too clear that California is still ruled by several lunatic fringes. Yes, I know, the Religious Reich characterizes us that same way, but we know the truth. And we demonstrate our sanity every time one more of us comes out and tells the truth about our authentic selves, our lives, and our family relationships. Coming out remains the single most powerful tool we have for defeating conservative extremism. It is they who are on the lunatic fringes, because in addition to barrels of cash, they rely on lies, stereotypes fear and paranoia to push their anti-LGBT agenda.

Hopefully, we in the LGBT communities will be energized by what happens at next week’s polls. If marriage equality is set back further by the vote on Question 1 in Maine, for example, it may kick us into taking the reactionary lunatics far more seriously. It has, after all, come to light that the same money bags which financed Proposition 8 are pouring more of their cash into the Main steal-our-rights campaign. On the other hand, if the move to repeal Maine’s marriage rights law fails, it may energize us to claim our self-respect and go back at reversing the damage done by Proposition 8.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Also see: Equality Events; includes Rachel Maddow coverage of Question 1 and interview’s Maine’s Catholic Pro-Marriage Governor (9 minutes).

Posted in Catholic matters, "The Closet", Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

Where have we been?

October 22, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Church of Sweden to Conduct Same-Gender Marriage Ceremonies

October 22, 2009 • Phil Soucy, Director Communications LC/NA

This morning the Board of the Lutheran Church of Sweden voted and announced that the church would conduct marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples, using gender-neutral liturgies for both LGBT and heterosexual weddings. The vote of the board of the church was taken at its meeting this morning and is reported as 176-62, with 11 abstentions and 2 absences.

Thirty years ago, Sweden declared homosexuality was not disease. The church has offered blessings for same-gender couples since 2007. In April, Sweden passed a law that granted marriage equality to all. That law went into effect in May.

Some in the Church of Sweden are of the opinion that marriage in the church ought to be reserved for man-woman unions, and argued for that position. Today’s vote ended that debate. The new ruling will go into effect on November 1, 2009. The news amazes even me.  I’ve been watching the European Lutheran churches liberalize much sooner and more completely than the American churches (the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod marching decisively into the past and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod being theologically about where the Taliban is).

European churches started ordaining women as early as World War II ~ for lack of enough males to fill pulpits. The late Swedish theologian Krister Stendahl, who taught for many years at Harvard and then elected Bishop of Stockholm, was an early supporter of the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in church and society. After retiring in 1989 he returned to Harvard and was a keynote speaker for LC/Los Angeles in the 1990s. When I talked with him personally, he was quite open about the fact that he had a lesbian on his episcopal staff in Sweden. Not long after, I received a phone call form Sweden asking for any resources I had on same-sex marriage rites.

In April Sweden became the seventh country in the world to legalize same-gender marriage. In May, the diocese of Stockholm elected a partnered lesbian, Eva Brunne, as bishop. Times have changed, and the church in many places is changing with it.

But I am sure the America Christian scene will go ballistic about this latest. I can hardly wait to hear what that hate-mongering Topeka preacher will say or do. He’s already banned from entering the U.K. ever again. I wonder if the tolerant Swedes will allow him in to protest the lesbian and gay weddings that are set to begin November 1.

It is easy to forget that America is not the center of the debates about LGBT people and the Christian faith. American Christianity has had very different experiences than other one-time Christian nations, and of late, thanks to fundamentalism and the corrosive mixture of religion and politics, American Christians have been dragging their feet for years.

According to Associated Press, “Sweden’s archbishop Anders Wejryd said he was pleased with the decision, while the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights described it as ‘a big step in the right direction.’”

But it still amazes me, and reminds me that those of us who are sexual minority Christians must live into the changing environment in our faith communities. We read the headlines with glee, but remain fearful or completely closeted. Or we go on with life and almost forget that in many quarters we are not as rejected or avoided as we were a decade or two back. If the world’s Christians are indeed loosening up, our emotional homework is to claim the grace we have always believed God has offered to us, and trust the Good News as well as the daily news.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, "The Closet", Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Christian, Living by Grace, LGBT Rights, History | Print | No Comments »

The institutional and the theological high ground.

September 24, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

This summer has been a tipping point for the ELCA, the largest of the Lutheran churchbodies in the United States. Somehow, while many observers weren’t paying much attention, but the Holy Spirit was near, this largely Midwestern-based Protestant church slipped from the conservative column to the liberal. Its actions in Assembly a month ago in Minneapolis are still being weighed and measured for significance.

Yesterday, Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson (who is also the President of the Lutheran World Federation) issued a “pastoral letter” on the tipping point — what he thinks about how Lutherans should feel about the major change in the ELCA’s view of same-gender relationships and lesbian/gay clergy.

For review, there was no official prior policy against same-gender relationships. No Lutheran pastor has been defrocked or disciplined by the ELCA for officiating at a lesbian wedding. Not so for the Presbyterians and the Methodists, who have drawn their line in the sand way to the right of the Lutherans.

But there was an official policy against rostering (ordaining, commissioning or hiring) out lesbian and gay clergy who are in same-gender relationships.

And there was no policy to forbid gay or lesbian persons from being clergy if they promised to be celibate forever, although the defacto rule is that any congregation that blanched at the thought of a homosexual pastor with a same-sex spouse would have blanched at the thought of a celibate homosexual pastor, too.

You can read Hanson’s pastoral letter on my other web site where I store bigger documents. In it, he takes the institutional high ground, and at times is almost eloquent in reminding the denomination that we have a mission to accomplish and we are only hurting ourselves and our mission if we get into a schism over lesbian/gay clergy.

For the record, the schism will proceed as previously scheduled. Hanson’s letter is not likely to convince anybody to change their mind. But the schism will be small—perhaps 100–200 congregations may bolt, out of a total of nearly 10,000 congregations.

But it still hurts when people we thought understood the Gospel as well as Lutherans do decide to say “we’re out of here,” like where Paul says, “the eye cannot say to the hand, `I have no need of you.’” (1 Corinthians 12:14–27)

Hanson reminds the church that Lutherans have always deftly distinguished Law and Gospel, what he says Martin Luther called “the highest art among Christians.” To make this important distinction and apply each appropriately is in fact nothing less than interpreting the Scriptures rather than shooting them from a gun at a social issue.

My turn: Hanson speaks in generalities, but I would have been a bit more specific, in reminding the whole church that heterosexuality is neither Law nor Gospel. The Christian Church long ago gave up trying to make “be fruitful and multiply” into a commandment that must be obeyed by all believers in Jesus. Heterosexual love, or sexual expression, or even reproduction, cannot be commandments, as Jesus and Paul both made clear.

But neither is heterosexuality Gospel. No one will be saved or redeemed or put on God’s right side by heterosexuality. No one earns a heavenly mansion by virtue of heterosexual behavior. We are saved by grace (Romans 3:23–24; Ephesians 2:4), regardless of Paul’s curious take on women being saved by bearing children. He even says, in 1 Corinthians 7:16, that a woman or man might save the unbelieving spouse —salvation by marriage?  But his broadest theme, over and over, is that we are saved by grace alone.  Sex, sexual orientation, sexual expression, are not part of the equation at all.

I have continued to say this wherever possible: the ELCA’s ~ or the Episcopal Church’s ~ action to open its doors and its ministry fully to LGBT people is not a departure from traditional or correct Christian doctrine because human sexuality, in all of its perplexing diversity, is not part of Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is about Jesus Christ and what he has done. It is not about us and what we have done, whether sublime or perverse. No one, whether Jew or Greek, circumcised or uncircumcised, heterosexual or homosexual, “has a leg up” before God.

Yes, I know the conservative rant to the contrary. But it is a hopeless stretch to insist that any one or another specific sexual behavior is a sin which disqualifies one from God’s love – and yes, you can find Bible verses to attempt to so insist – because there are other Bible verses that blow that thesis away!  Jesus said “Anyone who comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37); and “Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life” (John 6:47).  There is just no extra credit for being heterosexual.  There are millions of people of faith out there who are not heterosexual. They have come to Jesus and they believe in his message of hope and grace. Regardless of what a congregation or an entire churchbody may say, Jesus will not drive them away, but because they have put their faith in God’s grace through Jesus Christ, they have eternal life.

Moreover, since no one is without sin (Romans 3:23), no one, including no heterosexual has the right to cast the first stone.

No one has the right to judge.

No one.

Just say No, when homophobic people start to rant that they are now being driven out of the church. No, they are walking away all by themselves.  They are doing, or preparing to do, what millions of LGBT Christians have not done, even when our churches would not welcome us if we were open. We remained faithful to Christ and to his church. Now we rejoice that the ELCA is being faithful to us. If others cannot accept that, perhaps they never did understand the Gospel after all.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Sex, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Gay Catechism, "The Closet", Doctrine, Bible & Interpretation, Ministry, Faith, LGBT Christian, ELCA | Print | 1 Comment »

“Shut up” becomes open wide, oh my.

August 27, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Now Jericho was shut up inside and out because of the Israelites; no one came out and no one went in. • The LORD said to Joshua, “See, I have handed Jericho over to you, along with its king and soldiers. • You shall march around the city, all the warriors circling the city once. Thus you shall do for six days, • with seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark. On the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, the priests blowing the trumpets. • When they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, as soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city will fall down flat, and all the people shall charge straight ahead.” — Joshua 6:1–5

This week is a milestone of sorts. Tuesday I observed, with very mixed feelings, the 35^th anniversary of my ordination into the Lutheran ministry. In 1974 it was unimaginable how my life would unfold. In 2009 it is almost unimaginable how different that world was, and what happened in those years.

If anyone then had tried to predict that by now I would be happily married and my man would be standing by me to cut the cake—openly, in front of a supportive Lutheran congregation—I would not have believed it.

I certainly would have hoped so, thinking then with youthful naivete that our generation was going to change the world. We set out to do so, of course. But looking back over three and a half decades, it is obvious that our generation also tried to stop change. Idealism, pragmatism, and inertia belong to all generations.

Yet the biggest surprise came in the last week before this personal anniversary. With the ELCA’s decision to lift its outright ban against lesbian/gay clergy, the wall of resistance has simply collapsed. Goodsoil and the cooperative GLBT-positive movements which have circled the ELCA since 1988 have sent up a great short, the wall has fallen down flat, and now . .. do we charge straight ahead? Is it our next goal to enter, pillage, rape and destroy?

For 35 years I have heard the outcry of reactionary and homophobic Christians, seen their hand-wringing, and worked behind the scenes to chip mortar out of the wall of their resistance. They are still of the mind (people like Solid Rock, CORE, Word Alone, etc.) that our purpose is to destroy the faith itself.

Nothing could be more wrong. If we (myself included) had wanted to destroy the Lutheran church or the Christian church, we could have done that more easily the way millions of others have done: as soon as you’re old enough that your parents don’t make you go to Sunday School and church, you run for the nearest exit and don’t look back. If we had wanted to destroy our “Christian society,” we wouldn’t need to go through the trauma and drama of being lesbian or gay. We could have just gotten married and raised the next generation of kids with no values whatever. Church and society can be destroyed with indifference, and anomie.

To be honest, the illustration from Joshua is not totally on target, for the LGBT people who have now succeeded, with the Lord’s power, in flattening a wall of resistance, have done it from within—by marching around and around inside the walls. We are not outsiders clamoring to get in. We are insiders—from infancy, childhood, baptism, confirmation, youth groups on—who did not exit, did not run, but stayed in this church, “shut up inside and out” because we have heard the Gospel’s truth and sensed the power of God even in this buttoned-down institution.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in LGBT Christian, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Living by Grace, Coming Out, Ministry, ELCA | Print | No Comments »