Tag Archives: LGBT

Gay Iowa

In Iowa, kisses in public may not last more than five minutes, a man with a moustache may never kiss a woman in public, and in one city (Ottumwa), a man may not wink at a woman he does not know. But, lest you think Iowa has a prudish and antiquated view of sexuality, Iowa also happens to the only midwestern state that allows gay marriage, and it seems, will fight to keep it that way.

On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state law defining marriage only as a union between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause in the Iowa constitution. Conservative opposition has attempted a legislative effort to enact a constitutional amendment reversing the court, but on Feb 10, the Iowa House defeated the attempt to put the matter on the ballot by a 54-45 vote. Thus, at least for now, no constitutional amendment proposal will come before the Iowa voters.

The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa supports marriage equality, and a letter signed by 167 members of the clergy was presented to the Iowa legislature opposing the drive for a constitutional amendment. Many of these were ELCA Lutherans according to Pretty Good Lutherans blog.

It appears that the legislative action blocking the drive for a constitutional amendment is consistent with the mood of Iowa voters. A poll conducted Feb 15-17 found mild support for marriage equality and broad support for civil unions. Here are the poll results:

GAY MARRIAGE:

QUESTION: As you may know, same-sex marriages have been legal in Iowa for over a year. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment which would over turn current law allowing same sex marriages in Iowa?

YES NO NOT SURE

ALL 39% 42% 19%

MEN 43% 40% 17%
WOMEN 35% 44% 21%

DEMOCRATS 22% 64% 14%
REPUBLICANS 66% 13% 21%
INDEPENDENTS 33% 45% 22%

QUESTION: Regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriages, do you favor or oppose allowing same-sex couples the same benefits allowed to heterosexual couples, known as civil unions?

FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE

ALL 51% 40% 9%

MEN 47% 44% 9%
WOMEN 55% 36% 9%

DEMOCRATS 77% 21% 2%
REPUBLICANS 16% 68% 16%
INDEPENDENTS 55% 35% 10%

In an unrelated note, HRC Backstory posted the following:

Grinnell College’s Board of Trustees unanimously elected Raynard Kington, an openly gay man, as its next president. Nestled in the corn fields of Iowa, Grinnell is a small liberal arts college known for its politically active student body and commitment to social justice.

Anatomy of Lutheran CORE & NALC

Remember biology class in high school when we learned about the amoeba? These single celled, microscopic creatures would split and one would become two. It would seem that Lutheran CORE is also capable of binary fission, and it has just announced the spawning of a creature much like itself, but apparently separate, and they have crowned their progeny with the auspicious (audacious?) title of “The North American Lutheran Church” (one expects the emphasis to be placed on The, much like the pro football types who trumpet their alma mater). On February 18th (drum roll please), Lutheran CORE released its Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church–NALC for short.

To use another biology metaphor, the ganglia of disaffected ELCA Lutheran organizations (affiliations?, associations?, denominations?, church bodies?, collaborative ministries?, community of confessing Lutherans?, partners?) is becoming diffuse and confusing to track the connective tissue. Lutheran CORE apparently sees itself as the central nervous system connecting Lutheran Congregations in Mission (LCMC), the WordAlone Network, and the newly created NALC, while retaining its tentacles into the ELCA (but withholding its financial support, of course).

So, what exactly will this new NALC organization look like? How will it function? What services will it provide? Of course, we know they hope to be a “reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism”, crossing borders into Canada to the north and Mexico and the Caribbean to the south. Whew! Impressive. While NALC will be “a new denominational body for confessing Lutherans,” it will also “work in close partnership and cooperation with the community of Lutheran CORE” and “will look to Lutheran CORE … for many resources.” While NALC will have its own organizational structure headed by a bishop, will the Lutheran CORE hierarchy remain the real power behind the throne?

NALC proposes to be a “big tent” that accepts differing views of ministry policies regarding the status of those eligible for the ordained clergy.

The NALC and Lutheran CORE will recognize both women and men in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject.

Wait a minute. Isn’t the whole raison d’être for Lutheran CORE wrapped up in their unwillingness to accept the ELCA decision to recognize both gay and straight in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject? Do they not see the irony, if not the inconsistency, in their position? There’s room for differing views on women clergy in the NACL tent but not for differing views on gay clergy.

The document allows, nay encourages, dual membership in NALC and the ELCA.

Lutheran CORE recognizes and affirms those congregations and individuals who feel called to remain within the ELCA and who wish to continue to work for the reform of the ELCA and to witness to Biblical and confessional teachings and practices, as well as to support others remaining in the ELCA. Some of these congregations and individuals may choose dual membership in the ELCA and the NALC. Others may be members of Lutheran CORE on an individual, congregational or partnership basis.

While these individuals and congregations may remain within the ELCA only in a formal sense, they may look to the Lutheran CORE community as their church beyond the congregation … often re-designating their benevolence outside the mission support system of the ELCA.

Hmmm. How will other ELCA members and congregations view that posture? Retain influence but not allegiance. Receive ELCA benefits without obligation.

How will ELCA leadership respond? From the ELCA’s inception, its governing documents have precluded dual membership in another denomination for either pastors or congregations, according to a January 19th memo distributed by ELCA secretary David Swartling. While there have been instances in the past where such dual memberships have been overlooked (interestingly, the practice ended at the insistence of the LCMS, not the ELCA), one wonders whether and how the ECLA will enforce these policies in the future. Already, the January 19th memo produced a hew and cry about the heavy handed policies of the ELCA.

One final note for today; the document includes this statement:

We affirm the authority of the canonical Holy Scriptures as the only source and norm of our faith and life.

“Only”. That’s a significant statement. No room for reason. No room for conscience. No room for experience. No room for scientific, historical, or empirical evidence. It would seem that CORE is boxing itself into a corner with the infallible and inerrant fundamentalists with a far more restrictive attitude than any mainstream Christian denomination, including Roman Catholicism.

2010: the status of ELCA Lutheran—Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue

As part of a two week, “2010 Ecumenical Journey”, ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson and his delegation recently met with Cardinal Walter Kasper at the Vatican. Cardinal Kasper is the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity–the Vatican’s point man for ecumenical relations with other church bodies.

Prior to this Vatican meeting on Feb 12th, Bishop Hanson’s delegation had met with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on Feb 4th for discussion of Lutheran-Anglican relations, and with Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I and Orthodox ecumenists in Istanbul on Feb 8th and 9th.

What is the status of Lutheran – Catholic dialogue? A little over a decade ago in 1999, ecumenical discussions led to the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”. Wikipedia provides a succinct explanation of this agreement:

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is a document created by and agreed to by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, as a result of extensive ecumenical dialogue, ostensibly resolving the conflict over the nature of justification which was at the root of the Protestant Reformation.

The Churches acknowledged that the excommunications relating to the doctrine of justification set forth by the Council of Trent do not apply to the teachings of the Lutheran churches set forth in the text; likewise, the churches acknowledged that the condemnations set forth in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the Catholic teachings on justification set forth in the document. Confessional Lutherans, such as the International Lutheran Council and the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference, reject the Declaration.

On July 18, 2006, members of the World Methodist Council, meeting in Seoul, South Korea, voted unanimously to adopt this document as well.

That was then; what’s happening these days?

In an honest appraisal of Lutheran-Catholic relations, former ELCA Presiding Bishop Herb Chilstrom last year acknowledged that ordaining women “was the first nail in the coffin of further ecumenical progress,” and he asked “how long are we going to live with the illusion that Vatican II is alive and well in Roman Catholicism?” Chilstrom’s comments were in the context of CWA09 and the probable dampening effect of ELCA pro-LGBT ministry policies on ecumenical relations with the Vatican.

What did Cardinal Kasper have to say about the consequences of CWA09? Seemingly, his greatest concern was not with the ministry policies themselves but with the schismatic actions of dissenters.

“We are concerned, but the dialogue goes on,” Kasper told the Lutherans. “We want to continue … so we do not interrupt any dialogue. But what we see are new ‘fragmentations’ in the Protestant world in the churches. This has bothered us a lot.”

ELCA Bishop Robert Hofstad of the Southwestern Washington synod, a delegation member, responded:

If our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters can say to us, “do not go away from each other too fast,” then how can we in the ELCA be running away from each other with such speed, at least in some anecdotal instances? How can we be running away from each other so fast when we have a commitment from people like yourselves, and a hope to say “please let us not run away from each other too quickly?”

“That’s a very encouraging word, and that’s a word that I’m going to take back to my colleagues,” Hofstad said.

The report of the meeting from the perspective of the Catholic News Service included both hopeful and troubling aspects of the discussion.

Cardinal Kasper said it is essential “to keep alive the memory of our achievements” in dialogue, educate the faithful about how much has been accomplished and prepare a new generation to carry on the work.

On the other hand, the Cardinal said, “the Vatican needs to better explain to its dialogue partners the Catholic conviction that ‘the Catholic Church is the church of Christ and that the Catholic Church is the true church … [including] the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the pope.’”

Hmmm.

Gay clergy return to ELCA

The “gay clergy” resolution passed at the 2009 ELCA churchwide assembly reads as follows:

RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.

This resolution didn’t actually change ministry policies, but effectively committed the church infrastructure to do so. The process is underway but not yet completed to amend the multi-page 1990 document entitled Visions and Expectations, to wit, the one sentence out of the lengthy document that stated,

Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.

Due to the 1990 policy, many gay and lesbian persons simply abandoned their call to the ordained ministry. Emily Eastwood, the head of Lutherans Concerned North America, is one example. Others left the ELCA and pursued their call to the ministry in other denominations such as the UCC or Episcopal Church. A few found Lutheran congregations willing to call them, despite the potential for ELCA punitive measures (the first congregations were expelled from the ELCA but later congregations were merely censured).

Although the revised ministry policies are not yet finalized or effective, the process of reconciliation and restoration is already underway. I previously reported on a San Francisco congregation that was expelled that is now engaged in discussions about returning to the ELCA and about their pastor’s restoration to the ELCA clergy roster.

The past week saw a few more examples of healing.

The blog of Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries (ELM) reports that a Missouri congregation that has been under censure for a decade has been restored to the good graces of the ELCA.

The censure against Abiding Peace Lutheran congregation in Kansas City, Missouri which has been in effect since March 2001 has been lifted. The censure was put in place because the congregation called and ordained ELM roster member Pastor Donna Simon the previous October. Bishop Gerald Mansholt of the ELCA Central States Synod lifted the censure.

Pastor Donna has served that congregation since her ordination and call. Donna Simon is a 1999 graduate of Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, Berkeley, CA. She was extraordinarily ordained by ELM in 2000.

Her service and ministry drew praise from the bishop. In his letter to the congregation, he said of Pastor Donna, a lesbian not yet on the roster of the ELCA, and her service as pastor for nine years: “…though ordained outside the established processes of the Church, Pastor Simon has been a gracious witness among us in this synod as well as in the larger Church. She has spoken the truth in love, and shared her witness and struggle as a baptized child of God, even as she has prayed for a day of wider understanding and acceptance in the Church.”

Bishop Mansholt, in notifying the synod of the lifting of the censure, repeated the above praise for Pastor Donna and commented on the faithfulness of the congregation at Abiding Lutheran: “As the Church studied, prayed and conversed with one another over the matters of gay and lesbian people in the Church, Abiding Peace Church might have walked away. But they remained in the Church and stayed in dialog with brothers and sisters who were trying to make sense of these issues in the light of the Gospel. They kept on praying for a better day, a time of wider awareness and acceptance. . . . I know the congregation also longs for the day when their pastor might be welcomed onto the roster of the ELCA.”

Blog friend Susan Hogan at Pretty Good Lutherans also posts on this announcement, and there are some great comments following her post such as this one from Pastor Christine Iverson:

I served Abiding Peace as an intentional interim for more than 3 years. They called Pastor Simons a few years after I left. They never did want to leave the ELCA and the bishop at the time and they tried to find ways to continue together. The process that led to the censure decision was done with great care and inclusion and I think that probably had a part in the congregation’s decision to hang in there with us. Unfortunately, the bishop, synod council, pastor, and the congregation were bound by the requirements of the ELCA constitution.

On a personal note, when my daughter was very ill, Donna came and ministered to us both for which I will always be grateful. She is a gifted colleague.

On the other hand, conservative blogger “Shrimp” at Shellfish blog, offers the following condescending, sarcastic commentary:

We at Shellfish can imagine just how devastating it is to a small congregation (latest reported average Sunday attendance: 18) not being able to serve on a synod committee. But if Bishop Mansholt appreciates their constant presence, who are we (with “bound consciences” scandalized by Miss Simon serving as a pastor without any sign of repentance on her part) to object to welcoming them back fully?

And a comment to Shrimp’s post adds:

I just read of a pebble tossed down the slippery slope of an apostate church. Everyone therefore make a joyful noise, for avalanche starts in this very way.

It strikes me as revealing that the Henny Pennys who cluck about the demise of the ELCA do so with such self-righteous glee.

The same Extraordinary Ministries blog also reports on a former LCA pastor who left and became a UCC pastor because of the former ministry polices but now seeks to return to the ELCA. Pastor Vince Lavieri:

values the home that the UCC has given him during his time of exile from the ELCA, deeply appreciating the UCC’s particular insight that God Is Still Speaking. Vince is at core a confessional Lutheran who yearns to return to parish ministry in a Lutheran context.

Welcome home, Pastor Vince.

Are ELCA Lutherans heretical? One scholar thinks not.

We all understand that the holier-than-thou-trinity of Lutheran CORE, WordAlone, and LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) believes that the Bible condemns all same gender sexual intimacy even for couples in a lifelong, monogamous relationship. Many of us (including the majority of voting members at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly) disagree, but what we find particularly odious about the rhetoric emanating from the schismatics are their self-righteous pronouncements that are sprinkled with judgmental terms such as “heresy”, “unchurched”, and “unbiblical”. There is the persistent implication that the ELCA has abandoned Biblical teaching and authority. “The ELCA is the one that has departed from the teaching of the Bible,” sounds the refrain. And this is no mere exegetical or theological debate, for the ELCA is now so polluted that the schismatics must leave for fear of contamination. One must be wary of the purity of the minister who offers the bread and wine, after all.

In response to the bluster of the schismatics, Rev Dr. Brian Peterson, Professor of New Testament, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, has penned a temperate and reasoned article.

“[W]e need to avoid, as much as possible, confusing the authority of the Bible with the authority of poor translations, incorrect assumptions, partial knowledge, or contested interpretations,” he begins, and “I do not believe that doing so constitutes the abandoning of the Bible’s authority. Honesty and the commandment not to bear false witness against others requires that we not confuse our disagreements about the meaning of these texts with faithlessness, heresy, or the denial of Scripture’s authority,” he concludes (emphasis mine).

Along the way, Dr. Peterson offers his scholarly interpretation of the so-called clobber passages, suggesting that they are difficult and uncertain, based on questionable “assumptions from first century culture, medicine, and science”. Of course, the Levitical lists of abominations derive from a worldview at least half a millennium earlier than the New Testament texts.

It is not my goal here to argue that my way of reading these texts is certainly the one right way. It has been my goal, however, to show how someone can read these texts with a high regard for their authority over the life of the church, and still speak in favor of the proposals adopted by the ELCA regarding homosexuality.

But serious questions remain about how these texts address the issues we are facing and the people involved. There are legitimate questions about how well the concerns addressed in these biblical texts correspond to the committed, exclusive, faithful, lifelong relationships that are the focus of the ELCA’s action. There are genuine difficulties in understanding some of these verses, and we ought to wonder whether, and why, we are trying to place too much weight on a few uncertain verses. Proper interpretation always involves listening to each text within the context of the whole witness of Scripture. There we hear with absolute clarity God’s desire and call for mercy, compassion, faithfulness, and love of our neighbors. We hear that God’s saving, sufficient grace has been poured out through Jesus Christ crucified and raised. We hear the promise that the Spirit will lead the church into God’s truth.

I believe that the ELCA Assembly’s actions have been shaped by, and are in agreement with, this authoritative biblical word.

Disagree if you will, but please don’t call us unchurched heretics.

Hat tip to blogger Ted Sitz for finding this article.

Church of England General Synod 2010 convenes

Today marks the start of the 2010 General Synod of the Church of England. As a non-Anglican, I may misunderstand the polity of the worldwide Anglican Communion; with that disclaimer, this is what I think I know, but I stand open to correction.

The Church of England, headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the mother church for Anglican bodies around the world. While Archbishop Rowan Williams exercises the authority of persuasion and prestige, those Anglican bodies in communion with the Church of England are essentially self-governing. Thus, Archbishop Rowan unsuccessfully lobbied the Episcopal Church of America last year to refrain from allowing LGBT persons to be ordained as bishops.

Unrelated to the General Synod, Archbishop Williams hosted ELCA presiding bishop Mark Hanson and an ELCA delegation on Friday last. Lutherans and Anglicans already have close relationships (in the US, the Episcopal Church and the ELCA have full communion agreements and in Europe, the Anglicans and the Lutherans of the Baltic states have a similar arrangement in the Porvoo Communion), and the meeting stressed strengthening those relationships:

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson met with Dr. Rowan D. Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a private hour-long meeting Feb. 4 at Lambeth Palace here. After the meeting Hanson said the two discussed strengthening Anglican-Lutheran relationships, challenges each leader faces within his own communions, the proposed “Anglican Covenant” to deepen internal church relationships, global environmental issues, Christian-Muslim relationships, and mutual concern for conflicts in places such as Sudan and the Middle East.

Hanson told the ELCA News Service that the discussion of strengthening Anglican Communion relationships focused on existing full communion agreements — in Canada, Europe and the United States. “We talked not only about how this time of ‘reception’ can strengthen the ministries and mission we share, but provide new opportunities for us to be engaged in ways we haven’t even imagined,” Hanson said.

The two world church leaders discussed how both communions can focus on “the pressing issues of the world in which God has placed us,” said Hanson. He said the two agreed there is an urgent need for the United Nations and the U.S. and British governments to find a solution to the conflict in Sudan. The two also discussed commitment and concern for Palestinian Christians, and support for the Council for Religious Institutions in the Holy Land, for Lutheran and Anglican churches in the region and for dialogue with religious leaders in Israel.

In an official written statement to the archbishop, Hanson noted a series of priorities that Lutherans and Anglicans share, including care for the environment, working to end poverty and disease, and seeking peace and justice through greater interfaith understanding. He also noted that Lutherans and Anglicans have faced their share of “challenges in our communions.”

This latter statement about “challenges in our communions” is a bit of tongue in cheek understatement. The two clerics share a commonality as leaders of church bodies embroiled in controversy over LGBT issues, especially gay clergy. Yet, each has taken a different public posture. Bishop Hanson has attempted to remain neutral although the opponents of the ELCA’s pro-LGBT resolutions last summer would claim otherwise; to Lutheran CORE and the WordAlone Network, Bishop Hanson was a primary culprit and behind the scenes force that manipulated the church wide assembly actions, but this merely reflects a conspiracy theorist mentality, in my view. Archbishop Williams, on the other hand, has been outspokenly against the Episcopalian’s 2009 pro-LGBT actions.

The 2009 US Episcopal decision to allow gay bishops provides the dramatic undercurrent to the 2010 Church of England General Synod. The issue arises over the effort by conservatives to recognize the American dissident group of Episcopalians, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The Telegraph UK reports:

Leading conservative clergy have declared their support for a motion at this week’s General Synod which would ally the Church with the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

This was formed in opposition to the consecration of Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual bishop, and the actions of liberals in the Episcopal Church of the US, which is the official Anglican body.

However, the House of Bishops has tabled an amendment to the Synod motion which would seek to defuse the issue by postponing a decision until next year.

The Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn, is opposed to the stance taken by his colleagues. He said: “I am hoping for a sign of early support for ACNA, not a report coming back to Synod by the end of 2011.”

The Rt Rev Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes, a fundamentalist on the Church’s evangelical wing, said: “It seems to me that the House of Bishops’ motion is just needlessly undermining, delaying and prevaricating.”

The original motion, put down by Lorna Ashworth, an evangelical from the Chichester diocese, comes after the Episcopal Church elected a homosexual priest, Mary Glasspool, to be a suffragan bishop in the Los Angeles diocese.

Christian Today offers more background and insight into the debate over the tabled resolution.

American Episcopal priest and blogger Scott Gunn has several posts about ACNA, and his latest is a warning for the Anglicans of the home country that countenancing the schismatics from America will only invite internal turmoil.

Like dealing with a child who is throwing a tantrum, you cannot reward bad behavior. Recognizing secessionists in America ensures they’ll be in England sooner rather than later. Making it clear that they will not be recognized by the Anglican Communion because they chose to walk apart will at least slow them down.

America Magazine, the Catholic Weekly, discusses a different issue which is of greater concern to Roman Catholics, and that is the recent papal invitation for disaffected Anglican priests to be accepted into Roman Catholicism.

The Church of England’s Parliament, known as the General Synod, meets this week, beginning today with an announcement on women bishops which is certain to have an impact on the numbers of Anglican traditionalists choosing to take up the Pope’s ordinariate offer.

Synod voted two years ago to move towards consecrating women bishops, but is yet to come up with a formula for doing so which doesn’t at the same time alienate traditionalists who oppose the move.

Does this make it more likely that C of E traditionalists will accept the Pope’s ordinariate offer? Yes and no. For those that have already decided, in principle, to accept the offer and are waiting on the details, it will confirm their decision. But the view among most traditionalists I have spoken to is that an early exodus would weaken their attempts to safeguard the ‘Catholic’ place in the Church of England. Supporters of women bishops be able to say, in effect, “they’re going anyway. Why agree to what they want?” As long as traditionalists remain in the C of E, the threat of their departure is likely to make supporters of women bishops more likely to negotiate.

You may follow the General Synod proceedings on the website of the Church of England.

Judaism and gays

There are three main “movements”, “denominations”, or “branches” of Judaism in North America called Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative. From Canada comes a report of same gender relationships now receiving blessings in a Conservative synagogue in Winnipeg.

Winnipeg’s largest synagogue is moving toward full inclusion for gay and lesbian Jews by offering to bless their same-sex unions. Since Jan. 1, 2010, rabbis at Shaarey Zedek synagogue have been willing to bless Jewish same-sex couples in commitment ceremonies.

Rabbi Alan Green says the Winnipeg synagogue is thought to be the first Conservative movement synagogue in Canada to offer blessings to same-sex unions. In December 2006, the movement’s New York-based Committee on Jewish Law and Standards approved extending blessings to same-sex unions, a move that carries a great deal of weight among Conservative congregations, but is not binding, says Green.

Although this is a new step for Conservative Judaism, considered more middle of the road, Winnipeg’s lone Reform synagogue has offered the ritual for a decade, says Rabbi Karen Soria. “We are still the only synagogue in Winnipeg where a gay or lesbian couple could be married Jewishly,” says Soria, who divides her time between Winnipeg and Ottawa, where her female partner is a chaplain in the Canadian military. “Reform Judaism has taken very seriously the need to open doors and be welcoming. Historically, Reform Judaism has been very aware of and studies the seismic changes in Jewish life over the centuries.” The Reform movement is considered one of the more liberal Jewish groups.

Meanwhile, an Orthodox Rabbi, Steven Greenberg, has been out for over a decade, and he has been pushing back against the Orthodox policy that prohibits homosexual behavior.

Rabbi Steven Greenberg is not shy about proclaiming who he is, though it raises eyebrows.

He is, he says, the world’s first openly gay Orthodox rabbi.

And since he came out in 1999, Greenberg has traveled the world, speaking at Jewish organizations, community groups, forums. His latest stop is the Seattle area, where he’s conducting several workshops through Saturday.

His aim: To get congregations to be more welcoming and understanding of gays and lesbians — which sometimes means just helping them learn how to even bring the topic up.

Ultimately, he hopes the work he’s doing can, over time, lead to changes in people’s hearts, and to corresponding changes in Jewish theology and law.

“By addressing the realities of human life, Jewish law does move,” Greenberg said. “It just moves slowly.”

The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC), headed by Rabbi David Saperstein, is a well-known advocacy group that:

has been the hub of Jewish social justice and legislative activity in the nation’s capital for more than 40 years. The RAC educates and mobilizes the American Jewish community on legislative and social concerns, advocating on issues from economic justice to civil rights to religious liberty to Israel.

The RAC’s work is mandated by the Union for Reform Judaism, whose 900+ congregations across North America include 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), whose membership includes more than 1,800 Reform rabbis.

The RAC has long promoted LGBT rights.

A follow up to continuing ELCA Lutheran stories

Yesterday, I blogged about Hope Lutheran of Fargo. At Hope’s congregational meeting, the membership passed a resolution overturning the decision of the Pastor and the Council to withhold funding of the ELCA.

Turns out the same thing happened at St. Luke’s of Cottage Grove, Minnesota, according to a news report from the South Washington County Bulletin. In a comment to yesterday’s post, John Petty suggested, “yet another case where the pastor took the lead in opposing CWA [Church Wide Assembly] and fomenting dissension within his or her congregation.” John’s comment applies to the St Luke’s situation as well. According to the news report, the church council stopped funding the ELCA synod and national offices following a rant from the pastor:

In late August, when the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America met for its churchwide assembly in Minneapolis, St. Luke pastor Tim Housholder gave an impassioned speech to the group about his opposition to allowing gay clergy.

“I stand here finally on God’s holy word which calls homosexuality sin and calls all of those living out this lifestyle to the cross, not to receive tolerant love, but transforming and life-changing love,” Housholder said at the conference.

The news report indicated that the membership voted last Sunday at the annual meeting to partially restore congregational benevolence to the synod upon recommendation of the church council.

A second story that requires a follow up comes from the Northeastern Iowa synod of the ELCA. Just before Thanksgiving, this synod become a hot topic in the Lutheran blogosphere because the synod council passed a couple of resolutions that rejected the pro-LGBT decisions of the CWA. At the time, the Lutheran CORE website trumpeted the actions of the synod council as a harbinger of an anti-CWA groundswell. Turns out CORE was just a tad premature inasmuch as the Synod Council has now reversed course and rescinded its own resolutions.

Blogger friend Susan Hogan at Pretty Good Lutherans hosted a lively debate at that time, and she has reposted the discussion. The rescission was reported in a letter from the synod council vice president Karen Armstrong to the synod on Feb 1.

In her letter Armstrong wrote, “Our council received many responses to these (synod council) actions. There were some who misinterpreted our actions as being defiant of the churchwide decision, and even suggested that we had voted as a synod to leave the ELCA. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

She wrote that others were concerned that the synod council made decisions “that placed the council as a higher authority than the local congregation. There was also a concern that the synod council had placed itself as a higher authority than the churchwide assembly.”

Are American evangelicals complicit in the Uganda anti-gay movement?

Much attention has been focused on the Ugandan parliamentary bill mandating Draconian treatment of gays, up to execution, that has been shelved for the moment. Undoubtedly, the international outcry has been effective. The relationship between several American evangelical groups and the Ugandan anti-gay movement has also come to light, raising serious questions about the influence and extremism of these American gay bashers in the name of their evangelical Christianity.

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback mega-church in the US and the author of the popular The Purpose Driven Life, is perhaps the most visible of the evangelicals who had cavorted with the Ugandan leadership prior to the drafting of the hate-filled legislation. Religion Dispatches blog has reported extensively on Warren and Uganda:

Yet last year, according to a press release from Warren’s public relations firm, he launched a “purpose-driven living” campaign in Uganda, organized by a former member of Parliament. While there — his fourth trip to the country — he met with the First Lady of Uganda, Janet Museveni. Warren’s statement today that he’s never met the president of Uganda or any members of parliament, then, seems hair-splitting. The press release, after all, did say, “This is the second East African country to invite Dr. Warren to bring the well- known Purpose Driven Life and Church leadership training to churches, businesses and government on a national scale.” At the time, Warren said, “my challenge to business and government leaders is to use their influence for the glory of God and partner with local churches in solving community problems.”

There is no evidence that Warren directly promoted the idea of the anti-gay legislation; yet, it is clear that his original foray into Uganda to instill his “Purpose Driven” plan was at the request of homophobe Anglican Archbishop, the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi. According to a news release at the time appearing on Christian Post, it was Orombi who

recalled initially wanting to invite Warren to Uganda after seeing the Purpose Driven Living program implemented in Rwanda.

Uganda is the second east African country to invite Warren to bring the Purpose Driven Life and Church leadership training program to the country on a national scale. The first east African country to adopt the program nationwide was Rwanda in 2005.

It turns out that Orombi and first lady Janet Museveni, two of Warren’s principal contacts, have been among the most influential gay bashers in Uganda.

After a month of waffling and suggesting it wasn’t his business to influence foreign nations internal policies, Warren finally bowed to pressure and issued a statement condemning the legislation, but his statement was also laden with self-serving denials:

There’s no doubt he has a strong relationship with government, business, and religious leaders in Uganda, according to his own statements. So it would seem logical for people at least to think he would have some sway to denounce the proposed law as a brutal violation of human rights and of Christian values. Instead of addressing the reasons why he waited to speak, though, Warren instead seeks to dispel “untruths” about his relationships with leaders there, and alleged misinterpretations of some of his statements. But that doesn’t tell us much about his relationships there, just which leaders and statements from which he’s now trying to distance himself. It would be more revealing to understand just what “purpose-driven living” is, how he has imparted that teaching to Ugandan leaders, and how they make use of it.

Exodus International is a well-known organization that promotes reparative therapy. Reparative therapy is a discredited theory and practice of transforming gays to straight. In August, 2009, the American Psychological Association issued a hard hitting condemnation of reparative therapy and its adherents.

The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective. The report looks at 87 studies conducted between 1960 and 2007. In addition, the 138-page report — covering 87 peer-reviewed studies — said that such efforts may cause harm.

Of course, Exodus won’t allow the facts to inform their opinions, and they continue to inflict their “cure” on troubled gays who already doubt their human worth.

As an organization, Exodus was not directly involved in the rise of official Ugandan homophobia, but one of their board members was an early anti-gay spokesman in that country. At a March, 2009 anti-gay conference in Kampala, Exodus Board member Don Schmierer was one of three presenters (Nazi revisionist Scott Lively was another).

Family Life Network has organized a training seminar to equip Ugandans with information and skills to fight what it calls spiraling promotion of homosexuality in the country.

[T]he seminar from March 5th to 7th will provide insight on the causes and treatment of homosexuality; provide practical tips on how to prevent homosexuality behavior in youth; expose the homosexual agenda … is intended for parents, guardians, teachers, government officials, policy makers, members of parliament, religious leaders, counselors and activists who need in-depth knowledge on the subject of homosexuality.

A blog called Box Turtle Bulletin has been on top of the Exodus-Uganda connection, with dozens of blog posts listed chronologically here. A few pertinent items include the announcement of the anti-gay seminar on the floor of the Ugandan legislature, Exodus’ initial “applauding” of Schmierer’s participation, the Ugandan parliamentary foray into the anti-gay movement six weeks after the seminar, and finally the Nov 16th Exodus lukewarm rejection of the legislation only after the international outcry.

Written as it is by an organization which does not affirm the dignity and worth of LGBT people to live their lives responsibly in freedom and self-determination, there is certainly much in this letter that merits criticism. Furthermore, the letter makes no recommendations except to “consider the influence this law will have” on the work of those who believe that the only valid option for LGBT people is to self-deny their own existence. The “influence” this law will have on LGBT people themselves, well that’s apparently inconsequential and not worthy of discussion.

One final note regarding Exodus that will be of interest to regular followers of this blog. Exodus International has a mutually supportive relationship with Lutheran CORE, the dissident ELCA group that resisted the pro-LGBT actions of the 2009 ELCA churchwide assembly and which continues as an ELCA irritant and schismatic movement. At the ELCA church wide assembly, Lutheran CORE maintained a visible presence and a headquarters / hospitality room. On Thursday evening of the assembly, they promoted a presentation by a representative of Outpost, an affiliate of Exodus International. From the CORE newsletter of August 17th:

Thursday night will feature a presentation by Nate Oyloe, Youth and College Age Director for Outpost Ministries. “Outpost was formed to meet the needs of men and women who have made a decision to break away from the gay life,” its website
explains. Outpost is an affiliate ministry of Exodus International.

Oyloe, in turn, subsequently reported on his presentation in a post on the Exodus website:

Within the denomination is a group called The CORE – Coalition for Reform – that is committed to the upholding of God’s Word and the biblical understanding that homosexual behavior is sinful all the time, every time. The week before the convention Outpost was asked by The CORE to have a presence there. Outpost staff talked with delegates and shared their stories of transformation with individuals throughout the week. I was asked to speak to their group and share my personal testimony the night before the second vote passed.

I also have private correspondence from an ELCA member in Florida whose pastor seeks to lead the congregation into CORE. The pastor invited a CORE spokesperson, a Rebecca Heber, whose presentation to the congregation boasted of the CORE relationship with Exodus.

If we are known by the company we keep, then Lutheran CORE has some “splanin” to do about its affiliation with Exodus, its debunked reparative therapy theories, and its connection to the horrific anti-gay movement in Uganda.

The International Transformation Network is the third evangelical organization that merits scrutiny for its Ugandan influence. From their website:

The International Transformation Network (ITN) is a strategic alliance of Christians from the marketplace and the pulpit who are building prototypes for city and nation transformation that bring the presence and the power of God to meet the felt needs and the systemic challenges of our communities and countries.

As a result of a clear focus on five pivotal paradigms for transformation and the principles of prayer evangelism, real transformation is taking place in cities and nations around the world – in businesses, on campuses, in the halls of government, and within congregations.

Another web page lauds the program’s “prayer evangelism and marketplace redemption strategies to reach cities and transform nations for Christ.” ITN promotes a full-blown and unapologetic prosperity theology, but with a governmental, theocratic twist–a three way partnership between government, business, and Christianity.

According to the Uganda State House website, in March, 2007 the Ugandan President and First Lady, Janet Museveni, (the same mentioned above as contact for Rick Warren) hosted a state dinner for the representatives of ITN. A year later , in March 2008, the website reports the Museveni’s hosted ITN CEO Ed Silvoso, and Silvoso’s own website trumpets ITN’s relationship with “Mama Janet” and her role as a friendly First Lady in Uganda, “a nation completely ripe for transformation”.

These theocratic ideals, tinged with a prosperity gospel, are scary enough, but what about the the relationship of ITN and the anti-gay movement of Uganda? The 18th ITN international conference of October, 2008 held in Argentina is revealing. The speakers included exorcist Cindy Jacobs who offered a chilling, rabble-rousing, rant about “pornography’”, “homosexuals”, “bisexuals”, and “perversion” to a spell-bound, swaying audience. Another speaker, a representative of ITN/Uganda praised “Mama Janet” for being “God’s key” to open not just Uganda but the whole African continent. It also turns out that the daughter of “Mama Janet” is a pastor of a Ugandan church affiliated with the ITN, and it was one of her parishioners, a member of Parliament, who drafted the infamous anti-gay legislation.

And then we come full circle back to the ELCA, back to Minnesota, back to Northfield, for it seems there are two Minnesota Lutheran congregations that have bought into the ITN prosperity gospel with its homophobic overtones.

The first of these is Christ Lutheran Church of Otsego in the Elk River, Minnesota vicinity. According to their website, they have a special congregational meeting called for January 31 to consider a resolution to secede from the ELCA. The same web page has several links to anti-gay sermons of Pastor David Glesne of Redeemer Lutheran in Fridley, a Lutheran CORE and WordAlone Network congregation that has withdrawn from the ELCA.

The second ITN Lutheran congregation is right here in Northfield; it is Rejoice Lutheran, and they claim inspiration from the Elk River example.

Rejoice! sees itself as a city leader in this prayer evangelism movement. We believe, through the power of community prayer, God is raising-up Christians in the city to bring others to the faith! Pastor Dan Clites says he is a pulpit minister, but our congregation is the marketplace ministers! Together, we are blurring the lines between the sacred and the secular!

Local speculation is that Rejoice will depart the ELCA, but a question remains about the significant mission financial support they previously received from the ELCA. Will they keep it or give it back? One wonders if Rejoice members know about the connection between ITN, their prosperity gospel mentor, and the anti-gay movement of Uganda; if so, are they ok with it?

Episcopal pastor, Elizabeth Keaton, has a lengthy post about ITN and their theocratic movement in her home city of Newark, and her post contains a video expose of ITN and their connections to the Uganda anti-gay movement. Watch it!

Prop 8 trial reveals abuses of reparative therapy

If you haven’t heard, a civil trial is underway in California contesting the constitutionality of Prop 8. If you don’t know about Prop 8, it was a California referendum that passed by a slight majority in the 2008 election, and its effect was to preclude same gender marriage in California.

This is a much ballyhooed trial, not merely for its subject but also for its participants. The two main attorneys that are pursuing the case are the same who opposed each other in Gore v Bush, the 2000 presidential election Florida recount case, who now join in common cause to have Prop 8 overturned as unconstitutional. One of these is well known Republican and conservative attorney Theodore Olson, formerly of the Bush and Reagan administrations.

Attorney Olson explains his views in a Newsweek article, entitled The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.

My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the “traditional” definition of marriage and press for an “activist” interpretation of the Constitution to create another “new” constitutional right?

My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Pastor Candice Chellew-Hodge is “the founder/editor of Whosoever: An Online Magazine for GLBT Christians and currently serves as associate pastor at Garden of Grace United Church of Christ in Columbia, S.C.” A religious progressive, her blog post today carries the subtitle, “testimony shows the ugly side of religion”. The subject is the discredited and abusive practice of reparative therapy—the misguided attempt to turn gay persons straight. (See my prior blog post about reparative therapy here.)

The testimony, as reported by Pastor Chellew-Hodge, is compelling and heart wrenching.

I’m gay. I’m short and half Hispanic those things aren’t going to change.”

Those are the words Ryan Kendall uttered in a federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday as the trial over whether or not to overturn Proposition 8 that stripped gays and lesbians of their right to marry in California, got into its second week.

Kendall took the stand to recount his harsh treatment in an “ex-gay ministry.” His deeply religious parents forced him into so-called “reparative therapy” after finding a note that Kendall had written to himself confessing his sexual orientation at the age of 13. Kendall said his parents “flipped out, (they were) very upset, yelling. I don’t remember a lot of what they said, but it was pretty scary the level of their reaction. I remember my mother telling me I was going to burn in hell.”

Read the rest of the blog post and more testimony here.