| Monday, April 07, 2008 |
| Don't Ask Don't Tell |
I will rarely post anything personal on this site because everything online is a public forum -- how quickly we forget that. Teens post their innermost thoughts and whine when parents discover a crush's name, not respecting 'privacy'. Employees are fired when opinions are posted about the competition or those at the workplace.
This is not an online diary. It is meant to be informative and opinionated -- and self-therapeutic-- and from time to time I will drift into the realm of the current state of the Church at large.
My opinion is made known, usually by the slant of my writing or articles chosen. Example from an OutofUr blog. I pulled the article and a few choice comments from both sides of the fence as well as my own. Understandably, the discussion was a little heated as this is a big red button in mainline xtianity.
There have been many "changes" in the faith and this is one of those things that I'm sure you can disagree with me on and still go to heaven. That's not the point. The point is to Love the LRD your GD with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. If you can't do that, then you have made yourself G-D and are committing idolatry. And last I checked, there weren't two different G-ds for each half of the Bible.
But that's another sermon for another time. I just live what I believe. Conversion by concussion doesn't work. It only leaves others with bad pain.
February 27, 2008A Big Can of Worms David Swanson reports on opening events from the National Pastors Convention. I arrived at the National Pastors Convention in California a day early to catch one of the pre-conference seminars: Emerging Critical Issues Facing the Church. (For this Midwesterner, the sunny blue skies of San Diego were another reason to come early.) The seminar featured four panelists—Scot McKnight, Phyllis Tickle, Andy Crouch, and Tony Jones—addressing four critical issues: the role of Scripture, the church and politics, homosexuality, and religious pluralism. These issues are as controversial as they are critical. This was clear from the spirited conversation between the panelists, the passionate questions and comments from the audience, and our moderator’s repeated requests for civil interaction. Allow me to summarize two of these conversations. Scot McKnight introduced the section on the role of Scripture. “Since high school, I’ve been perplexed about how we [Christians] read the Bible,” he began. Specifically, Scot was puzzled by how we decide what parts of the Bible were for “then” and what is for “now.” He went on to define four ways Christians make these decisions. The “return to restore” method believes we can return to a New Testament form of Christianity in order to restore the Biblical texts to their original meanings. A less idealistic version of this is the “return and retrieve” method, through which the reader approaches the text in order to decide what can be retrieved for our lives today. The panelists agreed that every Bible reader does this to some degree. The question, of course, is how we decide what to retrieve and what to leave behind. Still others approach the Scriptures through his or her “sacred tradition,” allowing their particular tradition to shape their understanding of the text. Finally, Scot described the “primacy of Scripture” method of biblical interpretation. Rather than reading through the lens of tradition, this method reads with tradition. Scot believes this is the most helpful way of reading the Bible, for it allows the church to be constantly reforming. If Scot is right that we read the Bible in these different ways, and if he’s correct that reading with tradition is the ideal, then how do we preachers and teachers help our church members read this way? Is it enough to allow our preaching and teaching to be formed by the primacy of Scripture, or must we be more blatant in explaining our methodology? Reading from an article he wrote in 2003, Andy Crouch introduced the third critical issue facing the church: homosexuality. According to Andy, “Humankind is not divided into homosexual or heterosexual categories. We are all sexual beings who tend towards self-satisfaction.” Additionally, many churches rally around these categories, “which leads to a double standard: chastity for those who are gay and a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy regarding sexuality for the rest of us.” While the panelists disagreed on whether or not homosexual practice is sinful, they were clear that the church must do a better job of pastoring those who are gay. Phyllis counseled the pastors in the room to “remember the human side—these are people, not theories, we are talking about.” Scot added, “The challenges for those pastors who are more traditional is how to create a safe environment for those who are gay to worship.” The evangelical church, he said, “has mostly failed in this area.” Tony stated that the critical question for most churches is not whether to care for those who are gay. The question many in church leadership are wrestling with is, “Can a gay person can serve in leadership? And at what level?” Can churches that understand homosexual practice to be a sin actually provide a safe space for gay worshipers? And regarding Tony’s question, should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?
David Swanson is pastor of missional ministries at Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. Posted by UrL on February 27, 2008 Sounds like some good questions to me! Especially as a seminary trained gay Christian! Posted by: PomoProphet at February 27, 2008
"Should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership". I guess I am totally misunderstanding the question here. And I think I've misunderstood this in churches for a little while now. I'm not understanding the use of the word "gay" or "homosexual". Is the question asking if someone is allowed into leadership who struggles with the temptation of homosexuality but doesn't actually commit an act of homosexuality? Or are we assuming that the words "gay" and "homosexual" are people who are actively practicing this behavior? If someone struggles with the temptation but does not give in, then allow them to lead and show the rest of us how to have that strength in our own lives as well. But if it means people who are actively participating in a homosexuality then I wouldn't say that they should have any level of leadership. Now this doesn't mean I don't want them to come to my church. I've known many decent, good people who are practicing homosexuals. But I know I would not ask them to teach, preach, or give any sort of spiritual direction. But why do churches always make things into a "gay" vs. "straight" issue? The places of our worship should be safe for anyone with any issues to come and feel free to connect to God. It doesn't matter whether you struggle with homosexuality or pride or jealousy. Do we all agree that people sin? But while I write this down, I know there is someone who will disagree with me on the issue of struggling with homosexuality. Thank you for reading my comment. I look forward to what other have to say. Posted by: Thadd Sparrow at February 27, 2008
"Should gay members of your congrgation be allowed some opportunity of leadership?" You have gay members? That is a problem in itself. Gay attenders, no problem. Membership should not be offered to anyone engaged in flaunting a sin, whether they be homosexuals, straight adulterers, or something else abhorrent to God. Posted by: Richard Dennis Miller at February 28, 2008
Why is homosexuality the ultimate test of deciding who can be in leadership and who can not? What about a person in leadership who is exposed as being addicted to pornography? What about an adulterer? In the latter two cases many times pastors or leadership are allowed to stay provided that they work on restoration. (of course this varies some) Why not work the same way with homosexuality? Homosexuality is a sin, we know that. We know that ultimately we are to work at loving the sinner and helping them be restored to being more like Christ. The question really being asked here is "will the church be mute about homosexuality, or will they look at it the same as any other sin?" What Tony Jones and the others in the Emergent movement are articulating is (at least I think) a position of love and acceptance to the homosexual who feels they would never fit in a church. Ultimately them being allowed into leadership is a church by church decision. Only the local body will know the character of the person, where they are with God, how they are working on the sins in their life etcetera. Posted by: Carl Holmes at February 28, 2008
Why do we want churches to be safe places to worship? Light and truth and mercy are risky and dangerous and threatening. Posted by: Nate at February 28, 2008
"should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?" this sounds like "should we allow the children to ride elephants during the sermon?" there is a lot of don't-ask-don't-tell going on in churches. we have become so afraid of being honest with each other and being real that no one will let any one in any more. one reason I like my church is because the music group I play in is full of "real" people. I hate defining them as that. but there are too many churches full of the usual self-perfecting congregations who believe you have to clean up before you can get through the doors. this is why my generation is leaving in droves. homosexuality is a hot-button and it shouldn't be. it is becoming less and less of an issue with my generation and the next one coming up. cue: you can begin warming up your Bibles to start quoting from Paul and Leviticus now. south africa condoned apartheid for decades, citing the biblical stories of Cain and Noah as the "mark" placed by G-d and by the curse from Noah, thus creating the black race. slavery was condoned for years because of verses in the Bible. women and their places in leadership (or lack of places in leadership), inability to own property, keeping quiet in church, and being a physically and mentally weaker sex because of verses in the Bible. financial prosperity is condoned by numerous preachers due to a select few verses in the Bible and woe to those who do not believe because it is their lack of faith. And then there is 'biblical' marketing... we often read what we wish to read. I have not read anything regarding homosexuality from Christ, for or against. really, he spoke more on the Kingdom of Heaven and money more than anything. I think these were far more important, so I've focused more on showing Christ to those who need him than focusing on someone's sexuality. I have seen many circumstances and issues "change" due to culture and time. we no longer stone non-virgins, grow our beards long, or call ourselves 'people of the way'. we even adorn our places of worship with one of the ghastliest ornaments of torture known in history. homosexuality may be one of those things that is changing. I accept my homosexual brethren and sisters because I am told that I am to love my neighbors as myself. I cannot judge them because this is a gray area for me and because I have a hard time seeing G-d as some angry Zeus character. let the casting of stones begin. Posted by: Sara at March 4, 2008
In responce to Sara, your generation is not leaving the church in droves in fact the Evangelical Church is thriving because they teach truth concerning scripture. And they are not saying get your act together before you come to God we all come to him sin and all, but upon coming we confess our sin and repent of them.
Your sarcasm concerning Lev. and Paul is surprising coming from one who claims to be a believer. Do we throw those scriptures out because our culture has "evolved" beyond them? God forbid, let me cling to his words all of them rather than the winds of cultural change. You mention treatment of blacks, but true believers could not condone the slavery of blacks in this country, it was scripture twisted to fit what sin people wanted to justify. The beards and calling ourselves people of the way, outwardly , surface things, not the things of the heart God is looking for. Take away the scriptures about Homosexuality and view Gods creation on its own and you'll see Homosexuality is unnatural, our bodies were not made for it, any Doctor can tell you that. Lets stop making God in our image, he is a God of love but also a jealous God, a Just God, a Holy God and a God of Wrath among countless other attributes. Posted by: Rich at March 5, 2008
Sara, I also love my church because people are not afraid to be real and don't have to be perfect. As someone who works with sexually broken people, I can say that I believe sexuality is deeply important to who we are as humans. Jesus showed great compassion for sexually broken people. We can talk about whether homosexuals are sexually broken (I happen to think they are); but if God is indeed calling people out of homosexuality, then it isn't because he is angry, but because he is compassionate. All this being said, I really agree with where you are starting: God calls us to love our neighbors. And we love because he first loved us, not because he threatens us into submission. I hope I can love in the same way you aspire to. Posted by: Nate at March 5, 2008
Rich:
We are not called to be perfect and holy and blameless. We are called to love others and to come as we are, without judging others that we don't know. It is then that we receive grace and forgiveness. We judge and rebuke others that we DO know -- Christians -- because we are to hold each other accountable. If you find my method a little rough, that is your perception. And Christians CAN use sarcasm and satire to make a point, especially those who "claim" to be believers. Seems I tweaked a nerve with you, sweetie. But be very careful how you go about ministering to others lest you lose out meeting some fascinating souls. Don't forget that we are all eternal beings (C.S. Lewis). Until then, see you on the other side. I'm sure you'll find many surprises.
S Deut. 6:4,5; Lev. 19:18; Mt. 12:29-31
" 'Hear, O Israel, The LRD our GD, the LRD is one. Love the LRD your GD with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength... Love your neighbor as yourself' There is no commandment greater than these." Matthew 21:31-32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."
Posted by: Sara at April 1, 2008
Labels: christian, homosexuality, human rights, spirituality |
posted by Sara @ 12:15 PM   |
|
|
|
| Thursday, February 01, 2007 |
| The Least of These |
There has been a lot of debate over who is better suited to raise children following the news that Mary Cheney and her 15-year partner, Heather Poe, are expecting. I'm very glad Ms. Cheney gave a public statement denouncing the pregnancy as a political statement: “This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child.” I agree. Children should never be used as salve to save a marriage or as bartering chips in a disintegrating relationship, to prove to overbearing parents that you're reallyreally an adult now (stomp foot for effect), to provide undying love and affection for a lonely adult when a housepet is far more appropriate, to be molded into a miniature clone for reliving unfulfilled dreams or correcting mistakes, toted as a trendy fashion accessory or because all your friends have one, or groomed as a poster child for a cause.
It's not hard to have children. Paris Hilton is proof. It is, however, hard to raise them. You see evidence of this day after day. Super Nanny and Nanny 911 show the results of parents who won't be parents, who refuse to discipline or set proper boundaries and rules because the child might not like them or may think they're *gasp* uncool. The horror! We hear heartbreaking stories of children who are abused or neglected because the kid is interfering with a previously thriving social or lovelife. In a Russian hospital, orphaned infants were found gagged with tape or plaster because their cries were too loud and distracted the nurses from their "important" duties.
Many feel that a child thrives when raised by a stable, loving family; the controversy lies with what sexes comprise that family life. Focus on the Family has been openly critical of Ms. Cheney's pregnancy due to her unmarried status. (Ok, so let her get married, then. No, wait, you don't want that either...) During a CNN interview, Wolf Blitzer took a cheap-shot at Vice President Dick Cheney, asking if he cared to respond to the criticism. Mr. Cheney rightly refused to comment on the personal matter:
BLITZER: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby, you're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?
CHENEY: No, I don't. BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter... CHENEY: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question. BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate... CHENEY: I think you're out of line. BLITZER: ...your daughters. No, we like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very
sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question. CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you. BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
Quick editorial: If Mr. Blitzer wanted to merely congratulate Mr. Cheney on having another grandchild, why didn't he just say those nine words without implying this was controversial? Many conservative groups and blogs latched onto this political teat, crying that if the VP felt so strongly about gay rights that he needed to blast his own party instead of attacking poor journalists. I found it rather humorous since most right-wingers shun liberal media as evil, biased filth -- especially CNN. Also, numerous authors and researchers cited in Mr. Dobson's letter and other writings demanded that he refrain from quoting their research as much was taken out of context and selectively eliminated findings on gay parenthood.
So what is best for the child, then? Ask any adult who survived childhood and let him educate you:
- Children need to know they are loved no matter what.
- Children need to know that there are rules and consequences.
- Children need consistency and trust.
- Children need basic physical, emotional, and spiritual needs met.
- Children need safety and security.
- Children need encouragement to pursue ambitions.
- Children need guidance during disappointments and trials.
- Children need to receive and learn patience.
- Children need ears to listen when it feels like they are the only one in the world who has experienced pain or loss.
- Children need to know that everyone (including parents) makes mistakes.
- Children need to learn "please," "thank you," and "I'm sorry."
- Children need to know that it's never too late to start over.
- Children (like adults) need to learn that the world does not revolve around them and that helping others is the best thing they can contribute.
Just because someone does not have a child of his or her own due to infertility, physical problems, personal choice, or sexual orientation, does not mean that (s)he is suddenly rendered incapable from becoming a healthy, loving parent to a biological, foster, or adopted child. Raising a child becomes a conscious decision instead of scrambling to line up "Plan C."
There are no perfect parents and we all will screw it up massively at least once. We just have to brush ourselves off, keep going, and keep our ego at the back of the line. We have been entrusted with a weighty responsibility -- someone else's life. It won't matter if Jenny has a mommy and a daddy, two mommies, or none that are even related.
Labels: homosexuality, human rights, politics |
| posted by Sara @ 12:35 PM |
|
|
|
| Monday, November 13, 2006 |
| Acceptance, Forgiveness, and Hypocrisy |
It’s been a busy few weeks. I’ve wanted to chew on this one for a while as the stones were distributed and the mobs gathered in Colorado, Virginia, New Jersey, and other localities. Several states put a twist in the mid-term elections by examining the meaning of “traditional” marriage, spawning skewed political ads that neglected to examine the real and basic purpose of state constitutions versus statutory laws. My own church stumped for approving the amendment, tacked to the end of a sermon that encouraged us to listen to the Holy Spirit in our everyday lives. Honestly, I was embarrassed. The scandal erupted soon after in Colorado Springs as accusations circulated against the former president of the National Evangelical Association, Reverend Ted Haggard. Mike Jones, a gay escort, stated that he provided massages and methamphetamine to Reverend Haggard, who called himself “Art” during their encounters. After recognizing who his client was, a man who railed against gay rights and gay marriage, Jones’ conscience got the better of him and he couldn’t keep his silence.
One man, with his reputation on the line, decided to reveal the hypocrisy in this large church. He wasn’t important. He had everything to lose. He is a prostitute. And gay, which is an even bigger sin in many eyes. But his conscience got the better of him. Not because he felt his lifestyle was wrong or he was in need of forgiveness, but he couldn't sit silent while one of his customers publicly spewed hate and disdain for the very behavior he enjoyed after the pastoral garb was hung up in the closet. Allegedly. Everyone loves to see the mighty fall. There is a certain deliciousness to find out that our pious and perfect relics and icons struggle like we do – except there often is a denial that sin continues to control. That’s the rub. Many, including our tottering “leaders,” subscribe to the Christian myth of “once converted, fully converted”. Our testimonies end after the Gratuitous Gutter Conversion. We are saved! All our struggles and desires have been fulfilled or extinguished and banished back into the Sinful World through the elusive ambrosia of Christ’s Blood. It is finished! Allegedly. So when our old addictions begin to creep back in, we secretly begin to doubt the Good News. We pray harder, we confess more, we wonder what else we can do to finally kill the ravenous beast that is threatening to steal our salvation. And we can’t confess our struggles to each other. After all, they have it together. Right? So we resign ourselves to live hollow lives of religious showmanship. This is where our biggest failing is. Not in the daily struggle against what we know is right and what we actually practice, but failing to realize that We Can Do Nothing. We cheapen the grace given [daily] to us by trying to prove our salvation—to earn it, to keep it—to ourselves and to G-d. Which brings me back to the topic at hand. I admire the Xtians who are willing to forgive Haggard’s behavior. We’ve got to stop shooting our wounded. But what gets me is his denial of wrongdoing. As the world turned, he changed his story and admitted to buying one of the most addictive and easily accessible drugs of the day, but “I did not have sex with that gentleman.” Oh, and he only looked at the meth. So that's okay.
So drug use (or purchase) is more acceptable for evangelicals than [gay] sex? Did I miss something? I know that the mere mention of sexuality causes the repressed masses to salivate, wanting to know the juicy details only to pat ourselves on our backs. We check off our list – we may drink too much, eat too much, work too much, break promises too often, talk about others too much, but we would never cheat or go to bat for the other team. After all, we mutter to ourselves, I’m not that bad. But what would have happened at the NEA if Haggard had admitted that, in a moment of weakness, he engaged in actions that they consider deplorable? Would we be reading the same story or would there be a moving van and a journey in the soggy tea leaves? This is the hot topic of the day and my goal is not to convince you to view it one way or another. But consider the company Christ kept. He befriended prostitutes, corrupt corporate executives, the immoral, and the poor who could only take without the hope of repayment. He touched the homeless, the sick, the disfigured, the mentally ill. He opened his arms to those outside his religion and creed, the opposite sex and children who were considered worth less than property. His heart broke for those who killed him. Tell me how this “sanctified” exclusion will fulfill his kingdom or vision. Whether or not Haggard engaged in homosexual acts, I don’t care. Whether or not he actually used the meth, I don’t care. All I ask of him is honesty and to grow in the spirit of Christ. The elite in Boulder need to be just as forgiving and accepting to Haggard if he does confess to infidelity – even if it is with another man. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9)
God loves us all and Mike Jones is welcome at the banquet table at the feast of the Lamb.
Labels: forgiveness, homosexuality, human rights, Ted Haggard |
| posted by Sara @ 12:55 AM |
|
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Sara
Home: gypsy wanderer, United States
About Me: Those who know me find me stubborn, opinionated, open-minded, strong-willed, of some intelligence, and yet they still hang around.
See my complete profile
|
| Previous Post |
|
| Archives |
|
|
| Shoutbox |
Love God. Love all. Serve both. There is wisdom in turning as often as possible from the familiar to the unfamiliar: it keeps the mind nimble, it kills prejudice, and it fosters humor.
-George Santayana, philosopher (1863-1952) |
| Links |
|
|
| Powered by |
 |
|
