Friday, February 27, 2009

Dobson resigns as chairman of Focus on the Family

By ERIC GORSKI
Associated Press

DENVER (AP) — Conservative evangelical leader James Dobson has resigned as chairman of Focus on the Family but will continue to play a prominent role at the organization he founded more than three decades ago.

Dobson notified the board of his decision Wednesday, and the 950 employees of the Colorado Springs, Colo.-based ministry were informed Friday morning, said Jim Daly, the group's president and chief executive officer.

Dobson, 72, will continue to host Focus on the Family's flagship radio program, write a monthly newsletter and speak out on moral issues, Daly said.

Dobson's resignation as board chairman "lessens his administrative burden" and is the latest step in a succession plan, the group said. Dobson began relinquishing control six years ago by stepping down as president and CEO.

"One of the common errors of founder-presidents is to hold to the reins of leadership too long, thereby preventing the next generation from being prepared for executive authority," Dobson said in a statement. "... Though letting go is difficult after three decades of intensive labor, it is the wise thing to do."

While Focus on the Family emphasizes that it devotes most of its resources to offering parenting and marriage advice, it is best known for promoting conservative moral stands in politics.

Dobson, a child psychologist and author, has gotten more involved in politics in recent years. He endorsed Republican John McCain last year after initially saying he would not, and also sharply criticized Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

On political matters, Dobson "will continue to speak out as he always has — a private citizen and not a representative of the organization he founded," said Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman. He said the nonprofit ministry and Focus on the Family Action — an affiliate set up under a different section of the tax code that permits more political activity — will continue to be active on public policy.

Dobson has a devoted following. His radio broadcast reaches an estimated 1.5 million U.S. listeners daily. Yet critics say his influence is waning, pointing to evangelicals pushing to broaden the movement's agenda beyond abortion, gay marriage and other issues Dobson views as most vital.

"In the short term, in the near term, Dr. Dobson will stay committed to the issues close to his heart," Daly said in an interview. "He'll continue to speak out on those topics."

Gay-rights and liberal groups issued statements Friday warning that Dobson is not leaving the scene. Americans United for Separation of Church and State portrayed the move as Focus on the Family "merely rearranging the deck chairs on its big, intolerant ship."

D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist who studies evangelicals and politics, said that although Dobson will continue to be Focus on the Family's public face, his board resignation is significant because "he no longer has his hands on the levers of power" there.

Observers have questioned whether Dobson's organization can remain a key player once its founder steps away. Longtime Dobson ally Gary Bauer said in an interview Friday he believes it can.

"Their constituency not only wants help on how to keep a marriage strong or how to deal with a challenging child, but also feels as if it's surrounded by hostile territory in the culture," said Bauer, former president of the Family Research Council, which Dobson founded in the early 1980s.

Daly said there is no timetable for Dobson to leave the radio program, and the group will "look for the next voice for the next generation" while Dobson remains on the air.

That will likely mean not one person behind the microphone but several speaking on their respective areas of expertise, Daly said. The organization, anticipating a post-Dobson era, for several years has tried out different voices on the broadcast and in giving media interviews on hot-button social issues.

At the same time, Focus officials have acknowledged difficulties in raising money from younger families critical to its future. The economy also has hurt. Last fall Focus on the Family eliminated more than 200 staff positions, its largest employee cutbacks ever.

Daly said the group is now "right on track" with a revised annual budget of $138 million. The new board chairman is retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Patrick P. Caruana, a longtime board member and a former executive with defense contractor Northrup Grumman. 

Holy Homosexuals

Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene

Straight and narrow

Straight and narrow
27/02/2009 1:00:01 AM

My name is Katrina Fox and I am a homosexual. As is the case with Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous, that admission is apparently the first step in my journey to become straight - according to Living Waters, an international ministry that offers courses to help people who suffer from a range of sexual problems or "brokenness", including same-sex attraction.


It's 9.30am on Saturday morning and I'm waiting for Living Waters' one-day Grace and Sexuality Conference at the Wesley Mission in Sydney to start. There's around 60 of us in attendance, old and young, from a range of ethnic backgrounds and my gaydar has honed in on a few fellow queers.


Boxes of tissues have been set out around the room by the organisers, presumably in anticipation of an outpouring of emotion. They're not disappointed as the band takes its place on stage and the head of the ministry, Ron Brookman, leads the audience in song and prayer.


Smiles turn to tears as it gets too much for several people and they break down sobbing. It's not unlike a Kylie or k.d. lang concert.


Brookman, according to the conference brochure, has been "transformed from homosexuality" and leads the Living Waters ministry from its headquarters in Ramsgate with his wife Ruth.


"I was living a double life as a pastor and immersed in the homosexual scene in Darlinghurst," he tells us. "I know what it is to live in utter brokenness and shame."


Brookman goes on to explain that God's image can only be displayed on earth when male and female come together in sexual union within the context of monogamous heterosexual marriage. Anything outside is a sin.


"Desire is powerful, which is why God has given boundaries," he asserts. "If boundaries were kept there would be no such thing as sexually transmitted diseases … there is no such thing as casual sex … the power of intimacy and sex is a foreshadow of what awaits us in heaven."


Homosexuality is a "handicap" but healing our "brokenness" is as simple as "yielding our lives to Jesus", he adds. Although it wasn't easy, Brookman says he has turned his back on the "homosexual lifestyle", but admits it is a struggle every day.


After a talk by Ruth Brookman on how she forgave her husband's sexual indiscretions with other men and they now live happily as a heterosexual couple, it's lunchtime. And I'm still gay.


After lunch the conference delegates break off to take part in a workshop of their choice. Naturally I pick the one on homosexuality, led by Ian Lind, who founded Living Waters in Australia 30 years ago. Before becoming a Christian, Lind was part of the gay scene in Sydney for 10 years. For him, the two are mutually exclusive. "There is no such thing as a gay Christian," he proclaims.


"I don't believe you can sit in church as a gay person. I chose homosexuality like others choose drugs or alcohol. When I gave myself to the Lord, I turned my back on my lifestyle so I was no longer gay. I am still attracted to men, but I never went back to that lifestyle or gave in to my feelings."


The workshop has drawn around 20 people. One couple is concerned about their son who came out as gay a year ago. "It's there in your upbringing," Lind asserts.


"If our mothers nurtured us and our fathers spent time with us, we wouldn't have those issues." Discussion ensues about whether a person is "born gay".


While Lind is adamant this is not the case - despite various research studies identifying biological factors such as prenatal hormones and brain structure that may be related to sexual orientation - others in the room argue it doesn't matter if people are born gay. "As Christians we shouldn't be worried about this," says one participant. "You can still be redeemed and choose to live a pure life."


You've probably realised by now I have no intention of yielding my life to Jesus or repenting my "sin". Unlike many people who come to organisations such as Living Waters, I don't struggle with being a dyke. I live with my girlfriend of 15 years, a gorgeous, passionate and talented therapist who's blessed with amazing cheekbones, and when I stare at a photo of Debbie Harry, shame is the last thing I'm feeling.


But for those who leave ex-gay programs, unsuccessful in their quest to become straight, depression and suicide are common, according to Anthony Venn-Brown, a former Assemblies of God preacher, author of A Life of Unlearning and leader of the Freedom 2 B[e] organisation that offers support to gay and lesbian Christians. Venn-Brown went through several ex-gay programs before embracing his homosexuality and is adamant such programs don't work. "You can't recover from your sexual orientation," he says.


"You can deny and suppress it but you can't change it. Trying to be someone I wasn't caused great stress, a sense of failure and shame that eventually led to depression."


Brookman and Lind say they are now heterosexual, despite still finding men sexually attractive, and couldn't be happier. Living Waters runs a 30-week course for people "struggling with same-sex attraction" although both men admit it's often necessary for a person to complete the course three or four times to really "get it".


In an interview a few days after the conference, Brookman was keen to point out that Living Waters "goes to great pains not to condemn people in homosexuality or any other form of sexual brokenness, but seeks to reach out with compassion to those who are ill at ease with their sexuality".


It's true that at that no time during the conference did anyone express outright hatred towards gay or lesbian people, but references to Satan and "the enemy" in the context of discussing the "sin" of homosexuality hardly empower us.


Spending the day with people who continually reinforced the message that a core part of my identity is "broken" or a "handicap" or an addiction to be overcome didn't exactly fill me with joy. The musical parts of the day were the best. I'm partial to a nice uplifting singalong but instead of suppressing my sexuality while revering a male deity, I'll take dancing naked at Coogee women's pool with a bunch of hot sheilas chanting "We All Come From The Goddess" any day. Or the Mardi Gras Parade. Because I'm still gay.


Katrina Fox is a freelance writer and co-editor of Trans People in Love (Routledge).

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Evangelicals who Love Their Gay Neighbours

Evangelicals who love their gay neighbours
There is a growing movement among Christians normally seen as conservative to welcome and affirm gays and lesbians

Simon Barrow guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 February 2009 12.00 GMT

In the long battle against slavery in the 19th century, it was the voices of evangelical Christians such as William Wilberforce, John Wesley and Bishop of London Beilby Porteus who played an important role in swinging the domestic political debate in favour of abolition, alongside Quakers and others.

They did so because they realised that although there were verses in the Bible (for them the determining authority in life and conduct) that could readily be pressed into the defence of slavery, there was something much larger at stake in the Gospel message which led inexorably to the conclusion that the captives should be set free – as Jesus said in one of his defining sermons, as recorded by Luke.

On that basis they re-interpreted pro-slavery verses by understanding them as overwritten by the new order of grace brought about by Christ, as warnings about the partiality of human insight into the mystery of God's love, and as stage posts in a process of unfolding, deepening revelation.

Similar arguments are being heard today from a growing number of evangelical Christians over the question of recognising the civil, ecclesial and relationship status of lesbian and gay people. These evangelicals are still a minority, but they are a growing one. They bring to the challenge of changing the hearts and minds of their fellow believers the same moral and theological seriousness that motivated their forebears in the anti-slavery movement.

This week, four evangelical organisations have joined together to remind their fellow "Bible people" that opposing hate speech and hate crimes against homosexual people – in this case the antics of the bizarre Westboro Baptist sect – means too little if you are simultaneously defending forms of prejudice and discrimination within your own communities.

The prime mover in this, Accepting Evangelicals, is a network of Christians who take the Bible with great seriousness, but who argue that what the handful of verses deployed by anti-gay campaigners address is not modern same-sex relationships built on mutual commitment and self-giving love, but practices of pederasty, cultic prostitution and abuse in very different cultural and religious contexts.

They are supported in this view by considerable biblical scholarship and by Christians of other stripes who share the conviction that being followers of Jesus in the modern world involves responsible freedom not backward-looking fear.

The recent statement was also signed by the Network of Baptists Affirming Lesbian and Gay Christians, the Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians, the thinktank Ekklesia (which has many evangelicals involved with it, and of which I am co-director), and by Courage UK – an organisation that started out as an "ex-gay" ministry but which has now shifted towards acceptance and inclusion as a Gospel imperative.

Courage UK, founded in 1998, was pushed to resign from the Evangelical Alliance in 2002 as a result of its changed stance. Those who head up major evangelical organisations know that there are dissenters in their own ranks, but they fear the debate that would result if this was acknowledged more openly. The hardliners in their midst also find succour in being seen as part of a righteous war against a supposed "liberal" enemy intent on diluting the Gospel message. Similar arguments were used to try to rebut the abolitionists.

It is strange indeed that opposition to same-sex relationships has become a litmus test for a certain kind of orthodoxy in some evangelical circles, despite the fact that Christ said nothing about it. On the contrary, he deliberately breached religious taboos against groups ostracised by the establishment, and he upheld actions like forgiveness and economic sharing as signs of authentic discipleship – not culture-based religious restrictions.

Change is on the way, nonetheless. The refusal of a mature debate on sexuality is being questioned and jettisoned in many parts of the evangelical world: among young people involved in fresh "emerging" forms of church life, in discussions at festivals like Greenbelt, and even in the counsels of the heartlands.

Last November the highly respected Richard Cizik resigned as vice president for governmental affairs with the 50 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals in the USA, following uproar over his comments that he is shifting his views on same-sex unions.

Many privately expressed agreement with Cizik. Influential evangelical leaders Tony and Peggy Campolo have publicly debated the homosexuality issue, with Peggy moving to an openly affirming position.

In Britain, pro-gay evangelicals have also been "coming out". A few years ago veteran Methodist preacher George Hopper published an online book that sums up the difficulty of the shift, but also its hopefulness. It is called Reluctant Journey – A pilgrimage of faith from homophobia to Christian love.

The struggle against anti-gay prejudice is not just a church one. In pubs, in tabloid newspapers, in homes and workplaces, rejection lurks behind thin facades of liberalism. Evangelical Christians are deeply immersed in the problem. But if they learn from their history and re-read the biblical message in the light of its living centre, Christ, they can be part of a historic change.

Condemning anti-gay hate does not go far enough, say Evangelicals

Four Evangelical groups who believe the churches need a positive change of heart and mind on homosexuality have said condemning hate groups is not enough. They want Christian acceptance of gay people.

They have called on churches and Christian organisations condemning an American anti-gay hate group to face up to their own discriminatory policies and behaviour - and to embrace conversion.

Accepting Evangelicals, Courage, the Network of Baptists Affirming Lesbian and Gay Christians and the Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian & Gay Christians, backed by the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, have issued a joint statement saying that opposition to the Westboro Baptist Church USA's hate-stance towards gay people does not go far enough.

"The real challenge to evangelicals is to face the need for change themselves," they say. "This means: engaging more fully and openly with lesbian and gay Christians and accepting them as equal under God; examining the way prejudice against gay people has distorted biblical understanding; prayerfully re-thinking church policies of exclusion and acknowledging the harm they cause; and recognising the growing number of evangelicals who have had a heart-change and now affirm faithful gay relationships."

The statement highlights the growing trend, nationally and internationally, for Evanegelicals to challenge what has been a hardline stance against gay people from within that global segment of Christianity.

Recently a high-profile vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in the USA resigned after criticism because he was moving to an "affirming" position on faithful lesbian and gay relationships.

In Britain, the evangelical social service agency Faithworks, though not pronouncing on the moral issues, supported the government's Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) calling for equal treatment in public services - even though many other Evangelical and Christian groups opposed them.

One of the signatories to the latest call by pro-gay Evangelicals is Courage, an organisation that several years ago changed its position on the issue - moving from being an "ex-gay" ministry to one supporting gay people on biblical and traditional grounds.

The religion and society think-tank Ekklesia, which has a number of Evangelicals among its supporters, associates and staff, says that the sexuality debate within the churches is widely misrepresented in the media - and among those who want to block change - as an issue of "liberals versus conservatives".

In fact, says Ekklesia, a growing number of traditional, orthodox Christians are speaking out in favour of an affirming stance towards lesbian and gay people in the church and in society, arguing that the Gospel message as a whole points strongly in this direction.

They acknowledge that a small number of Scriptural texts can be pressed in an opposite direction, but say that these need to be understood in their cultural context - which does not speak of relational sexuality, but abuse.

They point out that the churches have long recognised that biblical passages once used to justify slavery have now been re-interpreted in the light of the centrality of Jesus and the Gospel message, and call for a similar change in relation to ending the oppression of gay people.

Evangelical and Methodist George S. E. Hopper has explained the change of heart and mind in a popular online book called 'Reluctant journey - a pilgrimage of faith from homophobia to Christian love' - http://tinyurl.com/cuz7cd

The full statement is as follows:

Joint statement from Gay Affirming Evangelical Groups

Following the Home Office ban on members of Westboro Baptist Church USA from entering Britain to picket an anti-homophobia play in Basingstoke, there has been a flurry of activity amongst UK Evangelicals. The play deals with the murder of a gay student, Matthew Shepherd, whose funeral was also picketed by the Westboro church, declaring that he was "burning in hell".

In particular, we are encouraged by the recent clear rejection by six major UK Christian groups, among them the Evangelical Alliance and the Baptist Union, of the proposed visit.

Their statement on 20t February 2009 claimed that:

"We do not share their hatred of lesbian and gay people. We believe that God loves all, irrespective of sexual orientation, and we unreservedly stand against their message of hate toward those communities."

This is indeed good news for all in the lesbian, gay and bisexual community, but beneath this rejection of open hatred towards homosexuals, there is a much deeper issue which groups like the Evangelical Alliance still have to face.

We would now call upon these groups to reflect on their own attitudes and prayerfully consider what their "hate the sin, love the sinner" teaching does to the minds and souls of faithful Christians who are gay.

This well rehearsed mantra clearly enables some evangelical groups to reject the "God hates fags" approach of Westboro Baptists, but when put under the spotlight, begins to look more like the recent case of Geert Wilders when he claims that he "Loves Muslims but hates Islam".

To hide behind such a mantra in regard to sexual orientation simply ignores the damaging messages which it sends, both to gay Christians struggling with their identity, and to the world beyond which simply hears it as a call to reject, or worse, an excuse to harm gay men and women.

In the Gospels, Jesus warns his followers not to avoid their own failings by pointing to the failings of others - even if they are much larger. Westboro Baptist Church operates as a hate group and is an easy target. The real challenge to evangelicals is to face the need for change themselves.

In particular, this means: engaging more fully and openly with lesbian and gay Christians and accepting them as equal under God; examining the way prejudice against gay people has distorted biblical understanding; prayerfully re-thinking church policies of exclusion and acknowledging the harm they cause; and recognising the growing number of evangelicals who have had a heart-change and now affirm faithful gay relationships.

Signed by:

Rev Benny Hazlehurst,
Sarah Hill,
Accepting Evangelicals
http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/

Jeremy Marks
Courage
http://www.courage.org.uk

Mike Dark,
John Blowers
Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian & Gay Christians
http://www.eflgc.org.uk/

Martin Stears-Handscomb,
Network of Baptists Affirming Lesbian and Gay Christians
http://www.affirmingbaptists.org.uk/

Jonathan Bartley,
Simon Barrow,
Ekklesia
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk

UK Evangelicals Condemn Visit of Fred Phelps

Some churches in England condemned Fred Phelps and his proposed visit to England [se Chris' earlier message from the London Telegraph] but they didn't go far enough according to Ekklesia and some evangelicals in England


[Extract:]
Four Evangelical groups who believe the churches need a positive change of heart and mind on homosexuality have said condemning hate groups is not enough. They want Christian acceptance of gay people.

They have called on churches and Christian organisations condemning an American anti-gay hate group to face up to their own discriminatory policies and behaviour - and to embrace conversion.

Accepting Evangelicals, Courage, the Network of Baptists Affirming Lesbian and Gay Christians and the Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian & Gay Christians, backed by the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, have issued a joint statement saying that opposition to the Westboro Baptist Church USA's hate-stance towards gay people does not go far enough.

"The real challenge to evangelicals is to face the need for change themselves," they say. "This means: engaging more fully and openly with lesbian and gay Christians and accepting them as equal under God; examining the way prejudice against gay people has distorted biblical understanding; prayerfully re-thinking church policies of exclusion and acknowledging the
harm they cause; and recognising the growing number of evangelicals who have had a heart-change and now affirm faithful gay relationships."
[ends]

David

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Christians must reflect after UK bars U.S. anti-gay preacher

Christians must reflect after UK bars U.S. anti-gay preacher

The British government has done its bit and barred an American anti-gay Christian preacher and his daughter from entering the country - now it’s up to churches to do theirs, a group of evangelical Christians says.

The Reverend Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, were barred from entering Britain after it emerged they planned to protest against a play about the murder of a gay man.

The reverend picketed the funeral of the student in the U.S. declaring he was “burning in hell” and has staged protests outside theatres.

Phelps believes the U.S. is doomed for tolerating homosexuals. The government last week said the pair were anticipated to spread “extremism and hatred”.

Six major British Christian groups, among them the Evangelical Alliance and the Baptist Union (which is not associated with Phelps’ church), issued a statement condemning the proposed visit.

“We do not share their hatred of lesbian and gay people,” they said.

“We believe that God loves all, irrespective of sexual orientation, and we unreservedly stand against their message of hate toward those communities.”

But a group of evangelical groups said Christians had to do more than just condemn with words. They had to face up to their own discriminatory policies and behaviour.

“The real challenge to evangelicals is to face the need for change themselves,” a group which includes Accepting Evangelicals, Courage and the Network of Baptists Affirming Lesbian and Gay Christians, says.

“This means: engaging more fully and openly with lesbian and gay Christians and accepting them as equal under God; examining the way prejudice against gay people has distorted biblical understanding; prayerfully re-thinking church policies of exclusion and acknowledging the harm they cause; and recognising the growing number of evangelicals who have had a heart-change and now affirm faithful gay relationships.”

Others signing the joint statement are the Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians and the Christian think-tank Ekklesia.

They said they recognised a growing trend, nationally and internationally, among evangelicals to challenge “what has been a hardline stance against gay people from within that global segment of Christianity”.

They cited a recent case where the deputy head of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in the U.S. resigned after criticism because he was moving to an “affirming” position on faithful lesbian and gay relationships.

“We would now call upon these groups to reflect on their own attitudes and prayerfully consider what their “hate the sin, love the sinner” teaching does to the minds and souls of faithful Christians who are gay,” they add.

“In the Gospels, Jesus warns his followers not to avoid their own failings by pointing to the failings of others - even if they are much larger. Westboro Baptist Church operates as a hate group and is an easy target. The real challenge to evangelicals is to face the need for change themselves.”

Condemning anti-gay hate does not go far enough, say Evangelicals

Condemning anti-gay hate does not go far enough, say Evangelicals
By staff writers
24 Feb 2009
Array
Four Evangelical groups who believe the churches need a positive change of heart and mind on homosexuality have said condemning hate groups is not enough. They want Christian acceptance of gay people.

They have called on churches and Christian organisations condemning an American anti-gay hate group to face up to their own discriminatory policies and behaviour - and to embrace conversion.

Accepting Evangelicals, Courage, the Network of Baptists Affirming Lesbian and Gay Christians and the Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian & Gay Christians, backed by the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, have issued a joint statement saying that opposition to the Westboro Baptist Church USA's hate-stance towards gay people does not go far enough.

"The real challenge to evangelicals is to face the need for change themselves," they say. "This means: engaging more fully and openly with lesbian and gay Christians and accepting them as equal under God; examining the way prejudice against gay people has distorted biblical understanding; prayerfully re-thinking church policies of exclusion and acknowledging the harm they cause; and recognising the growing number of evangelicals who have had a heart-change and now affirm faithful gay relationships."

The statement highlights the growing trend, nationally and internationally, for Evanegelicals to challenge what has been a hardline stance against gay people from within that global segment of Christianity.

Recently the deputy head of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in the USA resigned after criticism because he was moving to an "affirming" position on faithful lesbian and gay relationships.

In Britain, the evangelical social service agency Faithworks, though not pronouncing on the moral issues, supported the government's Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) calling for equal treatment in public services - even though many other Evangelical and Christian groups opposed them.

One of the signatories to the latest call by pro-gay Evangelicals is Courage, an organisation that several years ago changed its position on the issue - moving from being an "ex-gay" ministry to one supporting gay people on biblical and traditional grounds.

The religion and society think-tank Ekklesia, which has a number of Evangelicals among its supporters, associates and staff, says that the sexuality debate within the churches is widely misrepresented in the media - and among those who want to block change - as an issue of "liberals versus conservatives".

In fact, says Ekklesia, a growing number of traditional, orthodox Christians are speaking out in favour of an affirming stance towards lesbian and gay people in the church and in society, arguing that the Gospel message as a whole points strongly in this direction.

They acknowledge that a small number of Scriptural texts can be pressed in an opposite direction, but say that these need to be understood in their cultural context - which does not speak of relational sexuality, but abuse.

They point out that the churches have long recognised that biblical passages once used to justify slavery have now been re-interpreted in the light of the centrality of Jesus and the Gospel message, and call for a similar change in relation to ending the oppression of gay people.

Evangelical and Methodist George S. E. Hopper has explained the change of heart and mind in a popular online book called 'Reluctant journey - a pilgrimage of faith from homophobia to Christian love' - http://tinyurl.com/cuz7cd

The full statement is as follows:

Joint statement from Gay Affirming Evangelical Groups

Following the Home Office ban on members of Westboro Baptist Church USA from entering Britain to picket an anti-homophobia play in Basingstoke, there has been a flurry of activity amongst UK Evangelicals. The play deals with the murder of a gay student, Matthew Shepherd, whose funeral was also picketed by the Westboro church, declaring that he was "burning in hell".

In particular, we are encouraged by the recent clear rejection by six major UK Christian groups, among them the Evangelical Alliance and the Baptist Union, of the proposed visit.

Their statement on 20t February 2009 claimed that:

"We do not share their hatred of lesbian and gay people. We believe that God loves all, irrespective of sexual orientation, and we unreservedly stand against their message of hate toward those communities."

This is indeed good news for all in the lesbian, gay and bisexual community, but beneath this rejection of open hatred towards homosexuals, there is a much deeper issue which groups like the Evangelical Alliance still have to face.

We would now call upon these groups to reflect on their own attitudes and prayerfully consider what their "hate the sin, love the sinner" teaching does to the minds and souls of faithful Christians who are gay.

This well rehearsed mantra clearly enables some evangelical groups to reject the "God hates fags" approach of Westboro Baptists, but when put under the spotlight, begins to look more like the recent case of Geert Wilders when he claims that he "Loves Muslims but hates Islam".

To hide behind such a mantra in regard to sexual orientation simply ignores the damaging messages which it sends, both to gay Christians struggling with their identity, and to the world beyond which simply hears it as a call to reject, or worse, an excuse to harm gay men and women.

In the Gospels, Jesus warns his followers not to avoid their own failings by pointing to the failings of others - even if they are much larger. Westboro Baptist Church operates as a hate group and is an easy target. The real challenge to evangelicals is to face the need for change themselves.

In particular, this means: engaging more fully and openly with lesbian and gay Christians and accepting them as equal under God; examining the way prejudice against gay people has distorted biblical understanding; prayerfully re-thinking church policies of exclusion and acknowledging the harm they cause; and recognising the growing number of evangelicals who have had a heart-change and now affirm faithful gay relationships.

Signed by:

Rev Benny Hazlehurst,
Sarah Hill,
Accepting Evangelicals
http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/

Jeremy Marks
Courage
http://www.courage.org.uk

Mike Dark,
John Blowers
Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian & Gay Christians
http://www.eflgc.org.uk/

Martin Stears-Handscomb,
Network of Baptists Affirming Lesbian and Gay Christians
http://www.affirmingbaptists.org.uk/

Jonathan Bartley,
Simon Barrow,
Ekklesia
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk

Friday, February 20, 2009

Religious gays can’t remain ‘Speechless’

Religious gays can’t remain ‘Speechless’


By JENNIFER VANASCO
Feb. 20, 2009

Last week, a Grand Rapids, Mich., television station decided to pull an hour-long infomercial called “Speechless: Silencing the Christians.”

Whether this was a good decision for gay and lesbian civil rights or a bad one depends on what happens next.

On the surface, of course, it seems good. The infomercial, produced by the gay-hating, radical right wing religious organization the American Family Association, is a stream of misdirection, misinformation and outright lies.

Through interviews with leaders of a small number of far-right organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Christian Andi-Defamation Commission, the Media Research Center and the ex-gay group Exodus International, “Speechless” tells a story that would be horrifying if it were true: Gay and lesbian activists are using violence and intimidation to keep Christians from practicing their religion.

Of course, it’s not true at all. Gay people aren’t trying to pass laws to keep Christians from marrying, or attacking them on the street because they’re Christian, or firing them from their places of employment (which would be illegal anyway, under federal anti-discrimination law that we’d like to extend to ourselves).

These things happen to gays and lesbians all the time.

THE INFOMERCIAL is dangerous, because it feeds on fear and uncertainty with inflammatory language and stock video that tries to scare viewers into believing that if even basic anti-discrimination laws are passed, then America’s children (who, interestingly, all seem to be white in the pictures flashed across the screen) are in danger.

What, exactly, they are in danger of isn’t made clear. Open-mindedness? Independent thinking?

This sort of infomercial, though, sways opinions in the same way those ridiculous, hate-mongering internet forwards do — by feeding on people’s doubts and prejudices by saying things that aren’t true, but that people fear are true. So in the world of internet forwards, then-candidate Barack Obama was a Muslim terrorist. And in the world of “Speechless,” gay people are opening fire on places of worship (really).

When the Human Rights Campaign learned that the station in Grand Rapids planned to air the infomercial, they put out a call to action. The station was flooded with messages from angry gays and lesbians demanding the piece be pulled.

And it was.

What I like about HRC’s call is that it requested that a reasoned debate on hate crime be substituted for the deceitful infomercial. That seems fair.

But the other side, of course, won’t see it that way.

In fact, my guess is that the pulling of the infomercial will only lend fuel to the AFA fire. Now they’ll be able to point to it as just another example of gays and lesbians — and the “liberal” media — trying to stifle Christian speech.

I also worry that the controversy over the Grand Rapids television decision means that many more people are watching “Speechless” on the AFA website than would have ever seen it on a small, local TV channel.

AND YET, when faced with trash like the AFA infomercial, we can’t do nothing. We know that lies like these affect real people in our community, giving bigots who fire us and bash us an air of legitimacy.

So what should we do?

First, of course, we need to counter the AFA’s lies with point-by-point truth.

But it is not facts that sway hearts. It is points of commonality.

We need to do a better job of building bridges between the gay and lesbian civil rights movement and more liberal faith communities. We need to highlight the experiences of gay and lesbian faith leaders like Gene Robinson, Mel White and Peter Gomes. We need to start flooding the airwaves with pictures of gay people attending religious services.

We need to end the lie that religion and gayness are incompatible.

I know that a lot of gay people will be uncomfortable with this. Many gays and lesbians, religious or not, have been hurt by religious institutions. But the fact is that America is a religious country, far more religious than other Western countries. And many gays and lesbians who grew up in America are religious, too. We attend church and synagogue. We go to Buddhist temples. We celebrate annual religious holidays. We pray.

Gays and lesbians shouldn’t have to deny any parts of ourselves — not our sexual orientation, and not our religious affiliation, should we have one. We can be both religious and gay.

We need to show that gays and lesbians aren’t silencing Christians, because many of us are Christian, too.

ELCA leaves gay clergy decision to local churches

ELCA leaves gay clergy decision to local churches
By JEFF STRICKLER, Star Tribune

February 19, 2009

The long-awaited position on ordaining gay clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America isn't a clear yes or no.

An ELCA task force admitted Thursday that it could not reach a consensus on the issue that has polarized its members for years. But with the matter expected to dominate this summer's national convention in Minneapolis, its position paper offers this suggested solution:

The ELCA will allow the ordination of gay pastors but will leave it up to individual congregations and synods whether to ordain or appoint pastors. The term used to describe this compromise is "structured flexibility."

While acknowledging that such an intentionally vague policy probably won't play well with "the bumper sticker crowd," the bishop of the St. Paul Area Synod, the Rev. Peter Rogness, said it reflects the ELCA's practice of trying to match ministers to congregations. He compared it to a rural congregation feeling that it would rather call a minister with a rural background, for instance.

"The Lutheran Church has never imposed anything on anyone," he said. "We never have, and we never will."

Leaders of Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Reform), a group that describes its mission as seeking "to preserve the authority of the Bible in the ELCA," quickly announced that it will work to defeat the proposal at the convention.

The Rev. Scott Grorud, pastor of Faith Lutheran Church in Hutchinson and a member of the organization's steering committee, said the focus on trying to reach a consensus was misdirected.

"The history of Christianity is not based on trying to reach a consensus; it's based on distinguishing right from wrong," he said. Consensus-building is used for deciding things like "what color carpet to get. This is a recipe for disaster."

He pointed to a similar rift that threatens to split the Episcopal Church into two factions. "They went to a local option, and look where it got them," he said. "That should not be the path that we want to follow."

On the other end of the political spectrum, St. Paul-based Lutherans Concerned saluted the recommendations as a positive step but said the task force didn't go far enough.

"It's a vast improvement," said spokesman Phil Soucy. "But we still have profound differences with it overall."

In particular, the group would have liked to have seen a provision for a rite blessing same-sex relationships. "The paper is full of options," he said. "How about an optional rite -- you don't have to use it, but it would be there."

Delegates already picked

The ELCA has 4.8 million members, about 830,000 of which are in Minnesota. One-third of the 1,000 delegates who will gather in Minneapolis Aug. 17-23 will be clergy, and the rest will be lay people. The delegates were chosen last summer, so there will be no jockeying to pick those who support a particular stance on this issue.

The position paper on gay ordination was accompanied by the release of a final version of a social statement that also will be submitted to the convention and contains a potential land mine of its own.

The statement affirms the ELCA's longtime definition of marriage as "a covenant between a man and a woman" but goes on to acknowledge the validity of "lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships." No one is using the term "gay marriage," noting that marriage is a legal designation determined by the state, but the implication is clear.

"We feel it is very important that we ask homosexual ministers to be publicly accountable for their relationships the same way we ask heterosexual ministers to be publicly accountable," said the Rev. Peter Strommen, the chairman of the task force and pastor at Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church in Prior Lake.

Thus, one of the major caveats for gay ordination is whether the candidate is involved in a committed relationship.

"That term 'publicly accountable' is a new one for us," said the Rev. Craig Johnson, bishop of the Minneapolis Area Synod. "Another term the position paper introduces is 'conscience bound.' It says that the differences [of opinion on gay ordination] are rooted in deeply held, conscience-bound beliefs that must be respected by people on both sides. It takes into account that there are faithful people on both sides of the issue, and it gives both sides some space to affirm their ministries."

A slap on current policy

The task force recommendation chastises the ELCA for its "all-too frequent failure to live out its publicly declared welcome" in the case of homosexuals and noted that "many gay and lesbian Christians have experienced this church's positions and policy as painful personal rejection."

The current policy that bans gay clergy works against the church, too, Johnson added. "On a synod level, we're missing a chance to utilize some great skills that are out there," he said.

If the convention rejects the task force recommendations, it's not clear what would happen next, said the Rev. Stan Olson, a former bishop of the Southwestern Minnesota Synod and now executive director of the ELCA's Vocation and Education Program Unit. Some people believe that the rejected proposals would go back to the task force for rewriting, but Olson thinks the process might have to start all over again.

"The task force had a charge to bring forth a proposal for the 2009 Churchwide Assembly," he said. "They did that. As far as I can tell, they're done."

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Gay groups agitated over conference

Gay groups agitated over conference
Other events are created to offer alternative view of conference aimed at overcoming homosexuality.

By Tonya Jameson
tjameson@charlotteobserver.com

Posted: Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009

A battle for gay souls is unfolding in Charlotte this week.

One faith-based conference is trying to turn people away from homosexuality and another faith-based conference teaches that homosexuals can have happy, healthy spiritual lives.

Also, the 14th annual Human Rights Campaign Carolinas gala is Saturday at the Charlotte Convention Center. The HRC is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., will be the keynote speaker at Saturday's event.

All of this is going down less than a week after Charlotte Presbyterians voted to end the ban on gay clergy.

Out of the three events this weekend, the effort to turn homosexuals straight has gay rights groups agitated. The conference is Focus on the Family's Love Won Out. It's Saturday at the Central Church of God. The one-day conference caters to people who want to overcome their sexuality as well as to family members of GLBT people. About 1,000 people are expected.

Workshops include examining homosexuality, GLBT clergy, pro-gay theology and gay marriage. This is the 11th year of the conference, which Charlotte hosted in 2002 at First Baptist Church.

For people who are dissatisfied with homosexuality, the conference offers an alternative, said Melissa Fryrear, of Love Won Out, who said she used to be gay.

“It's a message of hope and encouragement,” Fryrear said.

Events, rally planned

Gay activists disagree. They planned counter events and a rally to offer an alternative view of homosexuality and faith. Activists say ministries, such as Love Won Out, prey on young people and give false hope. They reinforce stereotypes regarding homosexuality, said Q-Notes editor Matt Comer.

Comer is part of Charlotte Rainbow Action Network for Equality (CRANE), a new grass-roots gay rights organization. CRANE, gay-friendly churches, the Lesbian & Gay Community Center and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) won't sit quietly while Love Won Out preaches its message.

Tonight, Wayne Besen, director of TruthWinsOut.org and author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-gay Myth,” will speak at 7 p.m. at the Lesbian & Gay Community Center, 820 Hamilton St. in the N.C. Music Factory.

On Friday, the organizations will hold an 11:30 a.m. news conference to talk about the effects of ex-gay ministries. It will be at Unitarian-Universalist Church of Charlotte, 234 N Sharon Amity Road.

On Saturday, CRANE will lead a silent protest in front of Central Church of God from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

“These protests are not to get angry at these organizations, because they're simply misled,” Comer said. “It's to be a visible presence for those people who are going to be victimized by these false hopes of ministries and therapies.”

Leadership Conference

Support from the faith community is the goal of the Leadership Conference, the other faith-based gathering this week. At least 250 faith leaders from GLBT friendly churches will participate in the annual Leadership Conference gathering. It opened Wednesday and ends Saturday at the Omni Hotel uptown. Participants are typically church members and leaders from area Metropolitan Community Churches, the Fellowship, and Unity Fellowship churches. Sessions are designed to spiritually and emotionally bolster faith leaders who cater to the GLBT communities.

“It's very challenging to be a leader in our community,” said Rev. Nancy Wilson of Metropolitan Community Churches. “There are a lot of needs, a lot of brokenness, a lot of challenges. There's a lot of healing that's needed. You have to have strong leadership for that to happen.”

Evangelical Lutheran Church to release recommendation on whether to allow gay clergy

ELCA to release long-awaited recommendation on whether to allow gay clergy
Stephen J. Lee Grand Forks Herald
Published Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will release at noon Thursday the long-awaited and sure-to-be controversial recommendation on whether to allow gay clergy.

It’s the main undercurrent in a proposed social statement on sexuality, years in the making.

The same 15-member task force also will release at the same time a second document of recommended changes to the ELCA’s policies which “preclude practicing homosexuals” from being eligible to be pastors and ministers in the 4.9-million-member, Chicago-based ELCA.

Both documents are to be voted on at the biennial national assembly in Minneapolis in August.

The documents’ release Thursday is certain to be a pretty big deal here, the most densely ELCA part of the United States.

There are 210,000 members of ELCA congregations in eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota, making up a quarter or more of the population.

Perhaps a signal of how controversial the documents may be is the fact that Bishop Bill Rindy of the ELCA’s Eastern North Dakota Synod will hit the road Thursday morning to begin a series of quick meetings with his 240 pastors.

Pastors and bishops got copies of the new documents Wednesday via e-mail but were instructed not to discuss the embargoed contents with the public until noon Thursday. Rindy, of course, could not discuss the contents Wednesday.

“This is going to be in the news,” Rindy said. “There are going to be people in congregations who will have questions by Sunday morning. My goal is to help pastors lead their congregations in faithful discussion regarding the proposed social statement, to equip them to have these conversations all over the synod.”

Both documents may be revised in coming months based on input from regional synods, which each meet for annual meetings this spring leading to the national assembly in August.

Rindy admitted a sense of urgency.

“During these meetings (with pastors I will take time to clarify what I can, of the content (of the documents) and the procedure, as far as what the church does next,” Rindy said “I can’t wait until next week or three weeks.”

Several pastors said they hadn’t read the documents yet, partly because Wednesday typically is busy with confirmation classes and other church meetings.

The Rev. Don Swenson, Walhalla, N.D., said he’s just not that into it.

“I’m into mission and global concerns, and the hungry. I think that’s more appropriate because we have a global mission now. We had 13 people from our area that went down to Jamaica last winter and are working on that. I like to put effort more into something like that.”

The Rev. Gary Johnson, Thief River Falls, said many in his congregation have been concerned for years about the ELCA allowing gay clergy.

“A main issue, then and now, that a few are asking about, is the issue of allowing clergy to be able to perform gay marriages, or whatever word they use for that.”

For him, because Minnesota doesn’t allow gay marriage, it’s sort of a moot issue and not one he’s spent much time on himself.

“The whole issue for me is that it’s the making of policy versus dealing with people,” Johnson said. “Sometimes, making hard and fast rules about things isn’t really helpful.”

One pastor in the Red River Valley said Wednesday there is “a lot of pressure,” from national ELCA leaders on bishops and pastors to not oppose allowing sexually active gay and lesbian clergy.

The pastor asked not to be identified, saying that expressing conservative views could make it difficult to get congregational calls, which are administered through bishops' offices.

“People can be blackballed,” the pastor said.

The pressure, a kind of political correctness, “bothers me a great deal, because I believe that we should preach God’s Word and present it as close to what the Bible says as we possibly can,” the pastor said.

Other pastors have confronted the pastor angrily over the topic, saying “the Bible teaches that God loves everybody,” the pastor said.

“They are completely forgetting the point where God says homosexuality is an abomination.”

Some pastors have said they would likely leave the ELCA if the policy prohibiting clergy from engaging in sexual relationships outside marriage is changed, the pastor said.

Congregations, like pastors, differ widely on the issue, the pastor said.

Bishop Rindy said debate over the issue, which has been going on within the ELCA in some form for almost its entire two-decade history, has been rather quiet the past two years.

But now, he expects the issue will become more of a hot button topic. His synod will hold its annual assembly in May in Grand Forks. A key agenda item no doubt will be resolutions to the national assembly in August about the recommendations on gay clergy released Thursday, Rindy said.

He has refrained from making statements about his own views on the issue, Rindy said, both as a pastor and as a bishop, an office he was elected to last year.

“Part of what I’m called to do is to help the church have respectful conversations at this time, with the best information available and to help the church make that decision.”

Not advocating for a certain position on the issue allows him to be bishop to all in his synod, Rindy said.

And it would be premature, he said.

“The church hasn’t made any decision yet, as a whole. And the document coming out now is a proposed social statement that might get amended and tweaked along the way. So, we don’t even know what the church might be passing in August. So, to kind of pre-emptively react to an unfinished process might not be the most helpful thing I could do for the conversation.”

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Birth of the Red-Letter Christian Movement

by Anthony Wade
OpEd News
January 14, 2006

Christianity has been hijacked. Christ himself has been hijacked and in the words of theologian Jim Wallis, it is time to take Him back. As a born again Christian with a social conscience in latter day America, identity has always been a struggle. The reason for that is if you believe in the heart of Christ’s teachings, you often do not have a pulpit in modern Christianity. This is because too often the only Christians willing to step up to the microphone are the fundamentalists on the religious right. Between the calls for war with no end, the advocacy of the assassination of Hugo Chavez and support for a most immoral, and anti-Christian budget in modern history, it is no wonder there are so many Christians on the outside of the debate looking in, wondering where their collective voice can be heard.

As I sit in Washington DC listening to Mr. Wallis, at the Politics and Spirituality National Conference, I am hearing my own concerns echoing in my head. I have often wondered when Jesus Christ became a pro-war, pro-rich and only pro-American figure. I am convinced it is the last one that gives people so much trouble. We live in a me-first, materialistic, greedy society. Too often this leads us to think of God in terms of our country first, and too often, only. However, as Wallis points out, once we start viewing God in those terms, our country itself becomes an idol which we worship in lieu of God. The fact of the matter is that all of the people on this planet are God’s children and we just happen to be the most blessed. What do we do with those blessings?

Yesterday, 30,000 children died on this planet because of poor drinking water or lack of food. Today, another 30,000 died and the same will perish tomorrow. One half of God’s children “live” on less than $2.00 per day. Are these the values Christ taught when He walked the earth? It has been said there are over 2,000 verses in the Bible speaking specifically about taking care of the poor. We all breeze by the “widow and orphans” verses and never truly comprehend the message God is giving us. The ministry of Christ was not about what we can accumulate. Naked you came into the world and naked you will go out. Jesus spoke not of hatred for homosexuals or conservative values. He spoke about social justice. He spoke about how we were to live our lives in relation to one another. He spoke about love, redemption, and peace.


To hear some politicians speak about Christ one could easily become confused. They have handpicked two issues, abortion and gay marriage and turned them into the entire platform of family values. What about the impoverishing of a nation while a world starves? As Christians, we are charged with saving all people, not just those in our neighborhood, or even our country. What about the environment and the world we will leave for our children? As Wallis has correctly pointed out, this is not a right or a left issue because the right is wrong and the left doesn’t get it. Unfortunately, the powers that be want that palpable split in this country. They want people to view themselves in terms of these two polar opposites. They feed off the division while their own selfish motives walk right on by. That is the only explanation for how it is the Christians that are supposedly on the side of tax breaks for the rich, cuts to vital services for the poor, and wars in the name of freedom.

The fact is there should be neither right nor left, just what is correct in the eyes of God. Unfortunately, churches today are failing today to send that message as they too often politicize from the pulpit because they are willing to buy into the splitting of God’s people down ideological lines. While some churches are very good at individual salvation, the more global message within the teachings of Christ is lost. As Wallis put it this weekend, churches are good at pulling the bodies out of the river, but at some point someone needs to go upriver and see who keeps throwing them in. What you end up with is churches that only are interested in the fringes of our lives.

The result is a furthering of the identity crisis amongst people of faith. Christians who consider themselves on the right are sold out to abortion and gay rights so they end up supporting war and poverty. Christians who consider themselves on the left are often embarrassed to admit their political leanings while they have to listen to people like Jerry Falwell say that George Bush should “blow all the terrorists away in the name of the Lord.” Then there are people who find themselves in the middle, realizing neither side is absolutely right or wrong. They realize that the true teachings of Christ encompass a global sense of social justice. They realize that being pro life means ALL life because God’s arm is not short. It can reach down to the murderer on death row and to the deserts of Iraq. They realize that tomorrow, 30,000 children will die around the world while Christians in this country squabble over what side of the political spectrum they line up on.

They “get it” but it often appears that no one is listening to the words of Christ amidst the shouting. They are starting a movement to change the direction of the winds in this country and people are starting to listen. According to Wallis, the monologue of the religious right is over and the dialogue of the red-letter Christian is beginning to take hold in this country. In a world that desperately needs to hear the saving message of Jesus Christ and in a country that has hijacked Christ himself, this movement’s identity can be brought back to the letters in red found in the Bible. They are the words of Christ, too often forgotten or overlooked amidst the political wrangling, but no more.


Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 41-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

ELCA ready to issue stance on gay ordination

ELCA ready to issue stance on gay ordination
By JEFF STRICKLER, Star Tribune

Last update: February 13, 2009 - 2:47 PM

The battle lines are about to be drawn for this summer's confrontation over the ordination of gay people by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).

With the matter scheduled for a vote at the biannual national convention in Minneapolis in August, church leaders will release a position paper Thursday that is expected to indicate their stance on the issue.

This is the second public step in a process that began in 2001 when the ELCA Churchwide Assembly commissioned a social statement on human sexuality.

A draft version of that study, "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust," was released last March and distributed to congregations for reaction. That report, which did not take a stand on gay ordination, also will be released in a revised version that incorporates members' comments.

But the main focus is going to be on the second document, which will address recommendations for possible changes in the standards for clergy and professional lay workers in the ELCA.

Evangelicals at a Crossroads

Evangelicals at a Crossroads (by Lisa Sharon Harper)
By: Guest Blogger
Thursday February 12, 2009
Categories: Evangelicals
Lisa Sharon Harper is co-founder and executive director of New York Faith & Justice and author of Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican...or Democrat.

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is standing at a crossroad. It faces an opportunity to learn from the past and grow stronger or to protect the past from critique and forge an irrelevant future.

On December 2, 2008, Rich Cizik, veteran NAE lobbyist and media spokesperson, confided on National Public Radio that his position on gay civil unions was shifting to fall more in line with younger evangelicals, who tend to rank the issue low on their list of concerns. Eight days later, Cizik was shifted out of his position as NAE Director of Government Affairs. According to a report in Christianity Today, Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, wrote to board members: "Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized, and affirmed our values, there is a loss of trust in [Cizik's] credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituencies."

With the choice of its next Director of Government Affairs, the NAE will decide its relevance in society and within the evangelical church for the next generations. The role could remain that of a political spokesperson, beholden to constituents' ideologies and politics or the organization could recognize its changing context and do a new dance. It could pick a prophetic leader in the vain of evangelical ancestors like William Wilberforce, Charles Finney, and Sojourner Truth--one with the capacity to call the church to live into its best self, while calling the nation to do the same.

But the NAE doesn't trace its roots to those reformers. Its website claims a history ingited by and enmeshed with the social conservative movement of the mid-twentieth century, which eventually aligned itselfwith the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan won the presidency. It should be no surprise, then, that NAE members grumbled upon word of Cizik's shift. But, the organization's stunted account of its lineage is problematic for two reasons: 1) it renders the NAE irrelevant to the next generation of evangelicals and 2) it ties the NAE to a failed social movement--one that failed largely because of the direction evangelicals took it.

The next generation of evangelicals increasingly traces its roots to the reform movements of the late 18th and 19th centuries and aligns itself with the words and person of Jesus who affirmed the dignity of all life--especially those on the margins of society. Younger evangelicals call for a consistent ethic of life--one that fights for fewer abortions and no genocide, or slavery, or torture or extraordinary rendition, no unjust war, the abolition of the prison industrial complex, the end of poverty and gender and racial injustice, and the enactment of universal healthcare, and the protection of God's creation, and the protection of God's people from toxins dumped into their environment. The NAE's limited account of its evangelical roots - one intertwined with the social conservative movement alienates it from the next generations of evangelicals who are drawing their inspiration from the words of Jesus and the faith of our revivalist forebearers.

Second, "Conservatism is dead," says Sam Tanenhaus in The New Republic (February 18, 2009). Tanenhaus argues "What passes for conservatism today would have been incomprehensible to its originator, Edmund Burke..." According to Tanenhaus, the conservative movement commenced its slow death when it veered from Burke's call to be enslaved to no ideology. Instead, Burke said, take stock of societal changes and adjust for the good of the conservation of civil society and "a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation."

But the NAE and many white evangelicals of the twentieth century aligned with the strain of the conservative movement that warred against Burke; making ideology its primary weapon in a counterrevolution committed to the restoration of America's pre-welfare state. This was the same strain that promoted racial segregation and mounted a coordinated defense against the civil rights movement: "We are only trying to preserve our way of life," they said.

Since those days, evangelicals and the NAE have come a very long way. No small debt of gratitude is owed to Rich Cizik for his ground-breaking work with the NAE. Chief among his accomplishments is certainly the policy document, For the Health of the Nations: an Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility. In fact, the NAE will require that the next Director of Government Affairs use that document to communicate the values and principles of the organization to elected officials.

Still, in light of Cizik's swift ouster, the universal temptation to protect the past from critique, and the NAE's changing evangelical and political contexts, the NAE must move boldly and swiftly to face and reconcile with its history in grace and truth--all of it. To find relevance in the 21st century the NAE must choose a Director of Government Affairs with capacity to embrace and lead the next wave of evangelicals into proclamation and practice of the whole gospel.

American TV station pulls homophobic infomercial after gay complaints

American TV station pulls homophobic infomercial after gay complaints
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • February 13, 2009 - 16:26

A local television station in the United States has pulled a one hour programme paid for by a notoriously homophobic "family" group.

The American Family Association (AFA) had paid for airtime on WOOD-TV in Michigan to screen Speechless: Silencing the Christians.

It claims to "reveal the truth about the radical homosexual agenda and its impact on the family, the nation and religious freedom."

WOOD-TV General Manager Diane Kniowski said earlier this week that it would not run the AFA programme this Saturday as planned.

"Our station is being bombarded with calls and messages, and we find ourselves in the middle of someone else's fight," she said.

"Ours was a fair offer and we are removing ourselves from this matter."

The programme, which is available online, claims hate crimes laws target preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality, gays play a key role to play in the spread of all STDs and HIV/AIDS and employment protection based on sexual orientation will force churches to hire homosexuals.

The Human Rights Campaign, America's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organisation, had urged its members to contact the station and ask that they pull the programme.

"I am so proud of our members who answered the lies and distortions of the AFA and stopped this campaign of hate and deception," said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

"Our community stood up and would not let those lies stand.

"This should be our wake up call. We are poised to make real progress, for the first time, for millions of LGBT Americans.

"We know it and so do our opponents.

"We must stand guard and not allow them to stop these overdue, basic protections by rolling out the same, tired script albeit in new packaging.

"Today's action proves we have the voices and the power to demand a fair fight and a fair debate."

The AFA programme is shown on Christian cable networks.

"The 13-week series will air on INSP each Saturday night," according to the programme's website

"It will be posted on SilencingChristians.com at the same time."

It is hosted by Janet Parshall. In 2006 she suggested Matthew Shepard's lifestyle was responsible for his murder and called gay adoption "state-sanctioned child abuse."

The AFA "motivates and equips citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values."

It has organised a series of boycotts against companies they claim "promote" a gay lifestyle by supporting gay equality groups or featuring positive representations of gay and lesbian people in their advertising.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Focus gives $657,000 to support California Prop. 8

Focus gives $657,000 to support California Prop. 8
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – A Colorado Springs-based evangelical group spent more than three times the amount spent by the Mormon church to support a California ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage.
Data released last week by the California secretary of state’s office show Focus on the Family donated $657,000 in money and services to ProtectMarriage.com, a California coalition that supported Proposition 8.
A September report indicated Focus on the Family had contributed $448,406. Focus vice president of media relations Gary Schneeberger says the most recent figure includes the value of non-cash contributions such as mailing costs and time on radio programs.
The data also indicate Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints donated $189,000 to support Proposition 8.

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=14021

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Faith office

Faith office
by Jennifer Vanasco - SGN Contributing Writer

Josh DuBois might be called a New Evangelical. He is a Pentecostal pastor (with a master's degree in public affairs from Princeton) who believes Jesus is his personal savior.

But he also seems to put more weight on the social gospel (that is, that Christians should take care of the poor and the disenfranchised) than on the old Evangelical hammers of Gays and abortion.

Now the 26-year-old has a new position: head of the new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Under Bush, this was called the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, and it spent a lot of money pushing abstinence-only programs.

Obama's idea is different. The office will go beyond grant giving to find ways to partner with religious organizations to find solutions to social problems. Most notably, at least for Gays and Lesbians, the Faith-Based Council will forbid religious organizations from discriminating against Gays and Lesbians when they hire for programs that are taxpayer supported.

That means if a church applies for a grant to fund a program that feeds the needy, the organization can't refuse to hire chefs or program directors or secretaries for the program just because they're Gay.

And yet, it's not enough just to prove fairness in hiring. Gays and Lesbians are rightly suspicious of federal programs that purport to be "faith based." For too long, faith has been a tool of exclusion for us. We've gotten used to hearing political leaders tell us they want to take our rights away because of their own superior "family values."

We might also be suspicious of Josh DuBois. DuBois has been silent about his personal beliefs on religious right touchstones like homosexuality and abortion, but I suspect he's not a religious centrist, despite being a Democrat. Columnist Sally Quinn notes that DuBois was the person who first floated Rick Warren's name as a possibly inaugural speaker.

DuBois, who was in charge of faith-based outreach for the Obama campaign as well, also put together the program that featured Donnie McClurkin, an "ex-Gay" gospel singer who has said that "homosexuality is a curse."

Yet I'm going to give DuBois - and Obama - the benefit of the doubt here. DuBois is young. I don't think he did these things to send a message to Gays and Lesbians - I think he did these things because he doesn't figure us in at all.

And maybe that's partly our fault.

Gays and Lesbians have given religion over to the right. This is not good. There are many religions that have denied us our personhood; there are many of us who have been hurt by the religious traditions we grew up in. But Gays are a diverse people, and there are many of us who are religious or spiritual - and we should not be ignored by a national program that should serve the whole country.

My hope is that Gay religious organizations will approach DuBois's office about funding their valuable social service programs that assist homeless Queer youth, people with AIDS, and other disenfranchised LGBT communities. And that we will all make noise about it until we know that our programs are being treated equally.

There are plenty of Gays and Lesbians who will disagree with me here. They think that religion is poison, and we are fools to drink it. We shouldn't want to be part of a club that doesn't want to grant us membership. They think we should fight the existence of a faith-based anything in the West Wing.

That is a battle we won't win, not this time around, not with a president who was partly elected through the voter turnout strength of the black church.

But in any case, seeking equity when it comes to this new President's Council isn't a referendum on religion. It's about fairness. Take the military as an example. I'm not too keen on the whole military-industrial complex. But if there are Gay people who want to fight in the military, then I support their right of equal access. It is not for me - but I will not deny my Gay brothers and sisters their own choice.

If there is a federal conduit for getting funds to religious organizations, then Gay religious organizations should be getting equal access to those funds. Any President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships should not only be reaching out to Evangelicals - it should also be reaching out to us.

Jennifer Vanasco is an award-winning, syndicated columnist. Follow her on Twitter at twitter.com/JenniferVanasco. E-mail her at jennifer.vanasco@gmail.com.

http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews37_06/page6.cfm

Orthodox Anglicans Don't Expect Unity for Long

Orthodox Anglicans Don't Expect Unity for Long
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Feb. 10 2009 12:55 PM EST
[-] Text [+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic
Days after Anglican leaders came out of a global meeting pleased with the respect and graciousness that were exchanged despite ongoing internal conflicts, one prominent conservative bishop demanded that the "bitter truth" be acknowledged – that their differences are irreconcilable.

In an open letter addressed to Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, who is considered the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, Nigerian Archbishop Peter J. Akinola expressed his discontentment with the churches in North America and their continued pro-gay actions.

"It now seems increasingly clear that without a radical change of behavior on the part of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada the only possible outcome of such a process is acknowledgment of a bitter truth that the differences in the words of Archbishop Idris Jones are 'irreconcilable,'" Akinola wrote in the letter, released Tuesday.

During a Feb. 1-5 meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, Anglican leaders agreed to maintain a moratorium on the ordination of openly gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions as they try to move forward to mend their rifts and re-establish mutual trust.

Some Anglicans in North America, however, have taken steps to start blessing same-sex unions, Akinola noted. The Diocese of Virginia adopted an amendment, days before the Anglican meeting, affirming "the inherent integrity and blessedness of committed Christian relationships between two adult persons."

Also, the Diocese of Toronto put forward a proposal last week to allow some parishes to offer blessings – although not the nuptial blessing – to same-sex couples.

"I have learned that even as we met together in Alexandria actions were taken that were in direct contradiction to the season of deeper communion and gracious restraint to which we all expressed agreement," wrote Akinola, who attached documents that outline the "heresies" of The Episcopal Church – the U.S. arm of Anglicanism – and the Anglican Church of Canada and how they are both "destroying the foundations of Anglican Christianity."

"I know that you are grieved by the continuing brokenness of our Communion," Akinola wrote to Williams, "but I believe that healing will only come when we face into the true reality of our situation."

At their most recent meeting, Anglican bishops who lead the Communion's national churches had discussed much of the conflicts and theological debates that have been fracturing the global body.

Controversy in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion had heightened when The Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, in 2003.

Many described the tone of the latest meeting as calm and respectful, unlike previous meetings, and they acknowledged the brokenness of the Communion and the complexity of the situation.

Although the bishops were able to achieve a spirit of grace and love and take steps to try to restore unity, some have come to the conclusion that in the long term, the Anglican Communion cannot stay together.

"It is divided because we don't agree," the Most Rev. Gregory Venables of the conservative Southern Cone told VirtueOnline, a conservative online publication. "We found ways to set up to see if we can talk to one another. We found theological definitions about why we don't agree. We might be able to have meetings in the future but we will always disagree. There is no denial that we are not in communion."

He added, "We were all agreed. There are two very different understandings of the Christian Faith now living together, indeed at war with one another in the Anglican Communion and the situation has no long term resolution. It would take a miracle to keep it together and Dr. Rowan Williams understands that. He will try and keep it together for as long as he can under his watch."

Gay Marriage Rally in Front of OC Church Has a Twist This Time

Gay Marriage Rally in Front of OC Church Has a Twist This Time
Posted by Matt Coker in A Clockwork Orange, Gay Marriage, Gimme That OC Religion
February 10, 2009 11:37 AM
Permalink | Comments (0)

Ho-hum, supporters of marriage equality are planning a big rally outside yet another Orange County church. Tell it to Rick Warren. Or Ted Haggard. Or Mormony McMormon. Maybe they'll get all fired up by signs stating, "No on Hate--No on Prop 8," "I Want to See My Daddies MARRIED!" and "Jesus Loves Everyone." The rest of us need naps.

Well, as it turns out, the March 5 rally at Church of the Foothills in Santa Ana is church-sanctioned, as opposed to those outside Warren's Saddleback Church and elsewhere these past couple months that disrupted entry to Sunday services.

"In the midst of conservative Orange County, which was not only a major source of funding for the proposition, but also voted overwhelmingly in support of it, Church of the Foothills has long championed progressive Christian values," states the Marriage Equality Rally announcement. "By showing opposition to Prop 8, this protest will affirm the love that Jesus showed to all, and continue his message of peace, justice and equality for all mankind."

Gays, straights, kids and LGBT couples are invited from 4 to 6 p.m. on March 5, a Thursday, at the church, 19211 Dodge Ave. (at Newport Boulevard), Santa Ana. The timing is critical due to the Prop. 8 case that the California Supreme Court will soon consider. Their decision could potentially invalidate the first gay wedding ceremony performed in an Orange County church. Now were would that have been? Let Kergan Edwards-Stout at (714) 552-2348 tell you when you call for more Marriage Equality Rally details. You can also send an email here.

Presbyterians to Study Civil Unions

Presbyterians to Study Civil Unions
Tuesday February 10, 2009
The Presbyterian Church (USA) has tapped a 13-member committee to investigate the place same-sex unions should have in Christianity and wider society and issue a report in 2010.

The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, who is currently serving a two-year term as the church's moderator and who chose members of the panel, said it is composed of theologians, lawyers, pastors and professionals from an array of theological backgrounds.

"I know there will be a lot of commentary on the choices I have made," Reyes-Chow, pastor of a San Francisco church, said on his blog before making the announcement, "and on the work that they will do."

Like most mainline Protestant denominations, the PC(USA) has been divided for years about the role of gays and lesbians in the church.

Currently, 173 presbyteries, or local governing bodies, are voting on whether to allow gay and lesbian ministers. Clergy are allowed to bless same-sex unions so long as the relationship is not equated with marriage.

Meanwhile, state courts have offered differing rulings on the legality of gay marriages -- they are legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut but illegal in many other states.

Reyes-Chow said in an interview that the committee will "make sure we understand what we're talking about when we discuss marriage in a religious setting or marriage in a civil institution."

The General Assembly, the 2.2-million member PC(USA)'s highest lawmaking body, directed Reyes-Chow to appoint the committee and to potentially offer policy recommendations.

Specifically, the committee is tasked with researching: the history of laws governing marriage and civil unions; how the theology and practice of marriage have developed in the Reformed and broader Christian tradition; the effects of current laws on same-sex partners and their children; and the place of same-sex partnerships in the Christian community.

Reyes-Chow said the committee is part of a Presbyterian belief in communal discernment.

"In the end it may take longer and it may be more frustrating,"
Reyes-Chow said, "but it's the best way to determine (guidelines) for our church."


By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service

Civil unions and gay marriage: How can we be faithful? - Opinions

Civil unions and gay marriage: How can we be faithful? - Opinions

Verses of gay affirmation

Verses of gay affirmation

I am not Christian but I believe quite a few who frequent this thread are and a lot of homophobes, religious or not, seem to use the Bible against us. So I thought i'd post these articles with their interpretations and see what all of you think. The majority voice in most religions at the present time is homophobic. But with more education we can change this. I thought the following would be helpful to Christians here.

Jesus affirmed a gay couple.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

The Greek word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner.

From our days in Sunday school, many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. This story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so — he believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be healed. Marveling at the man’s faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed. Luke tells a similar story.

Just another miracle story, right? Not on your life!

In the original language, the importance of this story for gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians is much clearer. The Greek word used in Matthew’s account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.” (See note 18.) Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers.

To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms. In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships. Under the law, the wife was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just above that of slave. Moreover, in Jesus’ day, a boy or girl was considered of marriageable age upon reaching his or her early teens. It was not uncommon for boys and girls to marry at age 14 or 15. (See note 19.) Nor was it uncommon for an older man to marry a young girl. Fortunately civilization has advanced, but these were the norms in the culture of Jesus’ day.

In that culture, if you were a gay man who wanted a male “spouse,” you achieved this, like your heterosexual counterparts, through a commercial transaction — purchasing someone to serve that purpose. A servant purchased to serve this purpose was often called a pais.

The word boy in English offers a rough comparison. Like pais, the word boy can be used to refer to a male child. But in the slave South in the nineteenth century, boy was also often used to refer to male slaves. The term boy can also be used as a term of endearment. For example, Jeff’s father often refers to his mother as “his girl.” He doesn’t mean that she is a child, but rather that she is his “special one.” The term boy can be used in the same way, as in “my boy” or “my beau.” In ancient Greek, pais had a similar range of meanings.

Thus, when this term was used, the listener had to consider the context of the statement to determine which meaning was intended. Some modern Christians may be tempted to simply declare by fiat that the Gospels could not possibly have used the term pais in the sense of male lover, end of discussion. But that would be yielding to prejudice. We must let the word of God speak for itself, even if it leads us to an uncomfortable destination.

Is it possible the pais referred to in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 was the Roman centurion’s male lover? Let’s look at the biblical evidence.

The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional Greek words are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the centurion’s entimos doulos. The word doulos is a generic term for slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son/boy. Thus, Luke’s account rules out the possibility the sick person was the centurion’s son; his use of doulos makes clear this was a slave. However, Luke also takes care to indicate this was no ordinary slave. The word entimos means “honored.” This was an “honored slave” (entimos doulos) who was his master’s pais. Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option — he was his master’s male lover. (See note 20.)

A second piece of evidence is found in verse 9 of Matthew’s account. In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power to heal by simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do something, he does it.” By extension, the centurion concludes that Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be carried out. When speaking here of his slaves, the centurion uses the word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person. He uses a different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to draw a distinction. (In Luke, it is others, not the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos doulos.) Again, the clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover.

The third piece of evidence is circumstantial. In the Gospels, we have many examples of people seeking healing for themselves or for family members. But this story is the only example of someone seeking healing for a slave. The actions described are made even more remarkable by the fact that this was a proud Roman centurion (the conqueror/oppressor) who was humbling himself and pleading with a Jewish rabbi (the conquered/oppressed) to heal his slave. The extraordinary lengths to which this man went to seek healing for his slave is much more understandable, from a psychological perspective, if the slave was his beloved companion.

Thus, all the textual and circumstantial evidence in the Gospels points in one direction. For objective observers, the conclusion is inescapable: In this story Jesus healed a man’s male lover. When understood this way, the story takes on a whole new dimension.

Imagine how it may have happened. While stationed in Palestine, the centurion’s pais becomes ill — experiencing some type of life-threatening paralysis. The centurion will stop at nothing to save him. Perhaps a friend tells him of rumors of Jesus’ healing powers. Perhaps this friend also tells him Jesus is unusually open to foreigners, teaching his followers that they should love their enemies, even Roman soldiers. So the centurion decides to take a chance. Jesus was his only hope.

As he made his way to Jesus, he probably worried about the possibility that Jesus, like other Jewish rabbis, would take a dim view of his homosexual relationship. Perhaps he even considered lying. He could simply use the word duolos. That would have been accurate, as far as it went. But the centurion probably figured if Jesus was powerful enough to heal his lover, he was also powerful enough to see through any half-truths.

So the centurion approaches Jesus and bows before him. “Rabbi, my . . . ,” the word gets caught in his throat. This is it — the moment of truth. Either Jesus will turn away in disgust, or something wonderful will happen. So, the centurion clears his throat and speaks again. “Rabbi, my pais — yes, my pais lies at home sick unto death.” Then he pauses and waits for a second that must have seemed like an eternity. The crowd of good, God-fearing people surrounding Jesus probably became tense. This was like a gay man asking a televangelist to heal his lover. What would Jesus do?

Without hesitation, Jesus says, “Then I will come and heal him.”

It’s that simple! Jesus didn’t say, “Are you kidding? I’m not going to heal your pais so you can go on living in sin!” Nor did he say, “Well, it shouldn’t surprise you that your pais is sick; this is God’s judgment on your relationship.”

Instead, Jesus’ words are simple, clear, and liberating for all who have worried about what God thinks of gay relationships. “I will come and heal him.”

At this point, the centurion says there is no need for Jesus to travel to his home. He has faith that Jesus’ word is sufficient. Jesus then turns to the good people standing around him — those who were already dumbfounded that he was willing to heal this man’s male lover. To them, Jesus says in verse 10 of Matthew’s account, “I have not found faith this great anywhere in Israel.” In other words, Jesus holds up this gay centurion as an example of the type of faith others should aspire to.

Jesus didn’t just tolerate this gay centurion. He said he was an example of faith — someone we all should strive to be like.

Then, just so the good, God-fearing people wouldn’t miss his point, Jesus speaks again in verse 11: “I tell you, many will come from the east and the west [i.e., beyond the borders of Israel] to find a seat in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs [i.e., those considered likely to inherit heaven] will be thrown into outer darkness.” By this statement Jesus affirmed that many others like this gay centurion — those who come from beyond the assumed boundaries of God’s grace — are going to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. And he also warned that many who think themselves the most likely to be admitted will be left out.

In this story, Jesus restores a gay relationship by a miracle of healing and then holds up a gay man as an example of faith for all to follow. So consider carefully: Who is Lord — Jesus or cultural prejudice?



http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html

Jesus said some are born gay.
Here Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men. Jesus indicates that being a "born eunuch" is a gift from God.

Some Christians confidently assert that God did not create homosexual people "that way." This is important because they realize if God did create gays "that way," rejecting them would be tantamount to rejecting God’s work in creation. In pressing their “creation order” argument, some Christians are fond of saying, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" To bolster their position, they often cite Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-5, where he responds to a question about whether divorce is permissible:

“Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ”

From these words, some Christians draw the conclusion that heterosexuality is the creation norm and, thus, heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate way for people to form romantic relationships. Ironically, Jesus’ own words in this very same passage refute these conclusions.

As the dialogue continues, Jesus’ disciples are disturbed by his strict teaching on divorce. The disciples say that if divorce is not a ready option, perhaps it would be best for a man not to marry a woman. Jesus responds:

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

Here Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God. Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males. But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire. (For a complete discussion of the term "born eunuch" and the connection with homosexuality, see The Early Church Welcomed a Gay Man.) As a reasonably informed person of his time, Jesus would have been aware of this common view of eunuchs. Yet he very matter-of-factly asserts that some people are simply born that way. The implication of his statement is profound — God created gay people the way they are! Jesus says so.

Unlike Rabbi Eliezer, Jesus feels no need to “cure” these born eunuchs. He speaks no words of condemnation. Rather he lists people born gay alongside another honored class (eunuchs for the kingdom), and accepts them as a natural part of God’s creation order.

Thus, when Matthew 19 is read as a whole, we see Jesus teaches that most people are created for heterosexual marriage. (We too accept this as God’s predominant creation paradigm.) But, unlike some modern Christians, Jesus does not see this as the only honorable way to live. He acknowledges that some human beings have been created by God to follow a less common, but equally legitimate path. There are some who have been eunuchs from birth — made that way by God.

For Further Study
Books
The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley "Short, clear, and amazingly easy to read, this book does much more than offering loopholes or excuses with regards to the Bible. Instead, the authors combine careful research with a tremendous respect for God's Word, using humor, personal stories, and Biblical examples to make their case." --review from GayChristian.net. Most of the text on this site is from The Children Are Free. The Good Book by Rev. Peter Gomes Some people idolize the Bible, and others discount it. Rev. Gomes does neither. This thoughtful book describes the nature of Bible abuse in the church throughout history, and proposes a way to read the Bible without neglecting either its Divine inspiration or its cultural context. Holy Homosexuals : The Truth About Being Gay or Lesbian and Christian by Rev. Michael S. Piazza Rev. Piazza makes his case elequently in a book suitible for lay people and clergy alike. Piazza shows a deep respect for scripture, while educating the reader on context in both Hebrew and and Greek society. Is It a Choice? Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Gay & Lesbian People, Third Edition by Eric Marcus Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott This compasionate book examines the meanings and intents of Scripture, but also speaks of real people's lives, and challenges Christians (gay and not) to re-examine their attitudes toward gay and lesbian people. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church by Jack Rogers Evangelical theologian and former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Jack Rogers observes that today's church is led by many of those who were once cast out: people of color, women, and divorced and remarried people, and he argues that we must interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus' redemptive life and ministry. Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible by Rev. Elder Nancy Wilson (This title is out of print, but Amazon usually has used copies available.) Our Tribe is the anecdotal, scripture-citing, and very funny memoir of the ministry of Rev. Wilson, Moderator of the Metropolitan Community Churches.
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak An examination of all of the Biblical passages that are commonly used to condemn gay people and gay behavior. The methods of Biblical interpretation, and their validity, are explained well.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Reasoning Together

EMU Professors Write Book On Homosexuality

By Heather Bowser

Friends and Eastern Mennonite University professors Ted Grimsrud (left) and Mark Thiessen Nation wrote "Reasoning Together: A Conversation On Homosexuality," a book about the differing views Christians have about homosexuality.

Photo by Thomas J. Turney

HARRISONBURG - Homosexuality.

For church people, it's a sensitive subject, to say the least. Is it a sin? Is it natural? Does it matter? What about marriage? The answers sometimes polarize congregations or even rip apart entire denominations.

But two Eastern Mennonite University professors, friends with opposite points of view, say that people, especially church people, still need to talk about homosexuality, even though the conversations can sometimes get heated and ugly.

In November, Mark Thiessen Nation, professor of theology at Eastern Mennonite Seminary, and Ted Grimsrud, EMU professor of theology and peace studies, published a book called "Reasoning Together: A Conversation On Homosexuality."

The two Harrisonburg men - who converted to the Mennonite church as adults and are not gay - say they are trying to get members of their denomination talking about the subject, and to do so openly and peacefully.

Nation takes the "traditional" "welcoming but not affirming" standpoint on the subject while Grimsrud believes that Christians should affirm homosexual marriages as legitimate relationships.

Together, they want to "foster growth and understanding" between the two groups. As far as they know, theirs is the first book published that tackles the subject in a dialogue, back-and-forth dialogue format.

"We are a peace church," said Nation, 55. "We try to relate to each other in a way that's respectful, even when it's difficult."

His friend agreed.

"Neither one of us have particularly new or unique insights," said Grimsrud, 54. "The real point is that we still keep talking without ignoring our differences. This issue is important and it's not going away."

Grimsrud's Story

For Grimsrud, the topic of homosexuality became an issue to him more than three decades ago when he lived in Eugene, Ore.

That year, Eugene's city council passed a law forbidding discrimination because of sexual orientation. The townspeople opposed the law and a "heated" argument quickly followed and then festered. Church people got involved.

"I was really bothered by the hostility and the anger and the fear [from the members of the church]," Grimsrud said. "I came to the suspicion that the traditional view [of homosexuality] wasn't as clear as I had been taught it was."

So, he dived into the scriptures, searching for answers. And then, in the mid-1980s, he and his wife moved to California.

In 1987, after three years at the University of California, Berkeley, where Grimsrud was getting his doctorate at the Graduate Theological Union, he found more answers. For the first time, he and his wife became close friends with several gay couples, most of whom were in long-term relationships.

Monogamous same-sex "committed" relationships, he decided, are in harmony with the gospel.

Nation's Story

In the early 1980s, Nation founded and directed a Christian peace and justice organization in Champaign, Ill. There, he began a monthly study group with people from other denominations. One of the group's subjects was homosexuality.

Some of the group's members were "affirming of gay and lesbian relationships." Nation, on the other hand, believed that same-sex relationships are wrong, although all Christians, he said, are called to be kind and compassionate to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

The discussions led to an intense study of the subject and a desire to further those conversations on a larger scale.

"I decided that I needed to get a backbone and take a public position," Nation said. "Once you do that, you get labeled fairly easily."

‘Reasoning Together'

That chance came at EMU.

Although the two friends first met at a peace studies program in Indiana in 1980, it wasn't until they came to Harrisonburg that they began to really discuss homosexuality publicly.

In 2006, the professors began a series of public dialogues to discuss homosexuality and the church. They held gatherings at five venues around campus.

The discussions took off and the men eventually decided to pen their viewpoints. They finished the "Reasoning Together" manuscript in August 2007 and began selling the book for $17.99 late last year.

The 317-page book is divided into four sections. The introduction provides readers with the context for the conversation.

"This part talks about why we really can't hear each other sometimes," Nation said.

The second section details the respective arguments and outlines responses to the other person's views. This part includes extensive "theological and biblical reflection." What does the Bible say? How do gay people become gay? What should the church do about it?

In the third section, each professor asks the other two questions. Nation and Grimsrud answer each other with extensive give-and-take responses.

The final section is a jointly authored statement on the areas in which they agree.

"I don't think someone who is going to read the book is going to get an answer," Grimsrud said. "We're trying to model the conversation that is necessary."

Ancient Religious Calling Unites an Unlikely Pair

A Mormon filmmaker and lesbian priest met for a project and came to a new understanding about their faiths and themselves.

By Duke Helfand

Los Angeles Times

CHRISTINA HOUSE / TPN

Douglas Hunter and his friend the Rev. Susan Russell are inside All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif.
Information

For a clip of "The Constant Process": www.theconstantprocess.com

LOS ANGELES — Who could have foreseen what would happen between the Mormon filmmaker and the lesbian priest?

Not Douglas Hunter, even after he trained his camera on the Rev. Susan Russell.

Maybe not even Russell, who had undergone a transformation from one-time suburban soccer mom to priest and outspoken champion of gay rights.

The friendship that took root when Hunter asked Russell to play the central role in his documentary about gay marriage and theology would lead two people from different worlds to a new understanding of themselves and their faiths.

"We're all telling the same stories about God's work in our lives," said Hunter, 40, a father of three from Pasadena who discovered Russell over the Internet.

Technology might have provided the bridge, but it was an ancient religious calling that drew Hunter to Russell, a senior associate priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena.

Hunter felt a religious obligation to cross the same boundary Jesus is said to have traversed 2,000 years ago when he spoke of embracing the outsider.

Outside the circle

No group was further outside Mormon circles, Hunter thought, than gays and lesbians. Mormonism, he knew, viewed the act of homosexuality as a sin, and Mormons would become among the most generous supporters of California's Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage that was approved by voters in the autumn.

It was in early 2007, after the death of a close friend, that Hunter decided it was time to put his religious ideals to the test.

Filmmaking provided the vehicle.

A freelance postproduction supervisor for television shows, he had made two films: a documentary about rock climbing, and a short movie about a couple overcoming a marital infidelity.

His new film, he reasoned, would allow him to explore a subject considered taboo by other Mormons, but which he could no longer ignore.

"The engagement of the 'other' was so important in the teaching of Jesus that it had to have a place of centrality in my own faith," he said. "What's your reward if you only love people who already love you?"

Hunter didn't know where to start, so he turned to his computer. He typed in random search terms: "Christian gay," "gay theology." The search led to Russell's blog, called An Inch at a Time

"I was like, 'Wow, she's fabulous. She's here in Pasadena. She's practically a neighbor.' "

Hunter sent an e-mail to Russell in June 2007, explaining he wanted to make a short documentary about the personal and spiritual challenges of gay marriage. The finished product, he said, would be submitted to an international documentary project that would broadly address the meaning of citizenship.

Russell, 54, was accustomed to interview requests in her role as president of Integrity USA, an advocacy group for gay Episcopalians. She had few qualms about sharing the details of her personal story.

Fearless streak

With a command of Christian theology and a fearless streak, she had become a national symbol in the struggle for gay equality in the Episcopal Church, a spiky-haired priest in a clerical collar who turned up on CNN and news programs such as ABC's "Good Morning America."

A few weeks after Hunter's e-mail arrived, Russell agreed to meet him.

"That first meeting was about getting my foot in the door and letting her know I was for real," Hunter recalled.

By August 2007, Russell was sitting through several hours of interviews and camera shots at the church. That material would become the heart of Hunter's 19-minute film, "The Constant Process."

In the film, Russell tells how, after college, she settled into a privileged life in Ventura, up the coast from Los Angeles, with her banker husband and two young sons. There were tennis and sailing outings on the weekends, and a golden retriever at home. But Russell felt strangely agitated.

"I had this sense that I had everything I ever wanted, you know, this really blessed life, and then I had this imploding thought in my head. ... Is that enough?" she says in the film. "I look back on that moment as the beginning of my spiritual U-turn."

Russell felt a call to the ministry. As she grew more spiritual, however, her marriage deteriorated.

Key point in life

The turning point came during a religious conference in Virginia, where Russell met a woman who also was struggling with a troubled relationship, but with a female partner.

Russell and her new friend talked at length about their lives. When the woman asked if Russell might be gay, Russell answered, "I'm quite sure I'm not gay."

But the question weighed on her. Why hadn't she ever entertained the possibility? Was there something inherently wrong with being gay?

The next day, during a service at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., Russell heard a voice in her head.

"This is how I made you," it said. "Now I need to you to go back and be the priest I made you to be."

The words seemed so loud that Russell looked around to see if anyone else heard them.

"I walked out of that service ... changed," she says in the film. "It was just really clear to me that my life didn't look like what I thought it did.

"So for me, the coming-out experience really had nothing to do with a sexual act or even a relationship or a person. It was about really, finally understanding my fullest, deepest self and getting all the pieces in place."

As Russell told her story to Hunter, he realized he wasn't just filming, he was learning. He was moved by the priest's concept of romantic love, with its emphasis on spiritual and emotional intimacy as a precursor to physical expression.

"That resonated with me and gave me a renewed appreciation of my relationship with my wife," he said.

Hunter also felt his empathy growing for gays and lesbians, especially friends who felt compelled to hide their sexual orientation. Perhaps that was because he, too, held a secret: Hunter had been abused sexually as a child by two neighbors in his native Philadelphia. He knew what it was like to hide a part of himself and pretend his life was in order. "I kept that locked away."

Becoming friends

Something else was occurring: Hunter and Russell were becoming friends. As Election Day neared in November, Hunter began showing up at "No on 8" rallies alongside his documentary subject.

Russell's initial curiosity about Hunter gave way to admiration, particularly over his decision to vote against the gay-marriage ban and to speak out against it. She realized she was sharing in his transformation. And that filled her with a sense of wonder.

"It isn't a risk for a priest from All Saints to go to a Prop. 8 demonstration, but it is for a devout, straight, Mormon father of three," Russell said.

Hunter had to balance his new friendship against his obligation to his church, whose members, at the urging of church leaders, were contributing millions of dollars to help pass the ban.

"As a Mormon, I have a responsibility and commitment to listen to my church leaders," he said. "At the same time, listening to my church leaders does not absolve me of the ethical responsibility to listen to the voice of the other."

The Magical Kingdom Known As Exodus International

The Magical Kingdom Known As Exodus International

February 8, 2009

By Meghan Chavalier

Founded in 1976, Exodus is an umbrella organization which has grown to include over 120 local ministries in the United States and Canada and over 150 ministries in 17 other countries. Although Exodus is formally an inter-denominational Christian entity, it is most closely associated with Protestant and evangelical denominations. The group also has monthly newsletters, annual conferences, speaking engagements and web services.

"EX-GAY ALAN CHAMBERS current President Of Exodus International"



I want to open this article by saying I respect people's rights to be whoever they want to be, but I don't like any organization which says that you can become "Un-Gay." What scares me most about Exodus International is how large this organization actually is. Have you ever been to their website? If not, and against my better judgement, here's the link Exodus International Website.

They are just another branch of "The Hate Network," in my eyes. You are born gay, you can't change that. Sure, you can try, but ultimately you will always be attracted to the same-sex.

As I skipped around their website this morning, I realized just how ridiculous this organization was.

One of the things that bothered me was how they "do but don't" link being gay to pedophelia. They don't come outright and say it, but they do say, and I quote directly from their website, " We cannot presume that all homosexuals are at a higher risk level to molest children or develop into pedophiles than are heterosexuals. Nor would it be appropriate to allow the label homosexual and pedophile to become interchangeable. At the same time, homosexual men who are unable to sustain healthy peer relationships might well find the potential for age-inappropriate attractions more real than they thought possible."

Huh? So basically they're saying gay people aren't really pedophiles, but indirectly they are because gay people can't control their urges when it comes to sexual behavior.

So let's move onto some more enlightened quotes from Exodus International's Magical Kingdom of Straightness.

On homosexuality being a threat to the American Family they say, "Abuse or feelings of rejection or alienation often create strife between parent and child at an early age sometimes, resulting in gender confusion. The gender confused child seeks to correct the growing distance between him/her and his/her same gendered parent by actions that range from total obedience to total disobedience. The emotional chaos of adolescence can cause translation of these feelings and actions into anger and bitterness toward those of the opposite sex; an overwhelming need for same sex affirmation; or even an aversion to one’s own gender assignment. As a result, gender confusion becomes defiant sexual activity (in thought or deed) and sexual satisfaction becomes the placebo for true love and acceptance. "

Once more...huh? So basically I'm transsexual because I'm sexually defiant? Well, that explains it all now doesn't it?

And now more deep thoughts from Exodus International on pondering if AIDS is God's judgement against gay people. "In brief, AIDS is better seen as a reaping of consequences than as God's wrath on a specific group. Ultimately, all death is a result of sin, whether sin inherited from Adam, or personal sin. Certain behaviors (such as sexual intercourse and sharing intravenous drug equipment) carry the risk of infection with HIV. Some engaging in these activities do not contract HIV. Yet others who do not engage in these activities--such as hemophiliacs and infants born to mothers with HIV--sometimes do contract HIV."

So basically all death is a result of sin? Got that? So if you have cancer or are hit by a car and die you're just a big old sinner and that's the price you have to pay. You shouldn't have walked across the street when the light said "Don't Walk" because it's a sin, and therefore you had to get hit by that car and die for doing it. Shame on you. (I sure hope that I don't accidentally jaywalk today)

This organization is huge, there are ministries popping up everywhere. These people are radicals no matter how they try to pass themselves off. They are not kind, loving people, they are just wolves in sheep's clothing, and nothing more than that. I have no fears about Exodus International because I'd never change who I am. I believe God made me exactly the way He/She wanted me to be. I believe God makes us all exactly who He/She wants us to be. I don't believe in organzied religion and never have and never will. I believe that God is around you, beside you, within your heart and as long as you are a loving, caring, respectful, good person you are doing exactly what He/She wants you to do in this life you've been given.

I welcome Exodus International to Contact Me if they choose to do so to comment on anything I've written today, but if they do it in hopes of changing me or my lifestyle, good luck with that. This girl isn't changing for anyone.

Michael Bussee, one of the founders of Exodus International, the largest "Ex-Gay" organization in the nation is now a gay man who speaks out against Exodus International.

Long-time ECWR Supporter Mel White to Appear on The Amazing Race

Mel and Mike More
Mel White (68); Mike White (38)
Hometown: Lynchburg, Va / Santa Monica, Calif..
Occupation: Mel (Writer, Clergyman); Mike (Writer, Producer, Actor);
Relationship: Father/Son

Mike and Mel had a pretty typical family life until Mike was 11 years old, which is when Mel told the family that he was gay. Mel and Mike’s mother remained married until Mike and his sister, Erinn, went to college. Mel is now married to his life partner of 27 years, Gary Nixon.

Mike works as a writer, director and actor in Los Angeles. His writing credits include the feature films "Nacho Libre" and "School of Rock," in which he also starred opposite Jack Black and Sarah Silverman, as well as the television series "Pasadena." Mike and Mel are eager to spend some quality time racing around the globe. Mike describes himself as entertaining, thoughtful and “ridiculously pale.” These two might not be the most physical team on the Race, but they’ll surely compensate with their wit and communication skills.

Mel, a gay-rights activist, has worked as a writer, professor, filmmaker and a pastor and is eager to have a once in a lifetime experience with his youngest child. He’s confident that his people skills will give him an advantage over some of the other Racers. He describes himself as energetic, caring and passionate and enjoys scuba diving and racquetball. When asked who he would model his style of game play after, he pointed to Season 7 winners Uchenna and Joyce, while Mike will model his game play after the "never say die" attitude of Charla and Mirna.

Mike and Mel are well-traveled, opinionated and huge fans of the Race.

The Evolution of Fundamentalism

by George Mitrovich

One of the extraordinary occurrences within American Christianity is the evolution of fundamentalism from doctrine to nomenclature. American Christian "fundamentalism", which was at the center of the epic Fundamentalist-Modernist debate of the 1920s and 30s, is still with us.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) expresses its core argument, "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy." "Verbal inspiration", fundamentalism's defining term, holds that every word and every verse of every chapter in every book of the Old and New Testaments is true - not as allegory, metaphor or symbol, but literally true.

But there is another Biblical view, one that embraces the plenary inspiration of scripture; that scripture is inspired but not infallible - plenary defines non-fundamentalist evangelicals. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), not wishing to divide these camps of Christian believers, combined the two into one, "Founded on a common acceptance of the infallibility and plenary authority of Scripture."

The question of verbal or plenary inspiration hardly drives the national debate, but fundamentalism's evolution from anti-modernity into a more broadly accepted evangelicalism masks serious differences - theological, social and political.

Part of it is due to an effort by "fundamentalist" leaders to nuance their beliefs. These are not stupid people. They understand 9/11 changed the world; that any word tied to fundamentalism and Muslim fanaticism carries societal scorn and rejection.

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Southern California and a major force within American Christianity, told the Pew Forum in 2005, "Today there really aren't that many Fundamentalists left; I don't know if you know that or not, but they are such a minority; there aren't that many Fundamentalists left in America..."

When Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central asked Warren if he's a "fundamentalist?" Warren responded, "No. A fundamentalist is somebody who stops listening. There are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist atheist, fundamentalist Secularist...Its an attitude that doesn't listen to anyone else."

But Warren's disavowal doesn't change the equation. There is a difference.

Fundamentalists are pro-life, not all evangelicals are. Fundamentalists oppose gay marriages, not all evangelicals do. Fundamentalists believe in creationism, most evangelicals accept Darwin and keep an open mind. Because they oppose abortion and gay rights, the two dominate issues of their political agenda, fundamentalists vote overwhelmingly Republican.

The fundamentalists' vote in November easily went to McCain and Palin and was nil for Obama and Biden. But the Democratic ticket scored dramatically higher among evangelicals with broader political concerns - the economy, health care, public education, the plight of the poor, Wall Street greed, women's rights, the wars in Iraq War and Afghanistan.

But to the national media, ignorant of the distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical, between adherents of verbal and plenary inspiration, all have become one.

While many fundamentalist ministers have taken noteworthy steps toward more progressive views on AIDS and the environment, as Warren laudably has, there remains a significant breech between their political views and those of evangelicals like Jim Wallis of Sojourners, sociologist and evangelist Tony Campolo, Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, and Adam Hamilton of Kansas City's United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, the largest Mainline Protestant congregation in America

Last summer John McCain and Barack Obama appeared at a nationally televised forum at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. Warren asked the candidates, "When does life begin?" Obama gave a highly nuanced answer, saying, among other things, it's "above my pay grade." McCain, conversely, answered directly and dramatically, "At conception."

Obama's answer received polite applause, McCain's, loud and sustained applause. The striking differences in reactions were no surprise: attendance was restricted to members of Saddleback - a fundamentalist Southern Baptist church.

Should that have mattered, should viewers have known of that connection? Yes, because we were in the midst of a critically close presidential campaign - and fundamentalists were potentially a swing factor in the election.

But the national media did not write that story, that the "debate" had taken place in a fundamentalist church with a fundamentalist pastor and a fundamentalist congregation. It reported the story but the references were to evangelicals; fundamentalism was not mentioned.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals share a common faith in the person of Jesus Christ, but it isn't that which separates them; they have significant differences on politics, culture, and social issues - and the dynamic of our democracy requires an understanding of those differences.

George Mitrovich is president of The City Club of San Diego and The Denver Forum, two leading American public forums, and chairs for the Boston Red Sox The Great Fenway Park Writers Series.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Gay Affirming Church Celebrates 125 years of rich history

Gay Affirming Church celebrates 125 years of rich history
By ERIC CARPENTER, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

ORANGE– Nearly 200 worshippers gathered in the rain outside First Christian Church of Orange's sanctuary on Sunday to mark the dedication of a new courtyard – a $225,000 project made possible by a substantial donation from Orange County philanthropist George Argyros. Argyros and his wife, Julia, were there to dedicate the courtyard in honor of his friend and church member, the late Rev. Dennis Savage and his wife, Mary Lou.

To outsiders, the small dedication ceremony may have seemed of little significance in a county where several multimillion-dollar megachurches have sprung up in recent decades.

But for the members of First Christian, it was a moment to take note of something rare: to celebrate the church's rich 125 years of service and to lay the foundation to continue the church for generations to come.

"This is an extension of our ministry that has been here for decades," said the Rev. Dr. Stanley Smith, pastor at First Christian. "We view this as an outdoor room that will continue our ability to do ministry …that's something to celebrate."

First Christian's roots date back to 1883 – before Orange was even a city. No Watson's Drug Store. No newspaper. No bank.

The church was built on what would become the Orange Plaza, at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Glassell Street.

As the town began to grow, the church got pushed farther east, to Chapman and Grand Street. It stood at that corner from 1887 to the late 1950s, until it got pushed out again by development. This time, Orange wanted to build a new City Hall.

So First Christian moved again, to its current location at 1130 E. Walnut Ave., in 1960.
"At that time, it seemed to be way out on the outskirts of town," Smith said. "There was nothing beyond that besides orange groves."

Sibyl Thomas remembers that move. The 84-year-old has been coming to Sunday services at First Christian for 70 years.

"This is a church with a lot of faith and dedication, love and caring," Thomas said after Sunday's courtyard dedication. "That along with good leadership has kept this church going for 125 years.

"I'm sure 125 years from now, they'll still be celebrating," she added. "I'm sure it will be a whole new technology, but I'm sure with that faith and dedication, it'll still be here."

Finding a church with that kind of history is rare but not unique in Orange – a town known for cherishing its heritage. First Christian is believed to be the fourth church founded in the community, following St. John's Lutheran, The Methodist Church and First Presbyterian.
First Christian is affiliated with Chapman University, which was found by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The church keeps a close relationship with the campus and plays a part on the university board. But it has no direct influence on the university's course offerings and encourages students to study all faiths.

The church's pastor, a 1967 graduate of Chapman, said the church has always been focused on the future. It may be old, but it's not set in its ways.

"Perhaps because of our affiliation with Chapman, we have a lot of public school teachers who are members and we are an open and affirming church," Smith said.

That means the church welcomes gay and lesbian members, as well. Church leadership takes no official position on political initiatives, but most of its members were opposed to Proposition 8, the initiative that prohibited gay marriage in California, Smith said.

"This is a congregation where you'll find all views, from Libertarians to Unitarians," Smith said. "We encourage people to get involved in their communities, but not guide their politics or viewpoints by dogma."

That philosophy attracts members of all ages.

"I'm most impressed by how many families come here to worship together," said Olivia Bryan, 29, an associate pastor who came to the church from Kentucky last year.

"You see that little girl over there?" she said, pointing Emmalee Stillson, 4. "That's her great-grandmother next to her."

"Families love this church – together," Bryan said. "So I don't think there's any question it will be here 125 years from now, too."

Friday, February 6, 2009

Book Review: Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians



It was never about “gays vs. God” for lesbian and gay Christians. In Bulletproof Faith, a lesbian minister urges us all to become fundamentalists—but not the kind you think.

Ten questions for Candace Chellew-Hodge on 
Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians. 

What inspired you to write Bulletproof Faith? What sparked your interest?
I was inspired to write Bulletproof Faith by the readers of Whosoever, the online magazine for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians that I founded in 1996. As soon as I put Whosoever on the Web, the hate mail began to pour in. People were offended that there was a magazine out there telling LGBT people not just that God loved them, but that God loved them just as they are—as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people because God had created them that way.

I heard from so many LGBT readers that they didn’t know how to respond to people who told them they couldn’t be both LGBT and Christian. I wanted to find a way to help them respond without becoming angry or becoming depressed by all the opposition around them. The idea for the book came in 1998 when I took a class in the martial art of Aikido. There are no offensive moves in Aikido—no kicks or punches. There are only defensive moves—using the momentum of your attacker to disable them. I thought it served as an excellent metaphor for “spiritual self-defense” for LGBT Christians. I also came across the Bible verse that became central to the book, 1 Peter 3:15-16: “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” Not returning hatred for hatred is the key to being bulletproof. I developed a workshop around these ideas and it morphed, some ten years later, into a full-fledged book.

What’s the most important take-home message for readers?
I want readers to understand that those we perceive as our “enemies” are really a gift to us. Those who challenge our beliefs or push our emotional buttons are in our lives to teach us how to go deeper into ourselves and defuse our emotional hot buttons. Opposition is a gift to LGBT believers because it forces us to consider our beliefs and why we believe them. We can’t complacently or blithely give our assent to beliefs like heterosexual Christians can. We have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. In doing so, we build a stronger faith and learn how to live authentically as the people God created us to be.

Is there anything you had to leave out?
Content-wise, I didn’t leave anything out. What got left out, honestly, is a large audience that may pass the book by because they don’t think it’s for them. The book holds valuable advice, not just for LGBT people, but for anyone who finds themselves in a minority position. A psychologist friend of mine who is straight and Jewish read the book and though she admitted she “didn’t get the New Testament parts,” she said the book, from a psychological point of view would be helpful to anyone trying to maintain their integrity in the face of opposition. I’m hoping that segment will give the book a chance, even if some parts may not apply.

What are some of the biggest misconceptions about your topic?
The biggest misconception is the media driven meme that there are no LGBT Christians. Most media stories turn on the idea of “gays vs. God” and pit the LGBT community against the religious community. There are many people of faith who are also gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and this book is an attempt to change this perception and give LGBT believers a ways to reclaim their voice and become part of the larger conversation.

Did you have a specific audience in mind when writing?
My specific audience is the LGBT community as well as their straight allies who are hoping to understand the hatred and vitriol that their LGBT friends and family face on a daily basis from anti-gay people of faith. Again, the scope of material in the book can be applicable to people who are not gay or not religious. Anyone who finds their position challenged can find valuable tools on how to respond to opponents while maintaining their own integrity.

Are you hoping to just inform readers? Give them pleasure? Piss them off?
My aim is twofold. I hope to arm readers with the information and tools they need to neutralize attacks on their faith. At the same time, I’m hoping to help readers move out of the usual “what the Bible says about homosexuality” arguments to find more and more areas of common ground with those who have historically been our “enemies.” I’m hoping that when LGBT believers are empowered to live authentically as the people God has created them to be, then they can confidently begin to dialogue with those who oppose acceptance of LGBT people within both church and society. Only after we’ve settled the argument within our own hearts and minds can we hope to reach out to our opponents and help them change their hearts and minds about LGBT people.

What alternative title would you give the book?
The original title was the same as the workshop it was based on—Spiritual Self-Defense for Gay and Lesbian Christians. But, I wanted a title that was a bit snappier and would grab people’s attention when they spotted it on the bookshelf. The idea of being bulletproof in the face of vicious attacks appealed to me. The publisher thought the title was too violent, but they couldn’t come up with a better one, so Bulletproof Faith stuck.

What’s your new book?
My next book urges us all to become fundamentalists. But, not the 1920s “five fundamentals” that has led to the rigidity and bigotry of today’s Christianity. Instead, I’m proposing five new fundamentals that result in a more gracious, loving, and welcoming Christianity. As a friend of mine in church once said, “We’re all fundamentalists about something. It just depends on your fundamentals.” For too long, the fundamentals emphasized by Christian leaders have led to exclusion and division. It’s time for new fundamentals that unite us as one body in Christ.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Red Letter Christianity: New Name for Progressive Evangelicals

by Tony Campolo, Eastern University

In America, over the last decade-and-a-half, Evangelicalism has become married to the Republican Party. To go on university campuses and declare oneself an Evangelical is to immediately have red flags raised by secularists. Once defined as Evangelical, it is assumed that he or she is pro-war, anti-feminist, anti-gay, pro-capital punishment, pro-gun, anti-environmentalism, and certainly part of the Religious Right.

Many of us made unsuccessful attempts to stave off such categorisations. Eventually, a group of one-time Evangelicals, drawn from the Pentecostal to the Roman Catholic communities, got together to come up with a new name. Henceforth, we said, we are no longer going to call ourselves Evangelicals. We are going to call ourselves Red Letter Christians. Our name refers to the red letters in the Bible. In many editions of the Scriptures, the words of Jesus are highlighted in red letters.

While holding to the same orthodox theologies as Evangelicals, those of us who call ourselves Red Letter Christians point out that our lifestyles are, as much as possible, those prescribed by the words of Jesus. We recognise that the ethic of Jesus, especially as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount, is a higher ethic than anything we have found in the Hebrew Bible. The call to love our enemies and to overcome evil with good has turned most of us into advocates of non-violent resistance. Certainly, we are not in favour of capital punishment, given that in the red letters we read that Jesus said, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”

The primary focus of we Red Letter Christians is on what Jesus had to say about the poor. We realise that the only description that He gave of Judgment Day (Matthew 25) was through a parable in which people were evaluated as to whether or not they fed those who were hungry, naked, sick and imprisoned. Many of us take literally the red letters stating that it would be harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. From this we have deduced that a simple lifestyle must be embraced by those who call themselves Christians and that money should no longer be spent on unnecessary luxuries, but should be spent wisely and invested carefully on behalf of those in need. Jesus said that to be one of His disciples we should be ready to sell what we have and give the money to the poor, and we take Him literally.

It is acknowledged among Red Letter Christians that the ethic of Jesus, if taken at face value, would make His followers into radical, counter-cultural persons who recognise that their American lifestyles have to be abandoned. We recognise that our lifestyles have been largely responsible for depleting the non-renewable resources of the planet, including the oceans and the air, and exploiting underpaid workers in Third World countries to produce bargains for our American consumption, and for this we must repent.

Red Letter Christians recognise that not only must we be involved on the micro level, living out the teachings of Jesus, but that we also must be intensely politically involved. But we are quick to declare that Jesus is neither Democrat nor Republican, and advocate that Red Letter Christians should invade both political parties to be “the leaven” transforming those parties in accord with the teachings of Jesus.

There have been many who have been critical of this new movement. Some have said that we hold the red letters of the Bible as being superior to the black letters, and that we have propagated the “simple lifestyle” as though it is biblically prescribed. Our response is, “You’ve got us right!”

Not only do we believe that the teachings of Jesus are superior to anything else in the Bible, but that Jesus Himself said that His words were superior to what we read in the black letters. In the Sermon on the Mount, He declared repeatedly that the teachings of old have been replaced by new ones. For instance, the Hebrew Bible had been interpreted to say that when dealing with offenses the guiding principle should be “an eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth”. But Jesus said that we are to overcome evil with good. While the Law of Moses stated that we should not commit adultery, Jesus raised the standard by saying that to be engaged in lustful behaviour (i.e., getting into pornography, engaging in sexually degrading conversations, viewing members of the opposite sex as “things” to be exploited) is to be judged as seriously as adultery. In referring to the law in the Torah that forbade murder, Jesus raised the ante when He declared that treating another person in such a way as to destroy the dignity and to diminish the humanity of that person should be regarded as though murder had been committed.

Furthermore, we believe that the black letters of the Bible cannot be understood unless we first come to grips with Jesus. Unless we understand who Jesus is and what He did through His life, death and resurrection, the rest of the Scriptures won’t really make much sense. Can we really understand the 53rd chapter of Isaiah or the 22nd Psalm without knowing about Jesus? Is there any way of understanding the allusions to Jesus that are found all through the writings of the prophets unless we understand what was revealed through Christ’s words and deeds?

Because Evangelicals have been steeped in the theology of the Pauline Epistles before they scrutinise the teachings of Jesus in the red letters of the Bible, they have read Jesus through the eyes of Paul. Red Letter Christians do just the opposite—we read Paul through the eyes of Jesus. There is no contradiction between these two perspectives, but there is a difference in emphasis. If we get into the red letters first, we will be committed to a new lifestyle even before we grapple with the sophisticated theological concepts set forth in Pauline teachings. Commitment to Christ and following His teachings becomes primary.

Rather than a new legalism, we Red Letter Christians are preaching a call to obedience to the radical teachings of Christ. We are not about to water down the red letters in the Bible in order to create an ethical lifestyle compatible with upper-middle class affluence. We believe that Jesus made perfectly clear what He expects of His disciples.

Across America, and even in other countries, there is a new church emerging that embraces the Red Letter Christian lifestyle. There is a new generation that no long ascribes to the “easy believism” that reduced Christianity to a mere affirmation of theological propositions. This new generation of Christians calls for obedience to the obvious teachings of Christ concerning wealth and power and what should be done for the poor and oppressed, and we are committed to live out His teachings.


Tony Campolo is a speaker, author, sociologist, pastor, social activist, and professor emeritus at Eastern University. His most recent book is "Red Letter Christians, A Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics". www.tonycampolo.org

The Evangelical Network Response to Ted Haggard

The Evangelical Network Response to Ted Haggard

"Now that I am disqualified, I'm qualified". Those words may never be truer coming from the once mega-star Evangelical, Ted Haggard.

As a person who knows and has seen and found God's grace and mercy, I freely give it to Ted Haggard and those who have come before him and those who will follow. All too often the church world has developed a habit of putting their leaders on pedestals but even more sadly is the overwhelming pressure to be "super-human". That simply is not possible.

I applaud Ted's willingness to be vocal about his inner struggles and it saddens me that the church environment was not safe enough for him to talk about it before. Unfortunately, it's no better today, years afterwards. What we see that has happened is the church was quick to sweep it under the carpet and try to move on. At some point the church world is going to have to stop and get real about some real life issues that they so frequently like to stick their heads in the sand about.

Let's take this one that Ted brings up and that is people are not all pre-disposed to heterosexuality or homosexuality but that he finds himself somewhere on that continuum. There's no doubt that sexuality is complex and still is greatly mis-understood by society and the medical profession at large. Only "the church" has all the answers, it would seem, but in reality they don't.

Look at this excerpt from Hillsong church (mega Evangelical church in Australia).

Issues of Sexuality & Sexual Expression
As a church we always endeavor to treat people compassionately whatever they may be facing in life.

We are a Christian Church and as such believe the Bible provides us with clear teaching on sexuality and sexual expression - heterosexual and homosexual. But I do not believe this is about rules and regulations as much as God wanting what is best for each of us.

The heart of God is toward people, and I believe that is also the heart of our church.

God has created each of us as sexual beings, and I do not believe it is His will for it to be complicated. However, I recognize that people face very real issues in regards to sexuality. I have seen this both in my wider family, our church and society more generally.

This is a global challenge that most of the world's churches are grappling with, and we, like them, are trying to balance theology with compassion.

We do not profess to have all the answers, nor has the church worldwide always got it right, but we will continue to try and connect people to Jesus because we know that hope and answers for every situation and circumstance can be found in Him.

Brian Houston
Senior Pastor, Hillsong Church


I commend Pastor Brian for his candor and willingness to just come out and say it; "We do not profess to have all the answers". How refreshing is that for an Evangelical Church to say! Applause for you Pastor Brian!

Don't get me wrong. From the tone of this editorial comment one might get the idea that I have no use for the church. That could not be further from the truth. I totally believe in the church and believe it's purpose should be to teach and equip people for ministry. Yet it must first be a safe place for people to come to, and that means a place where they can bring their ALL and not be judged by it.

I still believe in a day, that is coming, when the church will sit down with the gay community and the two will talk and try to understand one another. I believe in the day when the pre-judgement of the church towards gay people will cease and the church will see that the gay community is not a Godless community.

A part of me hopes that in some way Ted Haggard's story might rattle the cages of complacency and arrogance that comes out of many mainline Evangelical churches. I do believe that there are some evangelicals that will have a break-through because of Ted's story, and for that I'm grateful. At the same time, I'm not naive enough to think that the Evangelical community (at large) will finally get their breakthrough. Sadly, many will see this more as an opportunity to raise money or get their next foot up the evangelical political ladder; and so we will have more Ted Haggard's yet to come.

Break-through is coming..."But the time is coming-indeed it's here now-when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way. For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)