The last one in this love run.

November 1, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

Today I officiated at another of those same-sex weddings.  The last one on my list of more than a dozen since June 17, and as touching to me as any of them.

The grooms have been together 25+ years, but had not properly celebrated that incredible milestone.  They were planning a big party for next Spring to at least celebrate 25 years of living together, when Proposition 8 began to scare them a bit.  So they called me and went to get their license.

It would be a simple ceremony, like the one on October 22, and several others before that.  Only a couple of witnesses.  But this is a couple I have known (not real closely) for all of those 25 years.  So I called my husband to make sure he could come on Saturday morning, too.

But when they all arrived, it was two sets of witnesses, plus the surviving mother and her caregiver. 

Mom was absolutely radiant to see her son finally legally marrying his partner, and this is amazing when you find out she is 94 years old.  Don’t tell me that the older generation “doesn’t get it.”  She is older than the older generation, and maybe she gets it better than almost everybody.

What’s not to be proud of?  Her son and his new husband are loving, stable, successful, loyal to her, faithful to God, and charming.  What more would a mother want?  What more could the state of California expect out of its married couples?

As has become my custom in officiating, I ask the witnesses to come up and sign the Marriage License — right there in front of God and everybody — as part of the ceremony.  It is pretty significant and solemn to hold up that bit of legal paper, and to say, “Confident of the blessing of Almighty God and by the authority given to me by the State of California, I pronounce you spouses for life.”

Vote No on Proposition 8.  And keep working to defeat the bigotry that put it on the ballot.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

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

Catholics, Lutherans and same-sex marriage, oh my!

August 7, 2008 by PD.

Lutherans and Catholics remain far apart on many religious issues, and the reality of same-sex marriage in California is proving to be yet another one of those issues.

On August 1, the Catholic Bishops in California endorsed Proposition 8 — the proposed constitutional amendment that would take away civil rights form gay and lesbian people which the Supreme Court has established.  it was not enough for the Catholic Bishops to oppose same-sex marriage on theological principle — according to their medieval theology which includes the teaching that marriage is a sacrament — but no, they had to actually endorse the right-wing efforts to deny civil rights and roll them back.

So the Catholic Church in California contributes to the muddle which has been created by other “Religious Reich” folks — ripping into the wall of separation between church and state.  The Catholic leaders in California are trying to tear this wall down, by imposing fundamentalist, medieval Roman Catholic views of marriage on all citizens of this state.

Lutherans have so far avoided such bad politics and bad theology.  The three ELCA Lutheran Bishops in California have issued advisory letters to their pastors which discuss and wrestle with the issue of same-sex marriage, but they remained silent about Proposition 8.  In addition, the Lutheran Office of Public Policy has decided to take no position on Proposition 8, even after a face-to-face discussion with one of the Lutheran bishops.

While the national ELCA Bishops in 1996 said that marriage is between a man and a woman, it was indeed only that, when the statement was drafted.  Such a statement is of course no longer accurate, because “gay marriage” does indeed exist, whether Christians like it or not.

Interestingly, the most conservative of California’s three Lutheran bishops, the Rev. Murray Fink in Orange County, took the trouble to cited Martin Luther’s views of marriage, in his advisory letter.  Finck, who was present at the LOPP Policy Council meeting on July 26, said in his letter,

From the time of the Reformation, Lutherans have regarded marriage primarily as a civil matter. Martin Luther said, “Marriage is outside the church, is a civil matter, and therefore should belong to the government” (Table Talk No. 4716, Luther’s Works, Volume 54 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967]).

So Lutherans divide with Catholics on marriage precisely where they did in the Reformation era 500 years ago.  Although Luther supported the Christian family, and was himself proably what we would classify as “homophobic” today (he repeatedly condemned the “vile practices” which were going on in monasteries at the time without explaining them), he believed that ultimately civil marriage was irrelevant to the church and its Gospel.  He believed priests should be able to get married — which at the time was against the law. 

In 1519 three priests decided to take Luther’s views seriously, and informed him they were about to be married (to women).  He struggled at first with whether or not to participate by preaching for the nuptial mass.  Only several years later Luther himself decided to marry, still in defiance of Roman Catholic canon law but protected from civil penalties only by the power of local German princes who believed Luther was right and the Catholic church was wrong.

Our own bishop here in Los Angeles, Rev. Dean Nelson, has asked his clergy to inform him and discuss the pastoral conditions in their parishes before performing any same-gender weddings.  While this is a far cry from banning the pastoral participation in such marriages, Nelson’s careful and conservative word to his clergy may be having a chilling effect on some pastors in his jurisdiction.  Personally, I am not in his jurisdiction or under his authority.  His office considers my pulpit to be “vacant” and did not even send me his letter of cautious guidance until it was requested.

I have, of course, performed numerous “blessings” or “holy unions” (without the knowledge or the permission of the ELCA), over the last 20 years.  I have done so with absolute confidence in God’s blessing of these relationships.  But now that same-sex marriage is a reality in California (and Massachusetts, Canada and other European countries), I find it kind of fun that the first actual wedding of two lesbians I conducted, on June 17 in West Hollywood, was of two Roman Catholic women who are very much in love.  They are now happily married in the sight of God and in the records of the State of California.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Ecumenical Issues, Ministry, ELCA, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

The Evangelical Moment

June 3, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

I feel unprepared and humbled and honored, and I’m at a loss where to begin. A young man came to my office door asking to see me. I am used to strangers coming, almost always asking for money, or food. In a nutshell, this young man was a Muslim, asking to learn more about Christian faith and about Jesus.

He is foreign born, in this country on a brief visa, but engaged to be married to a citizen of the U.S. whom he met in his home country. She is a Christian, and out of a life-long curiosity about Jesus, and respect for her, he wanted to know more —much more— about Christian teaching. An important factor is that he is not entirely free to express his curiosity about Jesus openly, not within the home of friends where he is living, and not among his own people at home.

After my first insecurity about teaching someone subsided a bit, I expressed my respect for his great faith tradition. He too was respectful, knowing that so much is gained when all people listen to the faith experiences of others.

But where to begin with the story of Jesus? We have some common ground, because Jesus is a figure spoken of in the Qur’an. How to explain that for Christians Jesus is not merely a prophet, but the presence of God incarnate. How does one explain what “incarnate” means to someone whose entire faith tradition rejects that?

He made it easier for me by asking, “How did Jesus die?” Somehow this led to explaining revelation and grace, and to the highest story of our spiritual awakening, the parable of the prodigal son. I explained the basic contents of the New Testament — not written with a single voice as if verbally revealed from heaven, as the Muslim scriptures are believed to be, but the testimony of many Christians over a period of several generations, through which God’s voice speaks.

I called to mind the meager explanation of what is written, what is explained in the New Testament, from John’s Gospel (20:30–31): “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”

So I found myself struggling with what is best and most essential from the Bible to tell to someone who has scarcely had a chance to look inside its covers without enormous scorn from others. So much of the Bible is profound beyond words, and so much is trivial or downright embarrassing to read as an outside would read it. So much is completely opaque — occupying the best scholarly minds for a lifetime to make heads or tails of it. Where are the parts which are transparent, clear as crystal, and allow the reader to glimpse what is of greatest value, or to be digest that which is spiritually most nourishing?

I found myself on the desert road with Philip the deacon, approaching the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8:26–40) “Do you understand what you are reading, he asked, about the passage from Isaiah which was in his hands.

“How can I unless I have someone to guide me?”

And so beginning with the ver passage of scripture the eunuch had been reading, Philip began to tell him the story of Jesus.

Now I am praying for this stranger/new friend, and for his fiancé, hoping that the Holy Spirit finds me worthy as a vehicle for God’s message. Would I be happy to convert this man to Christ? Yes.

But is that my role and place? No.

We come from places in this world very far apart. We come from different cultures, economic classes; we have different native languages; our life circumstances and sexuality and experiences completely differ.

I don’t know if I am qualified to teach such an important student. I have more misgivings than there are verses in the Bible and the Qur’an combined. Yet it now looks possible I may become this man’s teacher. I only hope that I can provide what God decides to grant to him.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Faith, Spirituality, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

What would Jesus wear? (Hint: John 13:3-4)

April 8, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

The Good News of Christ’s reconciling mission in the world has been unbelievably snagged in the nonsense of papal counter-reforms. His Bavarianess, Pope Benedict XVI is trying to rip out of the Catholic cloth all the tailoring which was sewn by the Vatican II reformers two generations ago. The Latin Mass is back—strongly encouraged by Benedict. Apparently continuity with the irrelevant past into an irrelevant future is more important than the participation of the faithful.

And now even his choice of liturgical vestments is going retro. An opinion piece, “Papal Dress Code“, —by former altar boy and senior editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, Michael McGough —ventures into the world of papal vestments which Benedict prefers and likely will model when he comes to the United States later this month.

 

In trying to find suitable graphics with Google, I have followed the threads into an arcane world of medieval repristinators who, like sleeping dogs, should probably be left to their own dreams.

(Above) Here you see Benedict celebrating mass with an enormous host (I guess everything papal can be super-sized), surrounded by attendants dressed in what appear to be clear plastic raincoats. Hmmm.  A blog comment identifies these as “Shantung silk.” What would Jesus wear?

If you want to peek further, there are sites and blogs such as “Save the Liturgy Save the World“ which devolves quickly from believing that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life (okay, I can’t disagree), to stating that violations of rubrics, like a pebble tossed in a pond, create spiritual ripples in the Church and the world!

Violation of rubrics? Does anybody but the gay boys in the Sacristy remember what rubrics are? They are the little ceremonial notes, usually written in red ink, which ride along with liturgical rites in those big, dusty altar missals, to help the ministers perform the services “decently and in order.”

 

Rubrics are like stage directions for a play—lines which the actors don’t deliver but must remember (”cross to stage left, waving right arm and shouting …”). But apparently for some faithful believers, violations of these stage directions are tantamount to irreverence and cause spiritual ripples felt around the world.

Is it any wonder that bumper stickers (which are also seen everywhere, at least everywhere around my world) poke such fun, “Jesus Save Me from your followers!”? Is it any wonder that the Barna Group research says today’s young adults admire Jesus and avoid the Church?  (see also: “Spirituality: Do We Look Like Jesus?“)

Could it be because the Church takes its eyes off of its Lord and starts gazing at its own embroidered navel? I was frankly aghast last year to see a photo of Cardinal Mahoney washing the feet of his disciples on Maundy Thursday in full liturgical vestments,

 

after having read the same Gospel passage he did, where Jesus took off his outer vestments and simply tied a towel around his waist (John 13:3–4). Can’t we serve Christ with humility, boys?

I say these things not to beat up on traditional Roman Catholics, or to put the Pope down for his three-times-head height miters, but to call the true church to repentance and faith in the Christ who empowers us to serve God by serving others, not serving ourselves. I myself wear a chasuble for the Eucharist. But I remember the good counsel I received more than 30 years ago about the reform of Christian worship practices – there are three criteria which should not be out of balance with one another: historic precedent, ecumenical consensus and contemporary need. Benedict has apparently decided to blow off the latter two.

I have always tried to keep my high church tendencies in check (”must control the wrist of death”), and only recently have allowed a little more elaboration and festive stuff in our parish worship because of the large number of recovering catholics in our community. But at the same time I am committed to proclaiming Gospel, not navel, and to prayer from the heart, and to serving the community around us with compassion and humility. If anything causes spiritual ripples in the world, it ought to be the deeds by which we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, visit the prisoners, and proclaim liberty to the oppressed. Benedict, would you care to join us?

But who am I? I am only the voice of a heretic (demoted from “separated brethren” under Vatican II) who belongs to a nearly 500 year old movement (the Evangelical Lutheran Church) that the present pope does not consider to be a church.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Ecumenical Issues, Faith, History, Ministry, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

The bigots are gathering signatures again.

April 1, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

The prejudice-mongers are at it again, collecting signatures to put an initiative on the fall ballot in California to permanently deny the possibility of same-gender marriage in this state. They claim, as of April 1, to have 881,000 signatures of the 1.1 million needed. They have three weeks left to make the deadline.

This is no April Fools Joke.

The California initiative frustrates me, primarily because it is such personal issue for me and my partner. We are not looking to destroy anybody else’s marriage, but to protect one another within a personal covenant that has equal protection under the laws of the state and federal government. We have waited for more than four years to see if the California courts would uphold or restore our marriage rights – by declaring that Proposition 22 does not ban same-sex marriage. We’re still waiting for the California Supreme Court decision later this spring after oral arguments were heard March 4.

Our opponents are so-called Christians who see us as a threat to their heterosexual marriages. That is like saying that if we drive a BMW, we are somehow “cheapening” the BMW in our neighbor’s garage; or because we have bought a house in the neighborhood we are trying to destroy the neighborhood.

Our opponents know that their arguments don’t hold water, and their arguments aren’t meant to stand up to scrutiny. All they have to do is to enlist public bigotry, in the hopes that if a majority of voters in California are prejudiced enough, discrimination will be written into the California constitution and deny us our simple right to justice for the rest of our lifetimes.

That would be bad enough if it weren’t for the fact that they peddle their prejudice in the name of Jesus— the one who included everyone and excluded no one.

There is no mechanism in the constitution to give the Supreme Court judicial review over a constitutional amendment. So if a prejudicial law is written into the constitution it will sit there for a generation or more until a sufficient social change makes it possible to repeal the evil. But even a future repeal cannot undo the harm that is done to those of us who simply want some protection from the arbitrary and heartless grinding of social systems. Last week we heard the story of a gay man who first learned that his partner was dead from the evening news broadcast, because the hospital refused to give him information since he wasn’t legally a family member.

Week after week, month after month, these sad and tragic stories continue, not merely because our over-grown and unwieldy government systems actually hurt people, but because all the other systems and entities in society which are required to abide by public policies and laws are powerless in complicity with prejudice. Where this actual prejudice on the part of individuals in decision-making positions (for example, an evil H. R. director in a company), they can easily hide their prejudice behind government regulations which appear to support them. Lawsuits usually force these organizations, corporations and entities to back off from their prejudice, but it is time-consuming and expensive to fight for each right, one at a time, hoping that a court of law will vindicate us and our quest for simple justice and equal rights.

Worse yet, injustice falls more heavily on the poor. Those who have greater means (money) can hire enough attorneys to craft their wills, irrevocable trusts, and other contractual relationships to protect their life partners and secure their assets, in a manner which attempts to replicate the rights of civil marriage without the automatic protection it affords. For those who do not have such means, doing all of this is an impossible burden.

And perhaps worst of all, prejudice seems always to have more money than justice. Right-wing conservative donors with big bank accounts always outnumber open-minded ordinary folks. They seem to always be ready to write big checks. From today’s www.365gay.com news story,

Among the major donors to Protect Marriage are a group of San Diego County businessmen. Developer Doug Manchester alone has contributed $125,000, prompting gays to urge a boycott of his properties. Manchester owns the Manchester Grand Hyatt and the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina.Mission Valley developer Terry Caster has donated $162,500, Carlsbad car dealer Robert Hoehn gave $25,000, and La Jolla businessman Roger Benson has given $50,000, according to state records.It raises a fundamental question of justice with broader implications, but one I’ve never heard anything about: why is it that the initiative process permits signature-gatherers to be paid per signature? This means that big money can buy the votes needed to put something on the ballot which would never get there if it really come up from the grass roots. The initiative process is not voter imitative, but special-interest initiative. LGBT leaders have used this process, too, but I think it should be made much more difficult to get any thing slapped on the ballot because too many screwball things come up in every general election, and an ill-informed electorate is asked to make decisions which affect other people’s lives when they don’t really know the consequences. Lack of information, combined with native prejudice, makes for a bigotry machine which is very hard to stop.What can we do?For one, “decline to sign” any petition put in front of you about gay marriage;

Two, get involved with Equality for All and help the efforts to stop the signature gatherers;

Three, contribute to our side of this issue — even if you don’t have or don’t want a permanent spouse, you still have a stake in this battle because if we lose our chance to secure marriage rights, what other rights will the extremists try to revoke next?

Fourth, keep on coming out—telling your story and being honest about your life, because it is the best tool we have to convince other people in our society that we are not trying to destroy their lives, or values, or marriages, simply to hold our heads up high.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Coming Out, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Living by grace. Part 3.

March 29, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

I confess I have too many books, so much so that I don’t know what I have any more, or where I have them. But occasionally there is the delight of finding a book I had forgotten, or don’t remember at all.

And so during this Easter week there was the serendipity when a slim volume by Thomas Merton fell into my hand while searching for something else. Merton’s refreshing and timeless 1975 essay He Is Risen opened me again to the theme of living by grace and relying on the promises of God.

 

Graphic:  www.trinitystores.com

Merton offers a reflection on Galatians 5:1,

“where Paul rebukes the Christian converts for still thinking that certain legal observances were still necessary for them: as if they could not be saved without being circumcised. The Galatian converts were tempted to something that we might describe today as religious overkill. They wanted to make absolutely sure that everything was completely taken care of.. So they not only adopted the Christian faith but all the ritual practices of Judaism as well. Thus, if Christianity turned out to be not good enough, they would still be covered by Jewish observance.”

Garrison Keillor has quipped that “Lutherans believe they are saved by grace, but think it best to ring a covered dish just in case.” So we fall in the same column as the Galatians — trying to cover our bets, and take out insurance on salvation. Lutherans are not the only ones. All flavors of Baptists and all Catholics are stuck in this as well.

This is more than an idle comparison with the ancient Galatians. Christians who do this stand under the same admonition of St. Paul: “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” It means many Christians do not trust in the promises of the Gospel, but believe that they must at least try to earn God’s love. They do this through using the Law of Moses like a club over one another, and by adding to that Law with strict rules not found in the Bible (like not drinking and not dancing, for example).

Paul’s admonition is to the point: Stand firm; do not submit again to the yoke of slavery” (which somebody else thinks should be placed on you). Don’t give in to legalism, because if you do, you are negating the promises of Christ, and “Christ will be of no benefit to you.” The apostle’s immediate circumstance was the issue of circumcision as a sign of obedience and conformity to the covenant of Moses, but that doesn’t mean that circumcision is the only yoke of slavery which “religious overkill” can try to impose.

It is clearer to me all the time that the apostles’ writings show that they themselves were slow to wake up to the implications of their own inspired words. In Acts, St. Peter is recorded as saying, Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,” but he had to learn that lesson, with regard to the Gentiles, over and over. St. Paul carries the torch for Christian freedom, but still repeats rules and requirements that should have no binding place in the Christian faith. Why, because God in Christ has granted us the ultimate freedom from religious overkill—from rules of obedience and conformity. We are bound only to the rule of Christ, the New Commandment laid down on the night before he died: “Love one another as I have loved you.”

For sexual minorities, finding the right ethics for our lives is still our assignment. We must test and weigh and reflect what it means not to conform to social norms which are normal for 90% of the population but impossible for us, and still be obedient to the law of love. The law of Moses is no help, so 99% of the televangelists and radio preachers who love to dissect virtually every obscure verse in the Old Testament in order to accuse us should just give it a rest! The sexual ethics of the Old Covenant simply cannot be taken at face value, even by heterosexuals. Christians must rethink all moral questions in the light of Christian freedom and the grace of God.

It is especially painful that Christian fundamentalists have gotten into bed, as it were, with right-wing politics of privilege and money. Says Merton:

“This spirit of overkill is characteristic of the Christian who is afraid to be simply a Christian in the world of our time. He is not content with faith in the Risen Christ, nor content with the grace and love of Christ. He wants the comfort and justification of being on the side of wealth and power. In some cases, Christianity becomes literally the religion of overkill, the religion in which you prove your fidelity to Christ by your willingness to destroy his enemies ten times over.”

For lesbian and gay Christians, the greatest enemies are within. Too many of us have killed ourselves – either literally or emotionally in order to fight back our conflicted feelings. We have not trusted the grace and love of the Risen Christ and have tried to design a religion with Christ as a mere figurehead and our own rigorous accomplishments as the main ingredient. No, says St. Paul. Stop it. “You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.” Religious overkill did not originate with Christ, but comes from a corrupting influence. Watch out, St. Paul says. Don’t buy into it. In fact, he is so upset with those who have shoved the Law back into the envelop of Grace that he actually curses them (and thanks to God that the NRSV restores an accurate translation here of Galatians 5:12); speaking about the pro-circumcision saboteurs, “I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” instead of Christians who are free, and who live by grace! the one who calls us–Christ– calls us knowing we are LGBT, justified by grace, freed by the cross, and obedient only to the law of love. Christ is risen, Alleluia! Live by grace!!

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

A good man lost to the demons.

January 12, 2008 by Pastor Dan.

I just learned this morning of the death of someone I’d been trying to get closer to. He died apparently of a drug overdose after a drug binge—depressed?—that had cost him his job.

This news has triggered a lot of shock in me, and I found myself questioning our mutual friend hard, as if it were not possible, or somehow the news was not true.

He had a lot going for him, which makes this seem like a total failure of hope and grace. He was a Christian, knew his Bible well, was confident and enthusiastic about both his work and his children (although divorced), and knew the 12 Steps of recovery. He had come with a good friend to our Bible studies on numerous occasions, was affable and stable.

Something completely eclipsed my friend’s path to recovery, however, and snatched his life away.

And sadly—as so often happens—he shut others out when he was in his greatest need and hitting bottom in his greatest depression. I have learned that he refused to go into a detox and rehab facility, and was found dead in his home days later.

As a Christian teacher and Pastor, I feel a huge sense of defeat that I never got or found the right opening or opportunity to get closer to this man. Could I have played a role in redemption for him? Would I ever have been the one he might have called when he hit a low point in life?

It strikes me how often religion plays such a feeble role in the recovery and redemption of human life. Yes, he knew the Scriptures and could quote them as well as may lay people. But what happened? Where had the Christian faith let him down so that in successive moments of poor judgement and discouragement evil forces could pull him completely under?

The pull, and the destruction, of addiction is real and powerful. These are the demons of our times, and they are legion. Thanks to the law of supply and demand, they remain quite plentiful and available in our country. Drugs and alcohol are costly but not so prohibitive as to make anyone avoid them because of money. In any big city, drugs are especially easy to get.

What is not easy to come by is an absolutely confidence in God’s redemption and grace. This seems to be in short supply– and those who have it cannot always successfully reach those who long for it or need it the most.

And the recovery process is not for wimps. The Twelve Steps are not twelve wishes. They are hard, even demanding work. They require our attention over the long haul—for an entire lifetime—in order to grow in the spiritual strength that nothing can shake or damage or pull under.

As much as I feel defeat in this dark moment, my defeat tells me not to give up or become cynical. My effort—and all of our effort—is critically needed somewhere out there to chase the evil demons of life away, and to be a steady, reliable, unshakable friend for those who lose their nerve or their way. Probably more than anything, we need “street smarts” to understand the demons and to recognize their power.

Lord God, we pray for those whose lives have been stolen by the power of addictions, or lost in times of weakness and despair when life itself seems to difficult to be lived. Give us strength of character to befriend and offer constant help to others when they are lost or crushed down. Renew our grieving hearts when the terrible loss of injury or death threatens to undo us. Remind us of the power of redemption and grace, and let your Holy Spirit lift us again to be your servants for Jesus’ sake.  Amen.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Health, Faith, PRAYERS, Recovery, Ministry, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Does Mormon count as Christian? Does religion count in politics?

December 9, 2007 by Pastor Dan.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney finally made his “religion speech” last week. http://www.getreligion.org/ notes that Romney basically wrote the speech. Certainly this is a big enough issue for a sizeable block of the American people he had better take responsibility for his words, and choose them carefully.

For many Christians – at least those in an official position where they represent the teachings and doctrines of their faith— the Latter Day Saints are not Christian. I know this causes these people great pain – and that they see it as a form of prejudice and bigotry.

(And who shouldn’t be against prejudice and bigotry? In the last 40 years we have seen Christians at many levels in society reject conversation and collegiality with the Metropolitan Community Church, for example because it is the denomination that unequivocally welcomes sexual minorities and is served primarily by lesbian and gay clergy. But is the M.C.C. not Christian?)  Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints not Christian?  Logically it is only fair to conclude that Mormons do not share many of the same essential beliefs about the person of Jesus that other Christians do.  Mitt Romney tried to massage this fact in his speech, here quoted from www.getreligion.org: 

“What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.  My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history.  These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.  Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”

I note in this passage that Romney is deflecting the religious doctrine question and trying to make it a social tolerance issue. And perhaps in terms of serving in the high office of President it is. “He seized the opportunity to connect his candidacy to something larger and transcendent: the history of religious freedom in America,” said Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal. “He made a virtue of necessity.” But he sidesteps the core question (sidestepping = “spin” = political necessity) which Christian voters are still curious and unnerved about:  Are Mormons to be considered Christian—either by other Christians (a very subjective measure), or by some objective standard? Is there such a thing as an objective test for using the term “Christian” anyway?

Unhappily, the Christian church has slugged that one out for 2,000 years. In the earliest centuries it excommunicated dissenters.  By the 4^th century, with new-found civil power, it had heretics put to death over theological disagreements– something which even St. Martin of Tour found to be odious.  A hundred years before Luther, the Catholic Church was still killing off dissenters such as John Hus, Michael Servetus and of course the Jews; Martin Luther survived only because his politically well-placed friends helped him hide (and later supported capital punishment for heresy!).  When the 16^th Reformers argued their case, they bent over backwards to show the Roman authorities that, by objective standards, they had not departed from the true Christian faith.  In the Lutheran confessional document, the Augsburg Confession, written in 1530 as a trial brief, for example, the core Christian dogmas are incorporated by reference:  the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, the doctrines embedded in the Old and New Testaments about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Church.  If by no other measure, over 2,000 years these key elements (”symbols”) have come to define what “Christian” means.

Then why is there such fragmentation in the Christian Church, and isn’t the Mormon church just another expression, or denomination or tradition or fragmentation within the larger Christian Church?

By the way, it seems that another piece of “Christian” teaching which has deep tap roots in the Jewish/Christian Bible, is that once a doctrine is thoroughly defined, the Christian faith holds that anyone who holds different views (even slightly varied views) is wrong.  In talking about the great Councils of Christian history, where doctrines were hammered out, the late John Boswell, author of Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, once remarked: “Before the vote is taken, there is a majority and a minority. After the vote is taken, the minority is dead wrong.”  (The Athanasian Creed makes the rejection of other points of view a matter of dogma, which many Christians including me find very unsettling and choose to selectively ignore!)

Objectively speaking, Romney’s faith tradition is not Christian, or it is at best quasi-Christian, because, as he says, “My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths.” [Emphasis added.]

Be honest, Mitt. They are not the same as the beliefs of the Christian churches.  The LDS Church does not sign on to the Apostles, Nicene (and here is a very fascinating link for theological discussion!) and Athanasian Creeds, for example.   LDS founder Joseph Smith built his following on the premise that a heavenly angel revealed to him the right stuff and that all the other Christian churches were wrong.  Smith and many other 19^th century splinter and reformist groups carved out their “market share” (as we would call it now) by dropping some core Christian beliefs and adding others which are rejected by Christian churches.

Although it took from the year 1530 to 1999, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church worldwide are now in agreement about the essential issues of justification by faith which are at the heart of the Augsburg Confession.  The Lutherans and the Orthodox now see almost eye to eye on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 

Do not look for the Mormon Church to sign on any time soon to these Christian teachings. For what they teach about Jesus and salvation, etc., are expressly and decisively opposed to these core Christian teachings.

Technically, the argument over who is a Christian, or what objective tests can be use to decide that, are irrelevant in the race for the Presidency. Romney is hoping that American tolerance of differences will not be an impediment to his election as President. But if the pollsters are correct, for the Christian evangelical crowd (the religious “right” wing), Baptist Rev. Mike Huckabee looks a lot more acceptable than ex-Governor Romney.

In my personal perspective, neither one of them would get my vote but not because of their particular theological views, or the official teachings of their church traditions and doctrines (Christian or not). I don’t agree with their social values, and I would worry more than a little that they would use those faith-influenced social values to enforce a particular, prejudicial and unjust agenda on this nation. (CNN’s sound-byte: “Romney: ‘My convictions will indeed inform my presidency’”.) From what I have read about Romney, while he appeals to American tolerance, he is not likely to promote the view that all the laws of this land be broadened to guarantee equal tolerance for the views of others. He does not support the legalization of same-gender marriage, for example, as the tolerant, American, thing to do.

It is pretty clear that George W. Bush used his own religious faith as a big factor to get himself into the White House. It is clear that the votes of his co-religionists counted heavily (even if they don’t know how to count in the state of Florida) in the last two general elections. Now a man equally as socially-conservative as Bush wants the America people not to count his religion against him. Is it any wonder that fundagelicals are finding this hard to do?

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Fundamentalism, Doctrine, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

A moral view from Google images

December 2, 2007 by Pastor Dan.

Posted in Faith, Public Affairs, PRAYERS, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »