George Bernard Shaw once said, "Certainly all great truths begin as blasphemies." On April 11, 2010, those who identify as people of faith and as "non-heterosexual" were given particular cause to celebrate Shaw's wisdom: a most unlikely church has given a most unlikely people a gift of love and truth, and I cannot stop smiling.
After twenty-five years of deliberation, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Church Council has abolished its anti-gay policies, effective immediately. Following from discussions at the ELCA Churchwide Assembly last summer, the ELCA will now allow people in same-sex relationships to serve as rostered leaders. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) human beings are no longer considered abominations but blessed church members with full standing. Same-sex partners and families can now fully participate in the ELCA Pension Plan.
Best of all, the ELCA is reinstating people who were removed from ministry positions because they were truthful and came out of the closet, as well as those who conducted holy unions for non-heterosexual couples. The ELCA has practiced restorative justice.
The Lutherans -- breaking from Garrison Keillor stereotypes as shy, retiring, or stoic -- said, "Just do it!" All votes passed overwhelmingly, with no votes against and no drawn-out hassles about how to implement the policies.
I'm particularly grateful to the ELCA for adding restoration to its reforms. My colleague, Rev. Paul W. Egerston, faithfully pastored and served as Bishop in the Lutheran church for 31 years. He resigned one month before the end of his term in 2001. Why? He ordained a lesbian as a Pastor and took a public stand for justice in opposition to the official anti-gay policy of the ELCA. Now, Paul and his wife, Shirley, and their six children, 12 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren can take a day off. I believe that through the ELCA's restoration, God has sent them a message, "Well done, my good and faithful servants."
In the midst of this week of celebration, I have been asked, "What about the rest of the churches? How can we get them to change their minds about gay people and our rights as human beings?"
Let me suggest a simple formula: praise, publicize, and participate. It is important that we actively support the ELCA leaders and the early adopters with our public affirmation and praise. Write a letter of commendation of the ELCA to the editor in your local paper and send a copy to the denominational headquarters. Carbon copy your letter to the leadership of non-affirming denominations. Financially support the organizations who "push the envelope" of denominational resistance to change. Anti-gay fundamentalists outspend pro-gays by a ratio of four to one. Participate in community-based engagement efforts. These have proven highly effective in shifting attitudes of fundamentalists towards gays.
The good news is that science is on our side. Consumer adoption theory tells us that the rate at which people accept change or innovation accelerates once early adopters embrace the idea and people hear about the change. This makes sense when you think about the way in which people buy new technology. There are always people who buy the first release. They tell their friends and families. They weather the challenges of operating systems that are less than perfect.
The ELCA has served as the beta test site for a process through which a very traditional faith community can reverse its thinking and policies. They will continue to push the envelope and all of us will learn from their experiences. Other denominational leaders and congregants will be glad that they tested the waters first.
And, soon, as we've seen with microwaves, cell phones, the Internet, and even the Model-T, the rest of us will wade into the water as well.
The Lutherans have made a crack in the dam of religious bigotry that is now set to break wide open for the rest of the fundamentalist world -- we are at a tipping point.
The ELCA has conducted itself with grace and dignity, and many of us are longing for some of that type of public civility. Their example is going to make people within other embattled denominations long for a better process within their own communities. The ELCA members didn't wage war in public with one another. There was no public outcry that diminished everyone while they worked their way through a quarter century of discussion.
The ELCA press release about the decision reads:
These actions are important because they are a major milestone along the journey of full inclusion. We have a policy that recognizes the gifts of its members [...] and that will allow the return of those who have been removed or alienated [...]. [There will] be new life in the church through new leaders. [...] [W]e have lifted up crucial questions for the church: What is the relationship of sexuality to salvation in Christ? What is the diversity in God's wondrous creation? What is sinful? [...] Who continues to face barriers to ministry and mission? How do we journey together faithfully, in spite of so many differences? What some people have dismissed as a narrow issue has both opened up and profoundly deepened our moral and theological life.
Amazing. It sounds like the Lutherans think LGBTQ people have helped them get closer to God. A great truth has been realized today that Jesus Christ demonstrated throughout His ministry 2000 years ago. It is not blasphemous to include and embrace the prayers and relationships and service of those outside society's gate. In fact, it's a blessing.
Follow Rev. Dr. Cindi Love on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SoulforceLove
The dogmatists are reluctant to publicly concede that the original NT and patristic witnesses are lost to the ages - yet insist that the extant copies of these documents faithfully convey the “original” texts.
With such divine authority seemingly bulwarking them, the doctrines upon which the dogmatists build their teachings are lent a cachet of co-Biblical, co-Divine clout. Christians aren’t suggesting that Gay people shouldn’t be granted equal civil status as their heterosexual counterparts (vis-à-vis: the civil right to marry the person one loves, regardless of gender or to serve openly in the military), but God’s inerrant Biblical demand.
But, of the surviving 5,000 Greek NT Ms, not one agrees with another (Metzger and Ehrman, 2005)! There is only a seventy-three percent concordance between the extant Mss (Aland and Aland, 1995). Dogmatists know that as soon as the corruption of the NT Mss – and their attestation in similarly corrupted patristic witnesses –is widely acknowledged, their claims of Biblical infallibility crumbles.
The extant NT Mss are corrupt; the doctrines built on them are also corrupt.
Dogmatists and religious magisteria who’ve long enjoyed unquestioned power by invoking “inerrant,” “infallible” Scripture – to oppress Gays and other groups of people – must be very worried…and rightly so.
If every Mss were in perfect accord, there would be no need for multiple Bibles. If every fundamental doctrine were perfectly discernable, there would be no plurality of Christian denominations or variance of doctrines.
I Tim 3:16 is a prime example where the earliest and best Mss refer to Jesus simply as one “who” was, or “the” one made manifest in the flesh. Later copies alter the text in the original manuscripts to state that he was “God” manifest in the flesh. The former reading, rather than the latter is supported by the best and earliest uncials (Sinaiticus, A*vid, C*, G.gr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syr.hmg,pal goth eth.pp Origen.lat Epiphanius Jerome Etherius.acc. to Theodoret Cyril.acc to Oeucumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun must have arisen as an alteration of the masculine relative pronoun. Witnesses reading the masculine definite article (D* it.d g. 61. 86 vg…Augustine, etc.) No uncial prior to the 8th century supports the reading of Jesus as God, “theos.” All ancient versions presuppose either the definite article or the relative pronoun; no patristic writer prior to 365CE testifies to the reading of Jesus as “theos.” Clearly, NT texts and their witness in patristic sources subsequent to the dates indicated deliberately deviate from preceding Mss in order to affect dogmatic conformity. It is unsurprising that the textual corruption occurs shortly after the Council of Nicaea confirmed the doctrine of “homoousion (Gk)” or “consubstantialem (Lt).”
Eager to circumvent the obvious vagaries of oral tradition and their attendant implications for NT texts, cmalloy insists the NT Mss were not “taken from an oral tradition”
Convenient.
They maintain an early inscription of the Gospels claiming early patristic sources as their witnesses – even though the fathers write 150 years after Jesus’ ministry.
None of the NT Mss prior to c 225 CE survives. Additionally, cmalloy frankly admits, “We don't have many of the originals of the patristic documents discussing the Gospels anyhow.”
They produce neither the original Gospels they say emerged in the earliest Christian communities nor the original early patristic sources they contend bear fecund, faithful witness to the Gospels.
Convenient.
They attribute the absence of the early Gospel Mss to the Diocletianic persecutions. Does this also account for the absence of original early patristic sources?
Convenient.
They appeal to Origen c 225 CE and other “early” patristic witnesses to the Gospels. Regarding the gospels’ textual integrity, Origen complained”
“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions, as they please.”
Not so convenient.
If you can prove contrary, provide a primary or academic source saying none of the texts was altered. Please.
Well, I will go ahead and respond to this one.
I would disagree with your statement that I think the NT was not taken from an oral tradition. First, many of the letters in Paul, were written. They were letters. When you speak of the Gospels, many of the stories were from an oral tradition. Many of the people around Jesus could not read or write, so they would have to carry it on through an oral tradition.
I responded to your comments that the Bible did not exist before the 4th century CE. This is a falsity.
Where do you expect these documents to come from? The ancients did not have the technology, nor the resources, to store texts the way we do today. If I am to admit anything "frankly" then I admit your line of arguments are silly.
Sometimes all I can do is shake my head in wonder at them as THEY, arrogantly and condescendingly pity ME!!
I wouldn't hold my breath that the Missouri Synod (or the RCC for that matter) will change any time soon.
1.The rich.
2. Hypocrites
3. Those who get rich off of other people's sincere religious beliefs.
4. The uncharitable and those who give only to be seen giving.
It is almost always different fromthe original message, even with ten people playing.
Now add a hundred years from Christ's death to when the 4 Gospels were written down. Consider that the writing took place in widely different places and times. Consider that the texts have been translated for centuries from one language to another and back again, over and over again...until Guttenberg made it possible for its mass production.
What are the odds that the original message is even CLOSE to the same today?
Let's review your statements:
Now add a hundred years from Christ's death to when the 4 Gospels were written down.
False.
The four Gospels were written down before 130(ish) CE.
Consider that the writing took place in widely different places and times.
False.
The composition of the Gospels took place within decades of each other and in the same region.
Consider that the texts have been translated for centuries from one language to another and back again, over and over again...until Guttenberg made it possible for its mass production.
I don't suppose you've ever studied the NT in an academic setting, have you?
I do agree that the basic tenets of the Ten Commandments are solid ethical laws to abide by, for the most part. Murder is clearly wrong. Lying, cheating, coveting, all are bad things. But remember, the most important Commandments were to have no other gods besides the Head Honcho, and not to take his name in vain. If you are one who feels passionately about a higher power, then this works fine and dandy, no matter WHAT religion you are a part of, be it Christianity, Islam or Hinduism.
Both the legends of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, as well as the Great Deluge and Noah both have roots in a different faith...adopted bythe Jews during their time of slavery under Nebuchadnezzer in Babylon, and written down a couple thousand years prior to the histories of Moses and so on...
Check out Gilgamesh.
The point is that most ancient religions that began in the middle east all had common myths and legends, so attributing the concept of original sin with Adam and Eve is simply uninformed. Speak with any theologian if you doubt my words.
By the way Horus...an ancient Egyptian god, was born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, healed the sick and raised the dead, was cruicified and rose fromthe dead 3 days later and ascended into the skies. Sound familiar?
However, how is the concept of original sin residing in Adam and Eve uninformed?
Second, you name some of these similarities between Horus and Jesus. What are your sources for these? Also, where do they contrast?
Really?
Give us the (non-existent) quote you falsely attribute to Jesus. NOW!
We understand you. Your hatred of Gay people means more to you than even taking the time to quote the Bible - the very book you invoke to condemn Gay persons and their "behavior" - with any shred of accuracy.
Even though you condemn Gay persons, GOD condemns you (How awesome is THAT - Praise God!): "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:22-23)."
Not only that, but even though you want to condemn the "behavior" of Gay persons, and presume that God is on your side, God condemns YOUR behavior. Again, Praise God!
"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things (Rom 2:1).
I rejoice because at the very moment you invoke God to condemn me (a gay man) and my sisters and brothers, God condemns…YOU!
On a side note, homophobes in Christianity really irk me too.
In regard to civil rights issues that gays demand, these are aimed at government agencies whose religiously based laws and rules demand differential treatment between gays and straights. For instance, the government bestows a number of decidedly non-religious benefits on married couples. Bestowing these rights upon gay couples who enter into a civil arrangement (religiously blessed or otherwise) is not in any way conflating church and state. No church is required to perform a religious ceremony and thus church and state is still separated.
A church can decide what is right and wrong for themselves, of course. If they choose to to recognize gay marriages or priests or pastors, then that is completely their call. From the perspective of the State, there should be no logical reason for banning it other than biblical ordinance and public sentiment...and sentiment is often times NOT good for the public at all. Ask the Germans during WW2. They can tell you first hand.
By attributing the Bible to the literal Word of God is your biggest mistake. These men who wrote these texts were MEN. Sure, there is a possibility that they were vessels from which the "words" of god sprung forth, but there is also a possibility that something got lost in translation, not to mention two thousand years worth of editing, rearranging, emphasizing and stripping.
It's like trusting a TV Guide from March, 1965 to tell you what's on TV tonight.
We are a Christian family. I don't know to what degree each of us is or is not "fundamental" I only know what I believe. I love and respect my nephew and am all too happy to leave the judging up to God.
Because of this experience, I do feel that LGBT are sorley misunderstood by mainstream churches who seem to want there to be a special place in hell for gays...The Bible speaks out against adultery 1,000 times more than homosexuality- gay people do not have exclusivity.
So although I think your statement was intended to support the position against gay rights, if taken to its ultimate conclusion it actually supports the separation of Church and State.
1. Why is it a sin for two men or two women to express physical love for one another, if it comes from the heart?
2. What harm does two men or two women loving one another in God's eyes cause ME?
3. If a man who said he speaks to God approached you on the street, and told you that God wanted you to jump off a cliff, would you?
2) It harms me because sin is like a cancer and spreads if unchecked. It never confines itself to the people sinning. It aslways affects others somehow.
3) No. Because God has given me a brain to use and God would never ask me to commit suicide.
Yet The ELCA approved "social statement" on sexuality ties itself into knots to AVOID saying being Gay or Lesbian is no different than being heterosexual. Instead we get bizzare paragraphs about "bound concience" and "living together faithfully".
The same assembly that approved changes for Gay clergy , refused to denounce repairative therapy. The ELCA still cannot answer the basic question of equality. Not are Gays and Lesbians " equally welcome" or "equally loved by God" . But is Gay sexuality NO DIFFERENT than Straight Sexuality, and just AS MUCH a gift from God.
The ELCA says we ALL are sinners . Yet there is the undertone that beign Gay is a little "more sinful" than straight , because it's "contrary to Christian Tradition." Well eating shrimp l and allowing women to speak in public is against established "traditions" from scripture, but the ELCA doesnt feel the need to "study" that.
Don't misunderstand, I am thrilled by the steps we have taken. But the truth is when you look at communities of faith like the United Church of Christ, and it's approach, it becomes clear that the ELCA still has a long way to go.