A mid-day cliff hanger.

August 21, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I thought it was all going to be over by now. At 9:15 a.m. (Los Angeles time) two resolutions had passed, by 77% and 60.6% majorities. Two down, two to go. But since I am not in Minneapolis, I am missing the procedural stuff. Apparently the agenda got postponed, ran over-time or something, and now the remaining two resolutions (re: my life, my integrity, my ministry and that of hundreds of others like who are lesbian or gay and partnered or hope to be partnered someday) are dangling from the cliff of Roberts Rules of Order. See the ELCA News Release below.

A thousand people are gathered in a huge room in downtown Minneapolis to politely argue with or attempt to persuade/cajole/manipulate one another into changing their point of view! Truly the ELCA is now in the middle of the road. As I said recently, the UCC and the Episcopal Church are clearly on its left flank. The United Presbyterian Church USA is on its right flank. Our churchbody is in a relationship of full communion with those other Protestant church bodies. And yesterday, the same ELCA Assembly voted 958 to 51 (a 95% majority) to enter into full communion with the United Methodist Church, which is way right of us on human sexuality. Last I checked they were still defrocking even straight Methodist clergy just for participating in a blessing ceremony for two lesbians or two gay men.

The problem of being in the middle of the road, you know, is that you get sidewsiped—from both sides. So as we dangle from the cliff, stay tuned!

—Pastor Dan Hooper

ELCA News Service  09-CWA-32-MRC

August 21, 2009

ELCA Assembly Takes First Steps on Ministry Policies Document

“MINNEAPOLIS (ELCA) — Voting members of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) are in the middle of taking steps to make it possible for the Lutherans in same-sex relationships to serve as professional leaders in the denomination.”The churchwide assembly, the chief legislative authority of the ELCA, is meeting here Aug. 17-23 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. About 2,000 people are participating, including 1,045 ELCA voting members. The theme for the biennial assembly is “God’s work. Our hands.”

“Voting members have begun considering four distinct resolutions Aug. 21, which are designed to change current ELCA policy that requires the denomination’s professional leaders to abstain from “homosexual sexual relationships.”

“The resolutions are contained in a report and recommendation on ministry policies developed by the Task Force for the ELCA Studies on Sexuality.

“A majority vote is required to pass each of the four resolutions.

“With a 771-230 vote, the assembly amended and approved a resolution that states “that in the implementation of any resolutions on ministry policies, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another’s burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound consciences of all.”

“With a 619-402 vote, the assembly approved a second resolution that commits the ELCA “to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountably life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.”

“Prior to considering the two resolutions, voting members defeated a “substitute” motion with a 344-670 vote to strike out all four resolutions and replace it with the following: ‘rostered leadership of this church who are homosexual in their self understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relations and practicing homosexual persons are precluded from rostered leadership in this church.’ Albert Quie, voting member from the ELCA Minneapolis Synod, made the substitute motion.

“As voting members were considering resolution two, Edward A. Kirst, voting member from the ELCA Northeastern Ohio Synod, made a motion to require a two-thirds vote—instead of a majority—for approving the remaining resolutions. That motion was defeated with a 407-576 vote.

“During the afternoon plenary, voting members will consider the two remaining resolutions—that the denomination find a way for Lutherans in same-sex relationships to serve as ordained ministers and other professional leadership roles in the church, and that the denomination consider a proposal for how it will exercise flexibility within existing structures and practices to allow for Lutherans in same-sex relations to be approved for professional service in the church.”

Information about the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly can be found at http://www.elca.org/assembly on the Web.

For information contact:  John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or news@elca.org  http://www.elca.org/news

ELCA News Blog: http://www.elca.org/news/blog

Posted in LGBT Christian, Ecumenical Issues, Sex, LGBT Rights, History, ELCA, Ministry, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »

Tornado of the Spirit?

August 20, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I had wanted to be there. I had hoped it would be a watershed event, a tipping point in the history of the church, or at least of our church, the Lutheran church.

As many of you know, we couldn’t go this time, primarily because of my spouse’s serious back injury just before Holy Week. (He is recovering well, after a disastrous fall which fractured 7 vertebrae —not 4 as previously stated— and 2 ribs, but after 19 weeks still has to wear a rigid neck and body brace for periods of each day.)

So I am dependent upon the reports of others as to how and when the Spirit is moving among us as the Church is gathered in it formal biennial Assembly in the Mini-Apple.

LC/NA Communications Director Phil Soucy’s e-mails have been most helpful, especially as he colored in details of the day: that while the debate was storming inside the Convention Center on Wednesday about the proposed and amended social statement of the church Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust, a real live tornado swept through downtown Minneapolis, violent enough to send order people to the basement.

“And then there was the Scripture text for tonight’s Goodsoil worship service at Central Lutheran Church, across from the Convention Center. Mark 4: 35-41. The story of crossing the Sea of Galilee during which Christ calmed the seas. The story in which it is said that ‘A great windstorm arose…’ And it did.”We had a tornado, with not a lot of warning. The problem with being deep inside a large structure like the Convention Center is that you are completely insulated from what is going on outside. Suddenly there was a shrill lip whistle heard in Goodsoil Central and an authoritative voice said that “no option, you are required to go to the lowest level of the center and stay there. Tornado coming.”"And it did, a real tornado. Came down on 12th Street between the Hilton Gardens we are staying in and Central Lutheran. All the tentage, tables, and chairs of the meal service and Pub that Central Lutheran had been using to support the assembly were pushed down and thrown around. Some of the tables ended up on the roof of the Convention Center. We were hustled to the bottom floor of the Convention Center. The Assembly kept meeting. Guess they thought the Assembly was safe enough where it was. Luckily no one was injured near the Convention Center, and none of debris penetrated the substantial glass on the Center.”

He goes on to recount the “storm” inside the center as amendments to this pivotal document were considered. In the end, amendments which would have weakened the progressive tone of “Gift and Trust” were not adopted. And then the vote was taken.Mind you, under ELCA rules, the Churchwide Assembly is the highest legislative authority — not the bishops or the Church Council. When more than 1,000 voting members (not delegates: they can vote their own conscience independent of the people who elected them) gather and vote, we must say that the Church has spoken. “There was one brief moment when it looked like we were going to move without debate straight through the amendment we were working on to the actual Social Statement and vote without any parliamentary debate at all - just vote on the amendment then just turn right around and vote on the Social Statement, done. The motion was defeated, but it gave everyone a scare.”All the efforts to change the Social Statement to make it reflect a-man-and-a-woman bias, an exclusive bias, were defeated.”The vote apparently was a cliff-hanger of the highest order, and will certainly be recounted in the future either with great joy or with much hand-wringing, depending on which side you’re on. The vote: “The time for debate had to be extended past the scheduled end time to allow for as much debate as had been scheduled. As the additional time was running down, finally a motion was made to call the question. And a vote was had, 676-338.”So:  Total ballots cast: 1,014.  Needed to pass, a two-thirds super-majority. [Math computation: 1014 x 2 ÷ 3 = 676.]   Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust was adopted by a 2/3 or 66.67% majority exactly, or 676 votes. Was this the workings of the Spirit? “Ross Murray [LC/NA Director of Youth, Young Adult, and Family Ministry] said someone asked him if it was a sign from the Holy Spirit that a great wind arose when the question of the Social Statement was taken up in earnest. He said he replied that, yes, it could have been just as much a sign as was the sun coming out when the Social Statement passed.”

My gut instinct is to think, no, this new “Gift and Trust” is not the coming of the Kingdom [sic] of God, nor the collapse of the Berlin Wall or the walls of Jericho. It will not automatically open every door to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer or questioning individual. But it will provide a better theological and theoretical basis for the policies and the ministries of the whole church.

I am emotionally and spiritually unprepared to think much of anything grander about such progress in my church, because I have spent the better part of 35 years listening to negative decisions and action, and more than a truckload of rejective, punitive, and hurtful if not hateful speech. But the Spirit tells me, quietly, to remain open and not to be cynical.

Today’s Assembly action, as reported in an ELCA news release, was that the voting members adopted “implementing resolutions” by a 71% majority vote (695 to 285):

“MINNEAPOLIS (ELCA) – Congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have been asked to implement the newly adopted social statement on human sexuality by continuing the study of sexuality, assist members to welcome people who are gay and lesbians, encourage comprehensive sex education programs in public schools, support the church’s work to combat HIV/AIDS and to take the “spirit of this statement” into all appropriate activities.”Most notable among these resolutions reported in the news release: “The resolutions also asked the ELCA’s Board of Pensions to amend its benefit policies to bring them in line with the social statement, presumably to provide benefits for partners of ELCA employees who are in same-gender relationships.”Okay, so maybe Jericho has thrown open a couple of gates after all. Maybe it’s just as well I couldn’t be there. I might have gotten very emotional at that point. Stay tuned.—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Sex, LGBT Christian, History, ELCA, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Tuesday in Minneapolis.

August 18, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Here is part of the synopsis of the ELCA Assembly from LC/NA communications director Phil Soucy for Tuesday, August 18:

“The principal activity on the assembly floor was related to the Social Statement on Human Sexuality. First, it was introduced onto the floor of the assembly. Following the introduction, the assembly went into a quasi-Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of having a discussion without the encumbrance of parliamentary procedure. People simply lined up at the microphones labeled Red and Green depending on whether they were against or for the adoption of the Social Statement. The Presiding Bishop, Mark Hanson, using a computer program that kept track of who arrived in the line at the mic when, called on people alternating between against and for until he ran out of time or people to call on.

“More time had to be allocated because things ran late in the morning, and part of the afternoon had to be used to finish out the 60 minutes allotted for this discussion.

“Later that afternoon there was a hearing held on the Social Statement, among other hearings. There was also a hearing before dinner on the Ministry Policies and one after - to allow those who went to the Social Statement hearing to go to one on Ministry Policies.

“I will not bother to tell you the arguments that were made. You are perfectly capable of guessing all of the arguments from both sides. They have been made over and over again. I heard no argument, pro or con, that I had not heard before. That does not mean that the arguments should not be made. They should be.

“It is important to note that the disagreement we have with those opposed to full inclusion is not over the authority of Scripture in the life of the church, or in the life of any member of the church. Scholars disagree on the interpretations of Scripture, and that is something Lutherans can do till the Second Coming. Questioning someone else’s interpretation of Scripture does not constitute an assault on the authority of Scripture.

“In the evening, we held a wonderful event with music provided by Ovation and a panel discussion by the subjects of the DVD sent to all the voting members, “One Baptism, Many Gifts.” The DVD is a picture into the lives of faith of two dedicated lesbian pastors, Katrina Foster and Robyn Hartwig, and an equally dedicated gay candidate for ordination, Javen Swanson, including their families. Copies of the DVD are available from LC/NA for $5, at Goodsoil Central, Room 200, in the Convention Center during the churchwide assembly, and after the assembly from the LC/NA office in St. Paul or online through www.lcna.org.

“Tomorrow brings the parliamentary consideration of the Social Statement and vote for adoption.”

Phil Soucy

Director Communications LC/NA

communications@lcna.org

Posted in Sex, LGBT Christian, Ministry, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

The first hurdle was the biggest.

August 18, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

As I mentioned recently, the ELCA Assembly’s biggest hurdle right now to openings its gates for lesbian/gay/partnered clergy is whether the recommendation before the Assembly, meeting right now in Minneapolis, will have to be adopted by a 2/3 supermajority or just a simple majority. 

The ELCA is certainly not all of the same mind about what to do with LGBT people who are Christians, let alone what to do with LGBT clergy.

The people on the extreme right, shouting “Armageddon” have a plan, of course. Either the homosexuals have to get out or the conservatives have to get out. Pity they won’t be around to here the stories of their own children and grandchildren who come out of their closets as faithful children of God and who need understanding and compassion, not judgment and rejection. Personally, I doubt that these few congregations (perhaps 100 out of 10,000 in the ELCA nationwide) will move to the right and join the Missouri Synod or the Wisconsin Synod, which are more to the right and righter of the ELCA. Those heavily German synods are culturally so stuck in their 19th century roots they refuse to even live in the world that exists today. So if there is a schism, the small break-away group will likely float out there as another tiny sect for a generation or more.

“Not all of the same mind” is of course an understatement. Like many other segments of American society right now, the church is almost evenly divided over homosexuality and its related issues. This is not a simple red-state/blue-state division for the ELCA, either, since the majority of its membership nationally lives in the heartland states, while the majority of the American population lives in the coastal states and large cities.
 A less controversial but important ecumenical issue before the Minneapolis Assembly is whether or not to adopt a “full communion” status with the United Methodist Church, a much larger and more conservative church body in America with high percentage of its churches in small towns spread throughout the heartland. What drives the division of the house on sexuality, of course, is what also drives the so-called “culture war”: LGBT people, when they wake up to their sexuality, sexual orientation or gender identity, are less likely to stay on the prairie but take the high road to the nearest big town.

If the ELCA is pretty much divided, it could mean that “the vote” on the Ministry Recommendations could come close to the 50% majority line, and tip either way. But the first hurdle is that change (dropping the present anti-gay policies) not require a 2/3 majority for passage.

So the first, big hurdle? Associated Press reports, through 365Gay.com, “Lutheran gay clergy proposal passes 1st hurdle.”

“(Minneapolis) Leaders of the country’s largest Lutheran denomination prayed for unity Monday as they waded into a weeklong debate over homosexuality and the clergy, while a rule change that would allow people in same-sex relationships to serve cleared its first hurdle.
 

“The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is meeting this week in Minneapolis, is debating a proposal to allow individual congregations to hire gays and lesbians in committed relationships as clergy. A final vote is not expected until Friday.
  “But delegates on Monday rejected a move by critics of the proposal to require approval from a two-thirds supermajority instead of a simple majority when the measure comes to the final vote.
  “Supporters of the supermajority said a higher hurdle was needed to signal wide support for what they called a major change in the church’s approach to homosexuality. But the move received support from just 43 percent of the 1,045 voting delegates.
  “ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson said earlier in the day that the outcome of the majority versus supermajority vote shouldn’t be seen as strongly indicating the ultimate outcome of the debate.
  “The ELCA delegates gathered at the Minneapolis Convention Center also will consider a broader statement on human sexuality, a 34-page document that tries to establish a theological framework for differing views on homosexuality. Critics say it would simply liberalize the ELCA’s attitudes. A vote on that document is scheduled for Wednesday.
  “At 4.7 million members and about 10,000 congregations in the United States, the ELCA would be one of the largest U.S. Christian denominations yet to take a more gay-friendly stance on clergy.
  “In 2003, the 2 million-member Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, deepening a long-running rift over homosexuality in the worldwide Anglican Communion and leading to the formation of the more conservative Anglican Church in North America, which claims 100,000 members.”

The sex and culture wars, according to numerous commentators, is triggering a slow but sure realignment of religious beliefs in America. People will get up and switch congregations, or church bodies, until the find a new comfort zone where their beliefs are reinforced and their prejudices not challenged. I left in the last two paragraphs of the AP story to illustrate the size factors in this debate. Stayed tuned on that also!

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Sex, Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Christian, ELCA, Ministry, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

“Sex! Schism! Sky is falling! Armageddon! Oh my!”

August 16, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Above, presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, right, leading Assembly worship

I have postponed talking about the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America until the last possible moment, and for good reason. This mother of all Lutheran conventions opens tomorrow in Minneapolis, and with all the religious hype and theological terror of the Book of Revelation, if not the special effects of such apocalypse.

Because sex is on the agenda again, there are conservative voices who have been threatening to start the Armageddon war right there on the prairie. The “sky is falling” flag of Chicken Little is being carried most openly by the Word Alone Network of New Brighton, Minnesota. Their last conservative knee-jerk convention was held in another hotbed of activism, Golden Valley, Minnesota.

“God’s authority is being hijacked in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,” wrote Betsy Carlson, the Editor of their Network News in the July-August edition.  I thought conservatives still believed that women are to remain silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), but I guess they are just as good as casuistry as anybody.

Word Alone officially thinks that the ELCA is “moving toward schism,” much the same as observers of the Anglican /Episcopal Church USA impasse think so. But when a chunk falls off an iceberg into the sea, however, one cannot attribute the split-off to the iceberg. It is not the ELCA which is moving toward or causing a schism, but the little piece of it which has defined its mission around crying: “Sex! Schism! War! Sky is falling! Oh my!”

Seriously, nobody wants to see splits or disunity, but perhaps it would be best, even in God’s compassionate gaze, if the statistically minor group which cannot stand the thought of homosexuals in the larger fellowship would just take themselves and their particular slant on Christian faith elsewhere. God love ‘em, God bless ‘em. They are never going to be happy trying to keep unity, if they’ve spent the better part of the last 8 or 10 years planting the seeds of schism, building their mass mailing lists, raising funds and producing their DVDs filled with alarm.

It reminds me of those few but unhappy times when I was having something very ugly going on in my stomach. (If you are faint of heart, skip down a paragraph.) I felt absolutely terrible until my stomach involuntarily forced a vomit. It always amazed me that after that brief and icky moment how much better I felt almost immediately. (The Scriptures are not afraid of such graphic language, incidentally; the word occurs 12 times in the NRSV; cf, Ecclesiasticus 31:21.) I suspect the ELCA will feel considerably better when those within it who cannot stomach gay and lesbian Christians serving Christ in their midst simply eject themselves.

So what is at stake this year are two major things: first, a major teaching or Social Statement on Human Sexuality is up for a vote. So far the ELCA has adopted nine such teaching documents on these topics: abortion, church in society, the death penalty, economic life, education, the environment, health and healthcare, peace and race, ethnicity and culture. “Our Calling in Education” was adopted with a few amendments by the Churchwide Assembly two years ago, but I think I yawned right through the vote. Education is probably more important to society as a whole than individual sexual behavior, but it doesn’t stir the passions (no pun intended).

“Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” is a responsibly prepared social teaching that of course has flaws everywhere. More truthfully than in the past, the entire process that led to its drafting has been transparent about the lack of consensus on controversial matters of sexuality. You can find the proposed statement here, even if it is a bit buried on the ELCA web site.

The 2007 ELCA Assembly heard a progress report on “Gift and Trust” and delegates demanded that the study commission not avoid talking about gay and lesbian people serving as pastors and lay professional leaders, but “directed the task force assigned to develop the social statement on human sexuality to ‘specifically address and make recommendations to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly on changes to any policies that preclude practicing homosexual persons from the rosters of this church.’” the commission also has brought in a Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies, a four-footed beast that will take some careful husbandry to get into the barn. The recommendations include the lifting of the ban against partnered lesbian and gay people from serving as pastors or lay professionals, which would reverse the odious 1990 Vision & Expectations and Guidelines for Discipline which the ELCA’s church council had put into place quickly and furtively to block the ordination of three highly qualified but openly gay seminary graduates. The fourth and final of these recommendations, unfortunately, is a cumbersome 67-lines long and almost defies summary of its 7 “Resolveds.”

The first order of business that concerns us beginning tomorrow is whether or not the these liberalizing recommendations will require a 2/3 majority vote for adoption. That will be a decision about the Rules, which must be agreed upon along with the Agenda. What we have been told, however, is that to require a 2/3 majority for passage would itself require a 2/3 majority vote on such an Assembly rule, so it seems unlikely.

In my deepest safe places of the heart, I know I should be at prayer about these matters. If these recommendations pass this Assembly, the wheels would be put in motion to remove the ban that has kept me off the ELCA clergy roster since 1991. But closer to the surface, I just want it all to be over with quickly. I remain neither hopeful nor optimistic, but I do put my trust in the Holy Spirit.  Stay tuned.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Sex, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, ELCA, Ministry, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Perception and deception, hype and hypocrisy.

August 12, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Flipping through some papers I had saved from months ago, I came across a “Naked City” column by Christopher Lisotta from Frontiers Newsmagazine last January—an interview with publicist Howard Bragman, who recently wrote the book on P.R., “Where’s My Fifteen Minutes?”. There was an interesting comment:

Frontiers: “You write PR no longer means “public relations.” What does PR mean?”

Bragman: “PR stands for the concepts of perception and reality. We live in a society where perception has become more important than reality.”

No kidding? But never mind the fact that the advertising and P.R. industry has made this true. We are a nation of plastic, imitation, phoney, lights and mirrors, “truthiness.” I once read the fine print on a 0 calories soft drink can, and it admitted to “artificial imitation flavors” on the ingredients list. Not just imitation flavors, but artificial imitation flavors. How much more phoney could you want? How American!

It is true that “perception” and “reality” are the defining elements in a public world made transparent by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and IP addresses.

When it comes to LGBT people, the reality of our lives still doesn’t really matter to the public. Their perception is that we are weird, sex-crazed, pleasure-loving creatures with no ethics but huge wads of discretionary income. We are muscle-bound girlie men –both gays and lesbians. We all carry the AIDS virus, we hate heterosexual marriage, we all molest children and we are bringing God’s judgment down on America, a nation of “fag enablers.”

That’s the stereotype. That’s the perception. Never mind that we work and pay taxes, that we make decent (and tasteful) homes, raise the best kids, volunteer for everything and donate to all kinds of causes; that we serve our nation both in uniform and in every kind of job and profession. Never mind that we are often care-givers for the elderly and those with HIV.

And never mind that millions of us go to church, for God’s sake. (If it weren’t for gay organists, choir directors and florists, the church would be a dreary and silent box of self-righteous people.)

But the perception is that we shake our naked boobs and butts on pride parade floats, and secretly want to sodomize our neighbor’s pre-teen children.

So how do we change the public’s idiotic perception and derail the lying machine which cranks out hateful speech and packages it as truth? In my view, probably not by hiring P.R. firms. They did that the fight Proposition 8 a year ago, and gay/lesbian coupledom was so sanitized for the public that we ceased to exist.

The best thing any of us can do is to come out—because unlike Hollywood’s movie stars and publicity seekers, we won’t get photos in People magazine. Most of us just come out to friends, families and close neighbors. Since the already know us, we have enormous influence over their perception of other lesbian/gay people and will actually change their perception by bringing it into line with the reality of what they know in our lives.

Bragman talks about clients who come to his firm because they believe their reality is better than the public perception, so they want to improve the perception. There is, in my words, a perception deficit which good publicity and solid integrity can correct.

Not so with “truthiness,” a word minted by friends of the Bush administration. All something needs is the “look and feel” of truth whether or not it is true. In short, public perception is more important than deception of the public. This month’s Advocate, for example, questions whether the LGBT community has been deceived by the Obama administration. Our perception before last November was that he was our hope for solid, systemic change. But have we been deceived, because we’re now seven months into Obama’s 48 months and we have nothing to show for it: not DOMA, not the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and only a gutted Hate Crimes legislation. Of course, Congress is only concerned with the public’s perception, not with systemic change, not with a new reality.

What about people who have a public perception which is better than the reality? You mean like many heterosexuals? Like family values? Bragman calls this “hype.” Like anybody or anything that claims to be the biggest, best, hottest, or most important in the world, for example. Like everybody on Facebook or in those chat rooms and personals.

Frontiers: “What was your perspective as a PR guy on the No on 8 campaign?”

Bragman: “My number one mantra in PR is if you do not define yourself somebody else is going to define you. And you’re not going to be as happy about them defining you as you are about defining yourself. So I think we committed the PR sin of letting our opponents define us. . . ”

My take on being Christian, of course, is that Jesus used to have good PR, good perception. But many of his followers, who puffed themselves up on hype (I would call it hyp-ocrisy), their reality has nearly destroyed his perception by the public.

And my take on being LGBT/Christian is that since countless other (heterosexual) Christians don’t worry too much about integrity and truth (they tell facile lies about us with no qualms), or bringing disgrace on the name of Jesus (think televangelists), it may well be up to us to restore the public perception of what a follower of Jesus Christ is like with traits like: honesty (come out), integrity (not a patchwork, but made of whole cloth), generosity, sacrifice, and the readiness to “turn the other cheek” to false perceptions. For example, Matthew 5:11 from the Beatitudes: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.” In other words, walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Sex, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Homophobia, HIV and AIDS, Hollywood, Public Affairs, LGBT Rights, LGBT Christian, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

They call them adolescents for a reason.

August 7, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

“Among teens, who’s gay is less clear than in past” — USA Today August 7, 2009

“TORONTO — Who’s gay and who’s not is less clear than it used to be among today’s young people — and that’s complicating how researchers conduct studies on the sexual behavior of teens and young adults, a developmental psychologist who studies gays, lesbians, and bisexuals told a session today at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association here.”

Well, yes, but what it means to be adolescent is also less clear than in the past, and adolescence has never been the time of life for clarity.  I remember being 15 at a time when I, and most every body else I knew, were sort of sullen and non-communicative, at least around adults, even if we were brash, wacky and highly verbal when running in our own packs.  The generation gap is hardest to bridge with teens because teens don’t want to bridge it.  They have good reason to be wary of adult motives in prying into their inner lives.

And adolescent feelings are about as firm as Jell-O.  They can be squished, mashed and remolded easily by the press of peer pressure, and may or may not return to their original shape.

“In his presentation, Savin-Williams [Ritch Savin-Williams of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., a clinical psychologist] cited several studies on the way teens categorize their sexual preferences and behavior, to illustrate the difficulties researchers have in studying adolescent sexuality. Some describe themselves as ‘mostly heterosexual.’”

Knowing whether one is lesbian/gay may not be easily identified by anyone who is trying to surf the waves of pop culture, 21st century America, adolescence, endless war, 24/7 communications, global shortages and an economy that continues to circle the drain.  We are a nation of people who don’t want to commit—and self-revelati0n takes a form of commitment, is it not?  The only thing that forces young adults to be less fluid and more self-revealing about their sexual behavior is if it somehow gets entangled with love. 

Why bother to identify as LGBT or heterosexual if I have no particular love object? As we used to say about homosexuals two generations ago, you can always excuse your sexual behavior:   “Jesus I must have been really drunk last night.”  But when you actually (intended or not) fall in love with someone of your own gender, it is almost impossible not to admit to yourself or at least one or two friends that yes, you are queer. 

Peer pressure forces many teens to conform to their social group’s expectations.  If you think of our entire culture as also another social group, perhaps today’s adolescents are trying to read the tea leaves in America to see whether it is safe to come out or to self-disclosure a sexual orientation.  After all, we have people ranting and screaming out there on both extremes about human sexuality and homosexuality.  Which one will win when the dust has settled?  If the striaghts win the culture war, then maybe I better say I’m mostly heterosexual, or if I’m courageous I might say that I don’t like labels and don’t want to be labeled.  Or if the LGBTQ people are winning the culture war, I can gradually push my closet door further open.  Are today’s adolescents uncertain of themselves or just evasive?

Adolescence is just too unstable and fluid by almost every other measure as well as sexuality.  So these findings do not contribute a lot to the “nature vs. nurture” arguments about the “cause” of homosexualty.  Today’s kids, like the generations before them, are clueless about what they want to do/be when the grow up and nearly everything else because, … they are adolescents.

“Savin-Williams, who has written several books on adolescent development, including the 2005 book, The New Gay Teenager, says he’s in the midst of work to find out more about those who are particularly vulnerable.”

I’m not familiar with this book, but it be worth a look. Has anybody out there read it?

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Sex, History, Public Affairs, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

The Biblical Issue in Three Parts: Part Three

August 6, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

This is the third and concluding part of the discussion of Acts 15, continuing from yesterday.

What do I mean by “internal evidence”? I mean these obscure references in the “short list” of four commandments which are themselves now quite obsolete. Christians gave up even minimal imitation of kosher laws long ago.

Internal to the Christian church we decided that avoiding what has been strangled (the manner in which animals were killed and prepared as food) or meat which has not been drained of its blood (Leviticus 17:15) was not a defining doctrine of the Christian faith. Thankfully, we are again more aware that as stewards of God’s creation we should be concerned for the humane treatment of animals, including animals which are raised for slaughter for human food. But nowhere do I see Christians damning one another over the inhumane or humane treatment of animals, or citing the Bible as the final word.

But external to the Christian church, another of these minimum prohibitions has also become quite irrelevant. To my knowledge, there are no meats being sold in the supermarkets today which have already been ritually sacrificed to pagan gods. I think that sort of went out with ancient paganism, and even today’s neo-pagans (oh my!) haven’t re-relevantized Acts 15:20, 29.

Now, how do we have conversation with those sisters and brothers who don’t approach Scripture, or approach Acts 15, the way we do? Often their method of biblical interpretation is far less sophisticated: if you can flip and point to it somewhere in the Bible, you can use it. In other words, if you can read it and quote it, you can slap it on somebody and insist “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

There is where I look back to some of the testimony in Acts 15 again. I’ve quoted Peter’s testimony previously in this blog. It is important, because he is speaking directly to other Christians who had opposing points of view. They were the so-called Judaizers, those who insisted that for a Gentile to become a Christian he must first become a Jew and take upon himself all the commandments of Judaism including the commandment that he be circumcised.

^{7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. 8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. 10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”}Simon Peter, like Bishop Rogness in the St. Paul Area Synod of the ELCA, is acknowledging that he sees the work of the Holy Spirit in the deeds and wonders of the church. Peter saw the work of the Spirit in the faith and life of Gentile believers who had come to Christ. Bishop Rogness saw the work of the Spirit in congregations led by lesbian or gay pastors (and drawing into Christ’s body LGBT people of faith).Clearly, this steps beyond the relatively simple issues of what the Bible says and what it means. This steps into the area of trusting that God is alive and present today, that we Christians who are living today are entrusted not only with the content of faith—the doctrine which everybody from Peter Akinola to Fred Phelps to Gene Robinson all say they believe and want to preserve—but with the witness of faith lived in the presence of the living Spirit of God.Clearly, the Bible does not settle all questions of Christian faith. It contains all we need, however, to ask the relevant questions of Christian faith. And it provides guidance for answering them, not final answers.

It has been said a million times or so (I have lost count, actually) that the only way people change their minds about LGBT people is when they meet them and come to know them. This works first among families, when a gay son or a lesbian daughter shares his or her discernment of sexual orientation. Then tears are shed and words are said, some of which are regretted later. But finally people come around and realize that loves makes a family, not gender. The family regains the son or daughter it thought it would have to kick out the door. And what is lost is prejudice and homophobia.

This could also be said of the Christian family. The only way Christians will change their minds about LGBT people is when they meet them and come to know them. Lesbians, gay men, bisexual persons and most recently those who are transitioning from male to female or female to male, have come forward to be honest and tell their stories and also express their abiding faith in God’s grace. And like Simon Peter, and Peter Rogness, the church really finds that it must re-open its arms to its own—because the Bible tells us that this is the way Christ wills it to be.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Sex, Gay Catechism, Bible & Interpretation, Fundamentalism, Ministry, Faith, LGBT Christian, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

The Biblical Issue in Three Parts: Part Two

August 5, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Friends, we are still in Acts 15, continuing from yesterday. The third part appears tomorrow.

James was serving as the presiding elder of the church, in much the same position as Bishop Rogness or any other bishop. He expressed not his opinion but his decision, based on the testimony brought to him that God had done many signs and wonders among the Gentiles—among people whom other strict conservative Christians considered reprehensible and outside the grace of God. James references both the Scripture (Simeon and the prophets) and the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the immediate context of this decision. In drafting the letter which communicates this apostolic decision, James and the other apostles said this:

^{23 “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”}Please note: “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” This is the amazing confidence —apostolic certainty of faith—that the church has the authority from Christ himself to relax the rules and lighten the load, to “impose no further burden” than the essentials. Out are the complete 613 mitzvot or commandments of the Torah. All that is left are four essentials.The “essentials” of course don’t seem to make sense to us now. The human story moves on. The essentials in their day were to avoid foods that had been offered as sacrifices to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled — these seem to be hold-overs from kosher food law — and from fornication (in Greek, porneia).

This last is serious because it makes the “short list” of four things which Gentile believers should avoid. It is the only one of the four which has anything to do with sexuality, by the way. Problem is, we can’t say with absolute certainty what the early church meant by porneia, except we get the English word “porn” from it. It probably refers to prostitution or to sexual relationships which break the marital covenant, that is, infidelity. The notes in the New Interpreter’s Study Bible NRSV (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003) says that fornication “likely refers to marriage with a close relative.” Incest, in other words.

“Conservative” Christians and fundamentalists, however, liberally expand their sense of what “fornication” means to include far more than what is meant in the original Greek New Testament. They include everything they want to condemn.

And for our purposes here, this is the sticking point: Does fornication also mean sex between two persons of the same sex because it is outside of heterosexual marriage? Is the intent here, in this key passage, to draw strict boundaries and remove all “wiggle room,” to build a wall or draw a line in the sand, to declare a “culture war” against anything that steps over the line? Obviously, conservatives and fundamentalists have drawn that line, and they insist that the Bible backs them up.

But the clear message in Acts 15 is that James’ decision, and the guidance of all the apostles in reaching this decision, was not to build walls but to tear them down, not to draw a line in the sand or declare a war, not to exclude but to include any people of faith (Gentiles) who had been very rigidly excluded by the religious rigors which the apostles are consciously abandoning.

I repeat part of the quote from Bishop Peter Rogness: “There are some who will simply say Leviticus calls homosexuality an abomination and that ends it. The problem with that, of course is that that reasoning would have most of us sinning because of wearing clothes with mixed threads or eating unclean foods or all the other things the Leviticus Holiness Codes condemn. Yet some of Leviticus we still take very seriously. So interpretation is involved.”

Catch the final phrase here: “So interpretation is involved.” Christians of the Lutheran Reformation have always been conscious that in order to be faithful to Scripture we must continually interpret that Scripture in the light of a changing world. The interpretive issue on the human sexuality and homosexuality question mostly comes down to two different questions to pose after reading and analyzing Acts 15.

1. Does the decision reached by this Jerusalem council give Christians a new final answer to our moral questions under the Law of Moses in particular and the teachings of the Bible in general? Or,

2. Does the process used by this Jerusalem council give Christians a model and a set of tools by which we are to draw our own conclusions and offer our own guidance for lives of faith in our times?

Clearly, we know that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not the final word from the Christian Bible on sexuality (these anti-same-sex rules are part of the 613 commandments or mitzvot of Judaism, and they did not make James’ short list). But we must together wrestle with whether or not Acts 15 is the final answer, sort of a “replacement commandment,” or a new approach to finding our own answers on moral questions.

It is pretty clear that I think the second is the correct interpretation. I say this not because it is self-serving, or because the Levitical laws and their threat of capital punishment is thereby set aside (they are already set aside for Christians either way you want to read Acts 15). I say this because the internal evidence of James’ decision reveals to us that all Christians must be prepared to hear testimony, listen for the guidance Holy Spirit, be surprised when a changing world invites a changing faith response on the part of Christ’s followers, which can easily have tectonic implications equal to the decision which stopped the practice of circumcision and set aside the commandments in the first century church.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Part Two appears tomorrow.

Posted in Doctrine, Sex, Gay Catechism, Bible & Interpretation, Fundamentalism, Ministry, Faith, LGBT Christian, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

The Biblical Issue in Three Parts. Part One.

August 4, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

The following three blogs are lengthy because I took the freedom and opportunity to finish something I had started—to address those conservative Christians who are not merely opposed to homosexuality but passionately angry about the presence of gay and lesbian people in the Church, and who insist that they cannot reconcile because we have very different understandings of the authority of Holy Scripture. I am also posting these essays on my Gay Catechism web site.

Kudos to ELCA Bishop Peter Rogness for his report to his St. Paul Area Synod Assembly in May. The full text just appeared in the Summer 2009 issue of the Network Letter (Lutheran Network for Inclusive Vision), and on line at the Synod web site. It is six pages, but worth reading all of it. 

Rogness’ main subject is to express his own views, values and teaching in response to the proposed ELCA Sexuality statement and particularly to the proposed changes to Lutheran policy which still currently tries to exclude LGBT people from the ranks of its clergy.

More and more, people are saying what the big fight in the Christian church about sexuality is over is really how we read scripture.

I quote only Rogness’ summary of Biblical issues in the context of what conservatives insist is clearly condemned in the Bible.

“People are right to take Scripture seriously in this conversation; we wouldn’t be Lutherans with integrity if we didn’t.

“There are some who will simply say Leviticus calls homosexuality an abomination and that ends it. The problem with that, of course is that that reasoning would have most of us sinning because of wearing clothes with mixed threads or eating unclean foods or all the other things the Leviticus Holiness Codes condemn. Yet some of Leviticus we still take very seriously. So interpretation is involved.

“We begin with the basic question of whether what we speak of today—faithful, lifelong relationships between two persons of the same gender—is what the few biblical references are speaking to, and the answer is, probably not. We probably understand some things about sexual orientation differently today. But that doesn’t mean the Bible is irrelevant on this matter, or has no guidance to offer. . .

“This leads us to a point where, … very astute, committed, biblically-grounded scholars can come to different conclusions. The Bible clearly holds marriage between a man and a woman as a holy estate. It also holds before us the value of trusting and loving care for one another in families—and in all other relationships. And then it’s left to us, with humility, to recognize Paul’s words that “now we see in a mirror dimly,” [1 Corinthians 13:12] and, faithful to what we know of God revealed in Scripture, to make our best judgment.”

I wish there was room to include Rogness’ entire report. He is deliberate and thorough in working through the logic of agreeing with the ELCA Task Force recommendations on ministry policies to allow partnered lesbian or gay persons to serve as clergy of the church—a somewhat different conclusion (but a liveable one) that that of the Episcopal Church’s general convention two weeks ago.

Rogness’ thinking has obviously been affected by his own pastoral experience with the clergy and congregations of his synod. “In St. Paul and Minneapolis, we have several congregations where openly gay or lesbian persons, trained and gifted for ministry, have served because their congregations called them to serve,” he writes. “We are prohibited from placing them under call on the [clergy] roster. But anyone who is familiar with that ministry can’t dispute that something good is happening there.”

I am somewhat familiar with one of them, Reformation-St. Paul Lutheran Church in St. Paul, MN. With countless other dear friends in the movement, I was there for the extraordinary (extra ordinem = without the permission of the Bishop) ordination of Pastor Anita Hill, an extraordinary pastor and leader.

Rogness’ reference to her ministry closely parallels the experience in the early church when controversy threatened to tear the tiny community of Christ’s followers apart over whether or not to accept Gentile believers into full communion with Jewish believers without these converts having to first submit to circumcision (dear Lord, is it always about sex?). In Acts 15 we have the direct report of that first “Church Council” meeting:

^{1 Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. 3 So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.”}Remember the Brick Testament? I talked about this chapter most recently on April 29. It is one of the premier texts we have on how disagreements in the church of Christ ought to be approached. ^{12 “The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “My brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15 This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up,17 so that all other peoples may seek the Lord — even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.}Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things ¹⁸ known from long ago.’

19 Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, ²⁰ but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Part Two appears tomorrow.

Posted in Doctrine, Sex, Gay Catechism, Bible & Interpretation, Fundamentalism, Ministry, Faith, LGBT Christian, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

On lust, love, and 100 guests.

July 13, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

We had dinner last night with friends—a couple for whom I performed the marriage ceremony last summer. Although they have been together for something like 14 years, they will celebrate their first anniversary of legal marriage in a few weeks.

Of course we got to talking about the significance of the California Supreme Court’s decision to allow Proposition 8 to stand (therefore, same-sex marriages are not valid nor recognized) but affirming that Proposition 8 does not nullify the 18,000+ couples same-sex marriages in 2008 (therefore both valid and recognized).

Even if the Roman Catholic Church has eliminated Limbo as a place between heaven and hell, the California Supreme Court has recreated Limbo as the place to consign already-married same-sex couples.

And even while we’re watching the early skirmishes in federal court over both

Proposition 8 and DOMA, it looks as if the outcome of neither of those cases could possibly affect the 36,000 + of us who are legally marriage lesbian or gay couples. Limbo.

For some crazy reason, my mind ratcheted back to a conversation with another friend 25 years ago. He had come out to his (Lutheran) pastor in St. Louis, Missouri, and even though the man was kind and not harshly judgmental, his view was that there is no such thing as genuine love between two persons of the same gender. Only lust. Therefore, this pastor could argue that St. Paul’s condemnation of lust (Romans 1:24, tied to his condemnation of same-sex passion several verses later) could withstand any arguments from his own writings in 1 Corinthians 13 and elsewhere about the supremacy of love. Yes, the Bible upholds love and Christian ethics based on love, but since homosexual desire is merely lust, it is not entitled to any “loophole.” At least so goes the argument as I remember it being relayed to me.

Mostly I just shake my head in sadness that anti-gay critics will go to such lengths to rationalize their rejection of us and our different expression of love. Real speak: in the minds of some heterosexuals same-sex love couldn’t possible be love because they can’t imagine loving someone of the same sex. But call it lust and the necessary rationalizations fall neatly into place so that they reject lesbians and gay men.

According to www.dictionary.com:

lust

–noun

1. intense sexual desire or appetite.

2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.

4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.

5. Obsolete. a. pleasure or delight. b. desire; inclination; wish. 

–verb (used without object)

6. to have intense sexual desire.

7. to have a yearning or desire; have a strong or excessive craving (often fol. by for or after).

Thinking about my own life and my spouse of 33 years and that of our friends—spouses for 14 years— it seems ludicrous to dismiss these lifelong relationships as “lust.” Between us, we’ve lived through major life changes, serious illnesses and injuries, change or loss of jobs, the AIDS pandemic, elder care, financial catastrophes, and an awakening consciousness of our own mortality. We have been through what many couples go through, and whether you want to use the “love” word or not, in God’s truth these lives are about fidelity, trust, sacrifice, commitment and constancy. No, the word “lust” just doesn’t fit any of that.

Lust, it seems to me, is a distracting hunger for something you don’t have and would sure like to get. Lust applies more to a televangelist or a politician who takes strange measures to arrange for tricks or affairs–even the Jimmy Carter variety (see the Playboy interview, 1976). At its lower levels lust is an energizer that lures most of us in our youth to play the dating and mating game. We hunger for acceptance, touch, warmth, companionship, fun and flesh. Lust dims with age, if it is not completely extinguished by the reality of having to get up early in the morning and needing to get a decent night’s sleep.

Yes, lust can become a preoccupation, an obsession, that drives some people to make bad judgments, to “hike the Appalachian Trail” or for some tragic individuals to power a mid-life crisis speeding down the road, and maybe to crash into a Sex Addicts Anonymous meeting. Yes, lust exists, but no, the gender of one’s life partner does not really have anything to do with it.

Back at the restaurant table last night, we got to reminiscing about our friends wedding last July. One of them got a little weepy remembering not so much the vows they exchanged as a couple, but the questions which I had asked the 100 guests.

“Families, friends, and all who are gathered here with Name and Name, will you support and care for them, sustain them in times of trouble, give thanks with them in times of joy, honor the bonds of their covenant, and affirm the love of God reflected in their life together? If so, answer, ‘We will.’

“And, in your many different paths of life, I ask each of you to reflect and to offer your pledge: will you promise to spread tolerance and acceptance, peace and goodwill among all people, so that you help to make the world safe for love, for diversity, for courage, and for commitment you witness here today? If so, answer, ‘We will.’”

It was the loud “We will!” responses that these men heard from their families and friends that brought some tears last night.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Gay Catechism, Sex, LGBT Christian, Recovery, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Repent? Or get over it?

July 7, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Church of England bishop says gays should ‘repent’

Associated Press • 07.06.2009 11:30am EDT

(London) A senior Church of England bishop has angered gay-rights campaigners by saying homosexuals should repent.  Archbishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that the Bible defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He said the church welcomed gay people, “but we want them to repent and be changed.” Nazir-Ali is a leading member of the conservative wing of the global Anglican Communion, which is riven by divisions over homosexuality and the ordination of women. . . .  He was quoted as saying that people who depart from traditional Biblical teaching “don’t share the same faith.”

(Read the whole story here)

My comments

Here we go again! From ancient times the Christian church has had creedal statements to define what its faith really is. Three historic creeds come to mind, known as the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creed. I have written about the Nicene Creed in the past, for example: May 19, 2008; also December 9, 2007.

No doubt many local preachers, priests and pastors (myself included) can get caught up in the moment and say things which are quite arbitrary, or unnecessary, or even stupid. After all we’re all human and we try to speak to contemporary issues as things happen. But I find it remarkable that an archbishop should exhibit such irresponsible ignorance or get caught up in such momentary, knee-jerk opinions.

Gay or straight, lesbian or trans, closeted or activist, if we are Christian we share the same faith in Jesus Christ. No formal creed of the Christian faith has ever had a statement about sexuality or gender in it. Clearly, Christians do not put faith in sex or sexuality. We put faith in God. We put faith in Jesus Christ, not our understanding, or somebody else’s understanding, of sex and human sexuality.

This may be the journalist’s phrase in the story above, not the archbishop’s, but I need to voice my thoughts about the phrase “traditional Biblical teaching.” The “traditional Biblical teaching” which Nazir-Ali apparently thinks some Christians are departing from reflect a “condemn-first-ask-questions-later” attitude about the Bible’s clobber passages. Yes, we are well aware that the Bible has a handful of passages often used to condemn homosexual behavior. But for most of Christian history these were not flashpoints, they were not interpreted in other times the way they are now, and most importantly they do not constitute a “Biblical teaching.” The clobber passages (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26–27 , 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10) are a loose collection of ideas written by different authors, centuries or even millennia apart, which embed cultural prejudices if not personal bigotries about certain practicies. They do not form a whole or uniform doctrine of human sexuality. In some cases it is not entirely clear what is meant at all. Some additional passages, occasionally cited, such as Deuteronomy 23:17 and Jude 1:6-7, are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Even the famous “Sodom and Gomorrah” passage in Genesis 19 could be quite irrelevant since what it appears to condemn is attempted gang rape, not sexual attraction or making love.

It appears to me that this archbishop, among others, has just caved in to bumper-sticker thinking—the kind of thought that is so shallow it can be reduced to a slogan: “God said, I believe it, that settles it.” In fact, you can order this very slogan and glue it to your car!

More importantly, “the Christian faith” by definition is the faith that Christians hold, not the faith that some authoritative leader says we must hold. What gives the Nicene Creed its authority, for example, is not that it was formally adopted in the 4^th century by a council of bishops but that it has been recited and accepted by millions of Christians world-wide ever since.

This particular archbishop should be gracious enough to admit that not all Christians agree about either the meaning or the significance of this handful of passages about sexual behaviors. If we don’t share the same faith, in his view, perhaps it is because he is trying to add on to the historic Christian confession of faith a narrowly interpreted conservative view of human sexuality — trying to make his attitudes about sex into an article of faith.

For example, in the Athanasian Creed (a statement which is also quite narrow and that I personally do not like), there is this key language: “Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all else, hold the true Christian faith.” It goes on to spell out the true Christian faith in 40-some lines, all of which explain what Christians are to believe about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and their inter-relationship, and none of which define or spell out one word about human sin, or human sexuality, or homosexuality. As dated or triumphalistic as this historic statement seems now, it sticks to the core content of what it means to be Christian: to cling to the faith we hold in common, not our opinions about sex.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Sex, Bible & Interpretation, Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Christian, Faith | Print | No Comments »

Moral forfeiture, vacuum of leadership.

June 30, 2009 by Dan Hooper.

Thanks to my good friend Frank in Phoenix for forwarding this message to me, especially after my recent reflections on Mr. Obama.  I also signed on (at the link at the bottom of this) to tell congress to get going. 

Subject: Tell Pelosi and Reid: Now is the time to repeal DOMA.

“Dear Friend,

First John Ensign. Now Mark Sanford. Seems like a lot of politicians who’ve voted to ban gay marriage have broken their own marriage vows.

And that’s why this is exactly the right time to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - the awful legislation that prevents legally married same-sex couples from accessing federal rights and benefits.

President Obama claims he’s in favor of repealing DOMA - he just needs for Congress to send him a bill. Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid should give him the opportunity to make good on his word.

I just signed a petition to tell Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid to introduce legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I hope you will, too. Please have a look and take action.”

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/repeal_doma/?r_by=-1912776-1f40DVx&rc=paste

Above, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada) appears to be making a point, so let me offer oneof my own.  “Thou shalt not.”  It’s an old view on moral righteousness, isn’t it, Senator?  But you are one of the anchors keeping bad legislation like DOMA on the books. and now look what you’ve admitted to.  (Queerty has the link to Rachel Maddow’s “aftershock” report.  Apparently what he’s admitted to goes on and on beyond a mere affair.)  Ensign, we will remember, was one who called for President Clinton’ resignation after the Lewinsky (”I did not have sex with that woman”) affair, and also for Sen. Larry (”Widestance”) Craig to resignation after his arrest for public bathroom sex solicitation.

 

And now Gov. Mark Sanford, another conservative American, and one who had been considered as a running mate for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election and a possible 2012 president candidate, has explained his disappearing act.  According to the Wall Street Journal’s Capital Journal blog, about 54% of Americans think Sanford should resign. 

“And precisely half said that someone in “high public office” who commits adultery lacks the personal character to hold office.

“By contrast, when the Wall Street Journal and NBC News asked a similar question back in 1999, just 21% said adultery showed a lack of sufficient character for public office.

“Of course, that 1999 survey came amid raw feelings about the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in the aftermath of his own liaisons with Monica Lewinsky, and the reading likely was skewed by the partisan divide over that episode. Still, the poll findings suggest politicians who wander still can expect to pay a price.”

By my lights, the price to be paid is the forfeiture of conservative moral leadership that pretends to want to defend marriage.  DOMA doesn’t defend the marriages of Sen. Ensign or Gov. Sanford, and does nothing to protect the spouses and children of mid-life crisis failures who can’t seem to remember either their marital vows or the oath to uphold and defend the laws of this nation.  What really scares me about Sanford is that he went missing and lied even to his staff.  At least Ensign had his mistress (and her husband) on his staff, so at least one or two people knew what he was up to.

And if moral leadership is forfeited (whether or not these men resign their office) where are the elected officials with some integrity who will openly say that integrity itself demands the repeal of DOMA?

Posted in Sex, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Praise God: Two Years!

June 22, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

“Where have you been?” the accusing voice in my head says. There’s a legit explanation, of course. I was inundated with nine days running of house guests and all that entails (cleaning house, for one thing), and then playing catch up on my own duties. Each time I thought about blogging, I just gave up.

I don’t want to dwell on this (who would?) but it is two years today since I had cancer surgery. Thank God there is no sign that it has come back.

A blog is a personal thing, but I don’t find blogs which are diaries, or verbal web cams, to be very compelling. I usually draw from my own experience, but I hope what is written here always has the element of something more universal.

But maybe that’s why I am musing about this personal anniversary. In the last 28 months since I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, I have met numerous men who are struggling with the same reality, or the fear of it. And I have said the last rites for one of them, and tried to comfort his partner of nearly 50 years, who is also fighting prostrate cancer.

If you are male and even close to being forty, find out your PSA. Ask questions, and monitor the numbers. Prostate cancer affects a huge percentage of men, but there are a number of treatment options and each one of them is getting better all the time.  And they do not dictate the end of your sex life!  (In all honesty, there are some men who think that is worse than death. It sounds irrational, but it is a very real fear.) 

 The only thing that doesn’t get better with the passing of time is your chance of survival if you don’t even know you have it.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Sex, Living by Grace, Health | Print | No Comments »

Just say no.

June 8, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I took a friend with me today to help me dismantle a used greenhouse I have purchased (another story for another time). He’s single and unemployed. We got into a conversation about a male friend of his whom I do not know.

“Peter” is not gay. He told me that this other friend of his is gay. Peter is not the kind who has hang-ups about sexual labels. His brother is gay. He knows I am too, and he knows lots of gay people, especially around our church. He is not quick to judge, and he’s not uncomfortable around gay men.

Or, he is overly respectful and careful of how to talk about his discomfort. To make a long story short, he went to this friend’s house for the weekend, apparently to help him do some handy-man kind of work. Peter needs work and needs money, and this recession is especially cruel to those who are chronically unemployed. But being with the “friend” for the weekend –which of course meant sleeping over as well—can take a strange turn. Peter said there was lots of beer, lots of TV, videos, etc. In fact— and he was so shy to explain this to me because he still calls me Pastor— after enough beer, the videos turned to porn.

Okay, he finally began to voice to me that he was uncomfortable, and I think he was looking for the language to articulate that discomfort. I guess I helped him by asking questions, and learned that it was heterosexual porn —something I am guess that his gay “friend” thought might appeal to Peter, especially after a few beers.

If Peter lacked the right words or awareness to talk about his discomfort with this development, I suspect it was because straight men are not used to recognizing the signs of what I sense as sexual entrapment. Women are more aware of this stuff. It fits the larger patterns of sexual abuse that range from sexual manipulation all the way up to and including rape.

I think Peter is a bit naive, given his life experiences. Or, I am a bit more likely to jump to conclusions. Either way, I did come to the conclusion that Peter needs help processing how to say “no thanks” to his gay friend without losing the friendship. To me that is a bit ironic, since gay people are often the ones who don’t want to risk losing a friend — one of the factors in the dynamic of staying closeted.

As the conversation went on, Peter told me more details of the weekend, which I don’t think I need to share in this blog, but I recognized the traits of sexual predation over and over in what he told me. I tried to help him see the common threads with other forms of behavior that are usually labeled as sex abuse or child abuse. The most important factor is that if the relationship is not between peers or equals, it is impossible for one person to say No and be assured that his or her No will be respected. Children do not have the power to give an unconditional No to an adult who may try to lure or force them into sexual behaviors. Women do not always have the power to say No to a man.

Straight men, stereotypically, didn’t have to worry about such things at all, coming from either another man or a woman. Yet here was a straight man sitting in the passenger seat of my car explaining in detail that he was really uncertain how to say No. The “unequal” relationship between friends, in Peter’s situation, is that the friend was paying him money to help with handy-man tasks and giving him lodging, meals, beer and entertainment. Maybe Peter remembers his parents telling him, as a small boy, not to accept candy from a stranger. But maybe he didn’t immediately get the connection between candy and beer/videos/oddjobs.

So what’s the moral of the story? That straight men have something to fear from gay men? No. But men of all orientations still tend to think they can manipulate, control, buy, rent or work other people into sexual behaviors. The only legitimate sexual behavior is that which is grounded in the uncoerced, unmanipulated consent of the parties. Period.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Sex, Ministry | Print | No Comments »