No neutral corner
Being Anglican in a time of angry polarizationDavid C. Steinmetz Special to the Sentinel Posted November 26, 2006
ADVERTISEMENTS
Almost overlooked in the media frenzy over the spectacular fall from grace of megachurch pastor, Ted Haggard, was the installation on Nov. 4 of Katharine Jefferts Schori as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the 78 million-member Anglican Communion.Like Nancy Pelosi, who will become the first woman speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007, Bishop Jefferts Schori is also a pioneer, becoming at her installation in the National Cathedral the first woman ever to preside over an Anglican province in the nearly 500-year history of the Anglican Communion. Both women assume their new roles in troubled times.
The Anglican troubles began in 2003, when the Episcopal Church decided to consecrate an openly gay man as the bishop of New Hampshire. This act ignited a religious civil war that spread rapidly around the world.Conservative Anglicans regard the election and consecration of an openly gay bishop as a repudiation of biblical authority. In their view, gay sex is a forbidden activity for Christians, as St. Paul and the holiness code of Leviticus make clear. Indeed, conservatives regard attraction to members of one's own sex as a disordered form of love that needs to be overcome rather than expressed -- a traditional position recently reiterated by the American bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.Liberal Anglicans -- including Jefferts Schori -- disagree. In their view, homosexuality is not a choice. Human beings are born gay. They no more choose to be gay or lesbian than they choose to be tall or short. What they can decide is whether to be promiscuous, taking their pleasures where they find them, or to be faithful to one partner in a lifetime commitment of mutual love and respect.Liberals believe that Jesus calls heterosexuals to a life of sexual fidelity as heterosexuals and homosexuals to the same standard of fidelity as gay and lesbian. Both are included in the general call to holiness, and no one stands outside the circle of God's loving acceptance.And that is where the argument stands at the present time. Simply put, the two opposing positions, liberal and conservative, could not be more sharply different. Either gay sex is a disordered form of love and needs to be renounced, or it is part of God's good creation and needs only to be faithful.This polarized state of affairs has left moderates in the Anglican communion depressed and dispirited. Moderates are people who are appalled by the willingness of both liberals and conservatives to accept schism as the price of defending the truth, however differently both sides define "the truth."They agree with the late Reinhold Niebuhr that God's quarrel is not with this or that faction of the human family. God's quarrel is with the whole human race, white and black, male and female, liberal and conservative, rich and poor, gay and straight.Jefferts Schori echoed Niebuhr when she suggested that the present crisis in the Anglican Communion is not the fault of liberals only or of conservatives only, however much each side would like to blame the other. The crisis represents the failure of everyone, liberal and conservative alike, to nurture, love and pray each other into the greater holiness and wisdom these trying times demand.Speaker-designate Pelosi faces a similar crisis. Can political liberals and conservatives declare a truce in their culture wars long enough to identify and work collaboratively toward a common good? If not, the failure will not be the fault of conservatives only or of liberals only. The failure will be the fault of both. Or, as Pogo once memorably put it, "We have met the enemy and it is us."Of course, the question is always posed in morally sharper terms to the church than it is to society in general. After all, liberal and conservative Anglicans are joined to each other by the waters of baptism, a bond they believe is thicker than blood. They share a common history and liturgical tradition, celebrate an identical list of saints and martyrs, laugh at the same self-deprecating jokes, support many of the same charitable projects, recite a common creed, and participate in a common Eucharist.If, given these shared memories, Anglicans cannot love and forgive each other, whom exactly can they love and forgive?David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of the History of Christianity at the Divinity School of Duke University in Durham, N.C.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
"Please join Gene for a lively conversation"
Working for Justice and the Common Good
The Struggle for Inclusion, Diversity and Equality Within Religion November 2, 2006, 9:00am – 10:30am
Featured Speaker: Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New HampshireModerated by: Rev. Jennifer Butler, Executive Director, Faith in Public Life Welcome and Introduction by: Winnie Stachelberg, Senior Vice President for External Affairs, Center for American Progress
As the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, Gene Robinson has faced both hostile opposition and support from both religious and secular communities. His election in 2003 triggered a struggle within the worldwide Anglican church over human rights for gay men and lesbians—a struggle that reflects tensions and rifts within the larger society today.
In working to uphold ideals of respect and compassion and in fighting divisiveness, Bishop Robinson has been an outspoken defender of the common good. Drawing upon his extensive experience as a leader in faith and social justice work, Bishop Robinson will discuss the struggle for inclusion and equality within his faith tradition and other institutions. Please join Bishop Gene Robinson for a lively, important conversation.
Go here.
Here's what some blog had to say about it:
The following is from a talk by Gene Robinson to the Center for American Progress, on the topic of Working for Justice and the Common Good. It took place on the third anniversary of his becoming the bishop of New Hampshire. Initially, I was thinking I would just try to summarize it, but there is a lot of good stuff here, so I ended up largely transcribing about the first third of it. Will share more in a future post, and in the some of the parts toward the end of the talk/interview, I'll have more of my own thoughts to share.Bishop Gene Robinson: Micah said "love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with your God". For the Episcopalians in the crowd, there is a typo in the prayer book--whoever did the typesetting transposed that into "love justice and do mercy." That's been in there since 1979. And I think that's the temptation that we have, which is to just *love* the notion of justice, and be perfectly willing to do those merciful acts of charity. But not do the hard work of justice.And who is the common good for? This year (in the liturgical cycle) we are reading from the Gospel of Mark. It's the oldest, "lean and mean", "Cliff's Notes" version. Gene mentions being a proponent of studying the Gospels in terms of how they depict "what did Jesus know, and when did he know it" with regard to who he was and the nature of his mission. In the Gospel of John, which is believed to be the latest written, Jesus seems to know all.
In Mark, Jesus seems to be figuring it out as he goes along--which to Gene makes sense, because if God chose to live a completely human life, we don't know what's going to happen an hour from now. "And I think that's how Jesus lived his life, so, as you read Mark's Gospel, you can begin to see Jesus kind of putting all this together in his mind...I think Mark's Gospel gives us an idea of the development of Jesus' self-understanding.Gene goes on to set the stage for telling a story that Robinson sees as a turning point in Jesus' self understanding.
You can read more of it here.
The Struggle for Inclusion, Diversity and Equality Within Religion November 2, 2006, 9:00am – 10:30am
Featured Speaker: Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New HampshireModerated by: Rev. Jennifer Butler, Executive Director, Faith in Public Life Welcome and Introduction by: Winnie Stachelberg, Senior Vice President for External Affairs, Center for American Progress
As the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, Gene Robinson has faced both hostile opposition and support from both religious and secular communities. His election in 2003 triggered a struggle within the worldwide Anglican church over human rights for gay men and lesbians—a struggle that reflects tensions and rifts within the larger society today.
In working to uphold ideals of respect and compassion and in fighting divisiveness, Bishop Robinson has been an outspoken defender of the common good. Drawing upon his extensive experience as a leader in faith and social justice work, Bishop Robinson will discuss the struggle for inclusion and equality within his faith tradition and other institutions. Please join Bishop Gene Robinson for a lively, important conversation.
Go here.
Here's what some blog had to say about it:
The following is from a talk by Gene Robinson to the Center for American Progress, on the topic of Working for Justice and the Common Good. It took place on the third anniversary of his becoming the bishop of New Hampshire. Initially, I was thinking I would just try to summarize it, but there is a lot of good stuff here, so I ended up largely transcribing about the first third of it. Will share more in a future post, and in the some of the parts toward the end of the talk/interview, I'll have more of my own thoughts to share.Bishop Gene Robinson: Micah said "love mercy, do justice, and walk humbly with your God". For the Episcopalians in the crowd, there is a typo in the prayer book--whoever did the typesetting transposed that into "love justice and do mercy." That's been in there since 1979. And I think that's the temptation that we have, which is to just *love* the notion of justice, and be perfectly willing to do those merciful acts of charity. But not do the hard work of justice.And who is the common good for? This year (in the liturgical cycle) we are reading from the Gospel of Mark. It's the oldest, "lean and mean", "Cliff's Notes" version. Gene mentions being a proponent of studying the Gospels in terms of how they depict "what did Jesus know, and when did he know it" with regard to who he was and the nature of his mission. In the Gospel of John, which is believed to be the latest written, Jesus seems to know all.
In Mark, Jesus seems to be figuring it out as he goes along--which to Gene makes sense, because if God chose to live a completely human life, we don't know what's going to happen an hour from now. "And I think that's how Jesus lived his life, so, as you read Mark's Gospel, you can begin to see Jesus kind of putting all this together in his mind...I think Mark's Gospel gives us an idea of the development of Jesus' self-understanding.Gene goes on to set the stage for telling a story that Robinson sees as a turning point in Jesus' self understanding.
You can read more of it here.
E-m-i-l-y ?!?!?
Below you will find Lutherans Concerned Executive Emily Eastwood writing:
"Many of you have expressed interest in the progress of the case that Bishop Ronald Warren of the Southeastern Synod has elected to bring against Pastor Bradley Schmeling seeking Bradley's removal from the roster of ELCA clergy. As you know Bradley asked that I serve on his team of legal advisors. I will continue in this role through the disciplinary proceedings. At this point in the case and while pre-hearing negotiations are underway there are still a few things I am able to share with you that I think will be of interest.
The hearing officer (judge), technical and facilities advisors, and the disciplinary hearing committee (jury) have been chosen. The hearing committee is made up of 12 members, 6 from the ELCA and 6 from the Southeastern Synod elected rosters of disciplinary committee members. Bishop Mark Hanson chose the hearing officer and advisors. The Executive Committee of the ELCA chose the 6 members of the committee from the ELCA roster. The synodical members were selected according to elected term with those most recently elected chosen first. In accordance with the rules, Bradley was allowed to select one clergy and one lay person from the ELCA roster of potential committee members.
Although Bradley preferred that the disciplinary proceeding be held in open hearing, Bishop Warren has elected to close the proceedings. When the accused is an individual, as in this case, the ELCA Rules Governing Disciplinary Hearings give the Bishop, as the accuser, an absolute veto over whether the hearing is open or closed. This means that visitors will be denied access to the proceeding. I understand that many of you may want to come to Atlanta during the hearing to support Bradley and his congregation and to see for yourselves what unfolds."
But is it true that the Bishop elected to close the hearing? Or does the constitution say it will be closed unless all agree that it should be open?
We hope that the truth that comes out will be seperable from the spin that LCNA puts on it.
Read the whole thing here.
"Many of you have expressed interest in the progress of the case that Bishop Ronald Warren of the Southeastern Synod has elected to bring against Pastor Bradley Schmeling seeking Bradley's removal from the roster of ELCA clergy. As you know Bradley asked that I serve on his team of legal advisors. I will continue in this role through the disciplinary proceedings. At this point in the case and while pre-hearing negotiations are underway there are still a few things I am able to share with you that I think will be of interest.
The hearing officer (judge), technical and facilities advisors, and the disciplinary hearing committee (jury) have been chosen. The hearing committee is made up of 12 members, 6 from the ELCA and 6 from the Southeastern Synod elected rosters of disciplinary committee members. Bishop Mark Hanson chose the hearing officer and advisors. The Executive Committee of the ELCA chose the 6 members of the committee from the ELCA roster. The synodical members were selected according to elected term with those most recently elected chosen first. In accordance with the rules, Bradley was allowed to select one clergy and one lay person from the ELCA roster of potential committee members.
Although Bradley preferred that the disciplinary proceeding be held in open hearing, Bishop Warren has elected to close the proceedings. When the accused is an individual, as in this case, the ELCA Rules Governing Disciplinary Hearings give the Bishop, as the accuser, an absolute veto over whether the hearing is open or closed. This means that visitors will be denied access to the proceeding. I understand that many of you may want to come to Atlanta during the hearing to support Bradley and his congregation and to see for yourselves what unfolds."
But is it true that the Bishop elected to close the hearing? Or does the constitution say it will be closed unless all agree that it should be open?
We hope that the truth that comes out will be seperable from the spin that LCNA puts on it.
Read the whole thing here.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Atlanta situation
by Richard O. Johnson, associate editor
Forum Letter November, 2006
Copyright 2006 American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. All rights reserved.
Action on the “what do we do about gay clergy” front has now moved to Atlanta, where Southeastern Synod Bp. Ron Warren has filed formal charges against Pr. Bradley Schmeling. The pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Atlanta, Schmeling admitted some time ago that he was in a “committed relationship” with Darin Easlin.
Where few bishops have gone before
Warren, of course, has now gone where several other ELCA bishops have refused to tread. The bishop has declined (understandably and probably rightly) to discuss the case with Forum Letter, but as we’ve tried to piece the story together, it runs something like this:
Bp. Warren was aware of Schmeling’s sexual orientation, but Schmeling had told the bishop that he was in compliance with the requirements of Vision & Expectations, the ELCA document stating that pastors “who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.” Schmeling assured the bishop that if that ever were to change, he would let him know.
Read the whole article here.
Forum Letter November, 2006
Copyright 2006 American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. All rights reserved.
Action on the “what do we do about gay clergy” front has now moved to Atlanta, where Southeastern Synod Bp. Ron Warren has filed formal charges against Pr. Bradley Schmeling. The pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Atlanta, Schmeling admitted some time ago that he was in a “committed relationship” with Darin Easlin.
Where few bishops have gone before
Warren, of course, has now gone where several other ELCA bishops have refused to tread. The bishop has declined (understandably and probably rightly) to discuss the case with Forum Letter, but as we’ve tried to piece the story together, it runs something like this:
Bp. Warren was aware of Schmeling’s sexual orientation, but Schmeling had told the bishop that he was in compliance with the requirements of Vision & Expectations, the ELCA document stating that pastors “who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.” Schmeling assured the bishop that if that ever were to change, he would let him know.
Read the whole article here.
The Pastor Bradley Schmeling case
Here is an update on the Atlanta situation from the Lutherans Concerned/North America website (www.lcna.org).
"November 21, 2006
Update on the Pastor Bradley Schmeling case
Many of you have expressed interest in the progress of the case that Bishop Ronald Warren of the Southeastern Synod has elected to bring against Pastor Bradley Schmeling seeking Bradley's removal from the roster of ELCA clergy. As you know Bradley asked that I serve on his team of legal advisors. I will continue in this role through the disciplinary proceedings. At this point in the case and while pre-hearing negotiations are underway there are still a few things I am able to share with you that I think will be of interest.
The hearing officer (judge), technical and facilities advisors, and the disciplinary hearing committee (jury) have been chosen. The hearing committee is made up of 12 members, 6 from the ELCA and 6 from the Southeastern Synod elected rosters of disciplinary committee members. Bishop Mark Hanson chose the hearing officer and advisors. The Executive Committee of the ELCA chose the 6 members of the committee from the ELCA roster. The synodical members were selected according to elected term with those most recently elected chosen first. In accordance with the rules, Bradley was allowed to select one clergy and one lay person from the ELCA roster of potential committee members.
Although Bradley preferred that the disciplinary proceeding be held in open hearing, Bishop Warren has elected to close the proceedings. When the accused is an individual, as in this case, the ELCA Rules Governing Disciplinary Hearings give the Bishop, as the accuser, an absolute veto over whether the hearing is open or closed. This means that visitors will be denied access to the proceeding. I understand that many of you may want to come to Atlanta during the hearing to support Bradley and his congregation and to see for yourselves what unfolds.
Since the hearing is closed visitors are invited to join St John's for services and prayer around the cross. St John's Lutheran has posted on its website the following dates and times for Prayer at the Time of Trial:
Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:00 pm EST
Liturgy of Prayer and Footwashing
The Rev Barbara Lundblad Preaching
Friday, January 19, 2007 7:00 pm EST
Prayers at the Cross
Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:30 am EST
Festival Sunday Worship
The Rev Gladys Moore Preaching
The liturgies for these services will be available on the St John's website by mid December. Individuals and congregations, not in Atlanta, are asked to convene services using these liturgies in their own locales. Services in support of Bradley and St John's held all over the ELCA and perhaps even in the ELCIC will send a message to the wider church and to the public that the church universal is watching and waiting and calling upon the Holy Spirit to be present in the hearing helping the hearing committee to discern the will of God in this case.
The Bishop's counsel has expressed concern about possible media attention to the case, and has asked that Bradley and his team agree to total media silence. Bradley and his counsel have not and will not agree to media silence. Ironically, the Bishop's own announcement on the synod website of his filing of charges against Bradley prompted the first media inquiries about the case.
Because Bishop Warren is asking that the most severe form of discipline, removal from the clergy roster, be imposed on Bradley in the name of, and on behalf of, the entire ELCA, and because the larger church has been engaged in discussion of the ELCA policy concerning gay clergy, the entire church has an interest in knowing what is being done in its name. In contrast to the Bishop's desire for secrecy, Bradley's counsel have expressed their interest in transparency in this process, pointing out the larger church's interest in knowing how these matters are being handled and its need to have confidence in the integrity and fairness of both the process and of decisions made on behalf of the whole denomination.
The ELCA rules limit each party in a closed hearing to only two official representatives, usually counsel. Bradley's counsel asked the hearing officer to permit the attendance of a limited number of additional people, but the hearing officer indicated that he would leave the parties to reach their own agreement on this matter. Bradley's counsel requested that the Bishop agree to the attendance of members of Bradley's immediate family, including his partner Pastor Darin Easler, another close friend and myself. The Bishop's counsel has responded that the Bishop's agreement on the attendance of family members would be conditioned on an agreement to total media silence. If media silence is the only option, then Bradley and his counsel will be entering the hearing room alone.
Bradley and I know that his case is about much more than whether one pastor is removed from the roster. We know the filing of charges has caused deep pain for most if not all of you, the members of LC/NA. This case is about every gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, called to ministry or not. It is about parents, siblings, children and allies. The ELCA and Bishop Warren said "yes" to Bradley time and again, and in so doing said "yes," in a way, to us. Bradley kept his promise and came forward with the news of his partnership with Darin. Many of us have done the same, choosing authenticity and integrity to the church closet. How the ELCA will act in this process and what it will decide impacts Bradley most of all. Still we stand with him, knowing that the verdict and the penalty, if imposed, are just as surely directed at all of us. God watches with us, longing for justice. "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus." Rom 8: 37-39.
In this time of preparation, I ask that you keep Bradley, his legal team, Bishop Warren and his counsel, the hearing officer, advisors, the hearing committee and the members of St. John's Lutheran in your prayers. May the Holy Spirit infuse this process that all members of the ELCA will find ways to live together faithfully in the midst our disagreements, ways that are life giving rather than life taking, ways that celebrate ministry and the good gifts of the creator, ways that confirm the call of God empowering all to answer Amen, let it be so.
Emily Eastwood
Executive Director
exec@lcna.org
"November 21, 2006
Update on the Pastor Bradley Schmeling case
Many of you have expressed interest in the progress of the case that Bishop Ronald Warren of the Southeastern Synod has elected to bring against Pastor Bradley Schmeling seeking Bradley's removal from the roster of ELCA clergy. As you know Bradley asked that I serve on his team of legal advisors. I will continue in this role through the disciplinary proceedings. At this point in the case and while pre-hearing negotiations are underway there are still a few things I am able to share with you that I think will be of interest.
The hearing officer (judge), technical and facilities advisors, and the disciplinary hearing committee (jury) have been chosen. The hearing committee is made up of 12 members, 6 from the ELCA and 6 from the Southeastern Synod elected rosters of disciplinary committee members. Bishop Mark Hanson chose the hearing officer and advisors. The Executive Committee of the ELCA chose the 6 members of the committee from the ELCA roster. The synodical members were selected according to elected term with those most recently elected chosen first. In accordance with the rules, Bradley was allowed to select one clergy and one lay person from the ELCA roster of potential committee members.
Although Bradley preferred that the disciplinary proceeding be held in open hearing, Bishop Warren has elected to close the proceedings. When the accused is an individual, as in this case, the ELCA Rules Governing Disciplinary Hearings give the Bishop, as the accuser, an absolute veto over whether the hearing is open or closed. This means that visitors will be denied access to the proceeding. I understand that many of you may want to come to Atlanta during the hearing to support Bradley and his congregation and to see for yourselves what unfolds.
Since the hearing is closed visitors are invited to join St John's for services and prayer around the cross. St John's Lutheran has posted on its website the following dates and times for Prayer at the Time of Trial:
Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:00 pm EST
Liturgy of Prayer and Footwashing
The Rev Barbara Lundblad Preaching
Friday, January 19, 2007 7:00 pm EST
Prayers at the Cross
Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:30 am EST
Festival Sunday Worship
The Rev Gladys Moore Preaching
The liturgies for these services will be available on the St John's website by mid December. Individuals and congregations, not in Atlanta, are asked to convene services using these liturgies in their own locales. Services in support of Bradley and St John's held all over the ELCA and perhaps even in the ELCIC will send a message to the wider church and to the public that the church universal is watching and waiting and calling upon the Holy Spirit to be present in the hearing helping the hearing committee to discern the will of God in this case.
The Bishop's counsel has expressed concern about possible media attention to the case, and has asked that Bradley and his team agree to total media silence. Bradley and his counsel have not and will not agree to media silence. Ironically, the Bishop's own announcement on the synod website of his filing of charges against Bradley prompted the first media inquiries about the case.
Because Bishop Warren is asking that the most severe form of discipline, removal from the clergy roster, be imposed on Bradley in the name of, and on behalf of, the entire ELCA, and because the larger church has been engaged in discussion of the ELCA policy concerning gay clergy, the entire church has an interest in knowing what is being done in its name. In contrast to the Bishop's desire for secrecy, Bradley's counsel have expressed their interest in transparency in this process, pointing out the larger church's interest in knowing how these matters are being handled and its need to have confidence in the integrity and fairness of both the process and of decisions made on behalf of the whole denomination.
The ELCA rules limit each party in a closed hearing to only two official representatives, usually counsel. Bradley's counsel asked the hearing officer to permit the attendance of a limited number of additional people, but the hearing officer indicated that he would leave the parties to reach their own agreement on this matter. Bradley's counsel requested that the Bishop agree to the attendance of members of Bradley's immediate family, including his partner Pastor Darin Easler, another close friend and myself. The Bishop's counsel has responded that the Bishop's agreement on the attendance of family members would be conditioned on an agreement to total media silence. If media silence is the only option, then Bradley and his counsel will be entering the hearing room alone.
Bradley and I know that his case is about much more than whether one pastor is removed from the roster. We know the filing of charges has caused deep pain for most if not all of you, the members of LC/NA. This case is about every gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, called to ministry or not. It is about parents, siblings, children and allies. The ELCA and Bishop Warren said "yes" to Bradley time and again, and in so doing said "yes," in a way, to us. Bradley kept his promise and came forward with the news of his partnership with Darin. Many of us have done the same, choosing authenticity and integrity to the church closet. How the ELCA will act in this process and what it will decide impacts Bradley most of all. Still we stand with him, knowing that the verdict and the penalty, if imposed, are just as surely directed at all of us. God watches with us, longing for justice. "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus." Rom 8: 37-39.
In this time of preparation, I ask that you keep Bradley, his legal team, Bishop Warren and his counsel, the hearing officer, advisors, the hearing committee and the members of St. John's Lutheran in your prayers. May the Holy Spirit infuse this process that all members of the ELCA will find ways to live together faithfully in the midst our disagreements, ways that are life giving rather than life taking, ways that celebrate ministry and the good gifts of the creator, ways that confirm the call of God empowering all to answer Amen, let it be so.
Emily Eastwood
Executive Director
exec@lcna.org
Friday, November 17, 2006
In South Africa, the Reasons for Defending Marriage
CAPE TOWN, South African, NOV. 17, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The president of the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference asserted that "homosexual marriage" is contrary to the natural law, and undermines the family and the foundations of society.
On Tuesday the South African Parliament approved same-sex "marriage" by a 230-41 vote after an intense debate. Proponents defended the measure as a way to combat all forms of discrimination.
Last month, at the request of a parliamentary Committee of Internal Affairs, Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, archbishop of Durban, issued a statement explaining why the Catholic Church holds a position that is opposed to same-sex "marriage."
"We agree that the civil and moral law are different things, but we also say that man-made laws cannot legitimize what is against the natural moral law," explained Cardinal Napier.
Moreover, legalization of same-sex unions undermines the family, noted the cardinal: "Across cultures and different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family," and is seen "as a loving and lasting relationship between a man and a woman, a relationship that is open to new life and the future of the human race."
Across various religious beliefs and cultures, "the family is seen as the basic unit of society" and the latter owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage, stated the 65-year-old prelate. "Marriage as we know it is recognized by the state because it contributes to the common good," while "homosexual unions do not exercise this function."
Such unions are also against the good of children, as being placed in the care of a same-sex couple would deprive them of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood, the cardinal said.
This is "a grave injustice to these children who would be compelled to grow up in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development," he added.
See Cardinal Napier's full statement here.
On Tuesday the South African Parliament approved same-sex "marriage" by a 230-41 vote after an intense debate. Proponents defended the measure as a way to combat all forms of discrimination.
Last month, at the request of a parliamentary Committee of Internal Affairs, Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, archbishop of Durban, issued a statement explaining why the Catholic Church holds a position that is opposed to same-sex "marriage."
"We agree that the civil and moral law are different things, but we also say that man-made laws cannot legitimize what is against the natural moral law," explained Cardinal Napier.
Moreover, legalization of same-sex unions undermines the family, noted the cardinal: "Across cultures and different religious beliefs, marriage is the foundation of the family," and is seen "as a loving and lasting relationship between a man and a woman, a relationship that is open to new life and the future of the human race."
Across various religious beliefs and cultures, "the family is seen as the basic unit of society" and the latter owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage, stated the 65-year-old prelate. "Marriage as we know it is recognized by the state because it contributes to the common good," while "homosexual unions do not exercise this function."
Such unions are also against the good of children, as being placed in the care of a same-sex couple would deprive them of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood, the cardinal said.
This is "a grave injustice to these children who would be compelled to grow up in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development," he added.
See Cardinal Napier's full statement here.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Why the multi-various sproutings of delusions of self-justification?
Culture of Vice
Robert R. Reilly
Robert Reilly notes that a society can withstand any number of persons who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But society cannot survive once it adopts the justifications for whose moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war.
In The Ethics Aristotle wrote, "men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives." This is also true when revolutionary changes are cultural. What might these "private" reasons be, and why do they become public in the form of revolutionary changes? The answer to these questions lies in the intimate psychology of moral failure.
For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because of the rebuke of conscience. Habitual moral failure, what used to be called vice, can be lived with only by obliterating conscience through rationalization. When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. We advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated. In our minds we replace the reality of moral order with something more congenial to the activity we are excusing. In short, we assert that bad is good.
It is often difficult to detect rationalizations when one is living directly under their influence, and so historical examples are useful. One of the clearest was offered at the Nuremberg trials by Dr. Karl Brandt, who had been in charge of the Nazi regime's Aktion T-4 euthanasia program. He said in his defense: "...when I said `yes' to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance. Death is life."
Unlike Dr. Brandt, most people recover from their rationalizations when remorse and reality set back in. But when morally disordered acts become the defining centerpiece of one's life, vice can permanently pervert reason. Entrenched moral aberrations then impel people to rationalize vice not only to themselves but to others as well. Thus rationalizations become an engine for revolutionary change that will affect society as a whole.
The power of rationalization drives the culture war, gives it its particular revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. It may draw its energy from desperation, but it is all the more powerful for that. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination, it must be avoided at all cost. For this reason, the differences over which the culture war is being fought are not subject to reasoned discourse. Persons protecting themselves by rationalizing are interested not in finding the truth, but in maintaining the illusion that allows them to continue their behavior. For them to succeed in this, everyone must accede to their rationalization. This is why revolutionary change is required. The necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture. Holdouts cannot be tolerated because they are potential rebukes. The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessed of a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirected by the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society is healthy), or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalization.
According to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, for example, all those reluctant to participate in his rationalization for killing people (including, it turns out, some who are not even ill) are the real problem; the judicial system is "corrupt," the medical profession is "insane," and the press is "meretricious." Of the coroner who found nothing medically wrong with several of his victims, Dr. Kevorkian said that he is a "liar and a fanatical religious nut."
The homosexual movement's rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims. According to Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "We (homosexuals)_ are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right - as heterosexuals have already - to see government and society affirm our lives." Since only the act of sodomy differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want "government and society" to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. "Coming out of the closet" can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered.
And so it must be. If you are going to center your public life on the private act of sodomy, you had better transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy is a moral disorder, it cannot be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. On the other hand, if it is a highly moral act, it should serve as the basis for marriage, family (adoption), and community. As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. In fact, homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be ordained as priests. All of this is happening. It was predictable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. How successful that conquest has been can be seen in the poverty of the rhetoric of its opponents. In supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, the best one congressman could do was to say, "America is not yet ready for homosexual marriage," as if we simply need a decent interval to adjust ourselves to its inevitable arrival.
The homosexual rationalization is so successful that even the campaign against AIDS is part of it, with its message that "everyone is at risk." If everyone is at risk, the disease cannot be related to specific behavior. Yet homosexual acts are the single greatest risk factor in catching AIDS. This unpleasant fact invites unwelcome attention to the nature of homosexual acts, so it must be ignored.
The movement for abortion is equally expansive in its claims upon society. The internal logic of abortion requires the spread of death from the unborn to the nearly born, and then to the infirm and otherwise burdensome individuals. The very psychology of rationalization also pushes those involved with abortion to spread the application of its principles in order to multiply the sources of support for it.
If you are going to kill innocent persons you had better convince yourself and others that is "right," that you do it out of compassion. Thus, Beverly Harrison, a professor of Christian ethics at Union Theological Seminary, contends that abortion is a "positive good," and even a "loving choice." Jungian analyst Ginette Paris thinks it is even more. In her book, The Sacrament of Abortion, she calls for "new rituals as well as laws to restore to abortion its sacred dimension." Defending the right to partial-birth abortions during the recent U.S. Senate debate, Senator Barbara Boxer assure her colleagues that mothers who have aborted their children by this means "buried those babies with love." If abortion is love, then, indeed, as Dr. Brandt said, "Death is life."
Abortion is the ultimate in the larger rationalization of the sexual revolution: if sex is only a form or amusement or self-realization (as it must be when divorced from the moral order), why should the generation of a child stand in the way of it, or penalize its fulfillment? The life of the child is a physical and moral rebuke to this proposition. But the child is too weak to overcome the power of the rationalization. The virtual reality of the rationalization is stronger than the actual reality of the child. The child succumbs to the rationalization and is killed in a new "sacrament."
With over 35 million abortions performed since 1973, the investment in the denial of the evil of abortion has become tremendous. Anyone who has witnessed the eruption of grief and horror (often coming many years after the event) in a woman confronting for the first time the nature of what she has done in an abortion knows the lengths to which people must go to prevent its occurrence.
Thus the changing attitudes toward abortion can be directly traced to the growing number of people, including fathers, doctors, and nurses, with the need to justify it. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the number of people who think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances has declined from 21 per cent in 1975 to only 15 per cent in 1995. The proportion who support abortion in all circumstances has increased from 21 per cent to 33 per cent in the same period. This change has taken place not because pro-abortionists are winning arguments, but because of the enormous increase in the number of those with a personal, psychological need to deny what abortion is.
Controversies about life, generation, and death are decisive for the fate of any civilization. A society can withstand any number of persons who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But it cannot survive once it adopts the justification for those moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war.
Robert R. Reilly is chairman of the Committee for Western Civilization.
This article was first published in National Review. Copyright © 1996 National Review It can be found at the Catholic Educator Resource Center website.
Robert R. Reilly
Robert Reilly notes that a society can withstand any number of persons who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But society cannot survive once it adopts the justifications for whose moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war.
In The Ethics Aristotle wrote, "men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives." This is also true when revolutionary changes are cultural. What might these "private" reasons be, and why do they become public in the form of revolutionary changes? The answer to these questions lies in the intimate psychology of moral failure.
For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because of the rebuke of conscience. Habitual moral failure, what used to be called vice, can be lived with only by obliterating conscience through rationalization. When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. We advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated. In our minds we replace the reality of moral order with something more congenial to the activity we are excusing. In short, we assert that bad is good.
It is often difficult to detect rationalizations when one is living directly under their influence, and so historical examples are useful. One of the clearest was offered at the Nuremberg trials by Dr. Karl Brandt, who had been in charge of the Nazi regime's Aktion T-4 euthanasia program. He said in his defense: "...when I said `yes' to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance. Death is life."
Unlike Dr. Brandt, most people recover from their rationalizations when remorse and reality set back in. But when morally disordered acts become the defining centerpiece of one's life, vice can permanently pervert reason. Entrenched moral aberrations then impel people to rationalize vice not only to themselves but to others as well. Thus rationalizations become an engine for revolutionary change that will affect society as a whole.
The power of rationalization drives the culture war, gives it its particular revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. It may draw its energy from desperation, but it is all the more powerful for that. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination, it must be avoided at all cost. For this reason, the differences over which the culture war is being fought are not subject to reasoned discourse. Persons protecting themselves by rationalizing are interested not in finding the truth, but in maintaining the illusion that allows them to continue their behavior. For them to succeed in this, everyone must accede to their rationalization. This is why revolutionary change is required. The necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture. Holdouts cannot be tolerated because they are potential rebukes. The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessed of a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirected by the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society is healthy), or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalization.
According to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, for example, all those reluctant to participate in his rationalization for killing people (including, it turns out, some who are not even ill) are the real problem; the judicial system is "corrupt," the medical profession is "insane," and the press is "meretricious." Of the coroner who found nothing medically wrong with several of his victims, Dr. Kevorkian said that he is a "liar and a fanatical religious nut."
The homosexual movement's rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims. According to Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "We (homosexuals)_ are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right - as heterosexuals have already - to see government and society affirm our lives." Since only the act of sodomy differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want "government and society" to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. "Coming out of the closet" can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered.
And so it must be. If you are going to center your public life on the private act of sodomy, you had better transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy is a moral disorder, it cannot be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. On the other hand, if it is a highly moral act, it should serve as the basis for marriage, family (adoption), and community. As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. In fact, homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be ordained as priests. All of this is happening. It was predictable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. How successful that conquest has been can be seen in the poverty of the rhetoric of its opponents. In supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, the best one congressman could do was to say, "America is not yet ready for homosexual marriage," as if we simply need a decent interval to adjust ourselves to its inevitable arrival.
The homosexual rationalization is so successful that even the campaign against AIDS is part of it, with its message that "everyone is at risk." If everyone is at risk, the disease cannot be related to specific behavior. Yet homosexual acts are the single greatest risk factor in catching AIDS. This unpleasant fact invites unwelcome attention to the nature of homosexual acts, so it must be ignored.
The movement for abortion is equally expansive in its claims upon society. The internal logic of abortion requires the spread of death from the unborn to the nearly born, and then to the infirm and otherwise burdensome individuals. The very psychology of rationalization also pushes those involved with abortion to spread the application of its principles in order to multiply the sources of support for it.
If you are going to kill innocent persons you had better convince yourself and others that is "right," that you do it out of compassion. Thus, Beverly Harrison, a professor of Christian ethics at Union Theological Seminary, contends that abortion is a "positive good," and even a "loving choice." Jungian analyst Ginette Paris thinks it is even more. In her book, The Sacrament of Abortion, she calls for "new rituals as well as laws to restore to abortion its sacred dimension." Defending the right to partial-birth abortions during the recent U.S. Senate debate, Senator Barbara Boxer assure her colleagues that mothers who have aborted their children by this means "buried those babies with love." If abortion is love, then, indeed, as Dr. Brandt said, "Death is life."
Abortion is the ultimate in the larger rationalization of the sexual revolution: if sex is only a form or amusement or self-realization (as it must be when divorced from the moral order), why should the generation of a child stand in the way of it, or penalize its fulfillment? The life of the child is a physical and moral rebuke to this proposition. But the child is too weak to overcome the power of the rationalization. The virtual reality of the rationalization is stronger than the actual reality of the child. The child succumbs to the rationalization and is killed in a new "sacrament."
With over 35 million abortions performed since 1973, the investment in the denial of the evil of abortion has become tremendous. Anyone who has witnessed the eruption of grief and horror (often coming many years after the event) in a woman confronting for the first time the nature of what she has done in an abortion knows the lengths to which people must go to prevent its occurrence.
Thus the changing attitudes toward abortion can be directly traced to the growing number of people, including fathers, doctors, and nurses, with the need to justify it. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the number of people who think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances has declined from 21 per cent in 1975 to only 15 per cent in 1995. The proportion who support abortion in all circumstances has increased from 21 per cent to 33 per cent in the same period. This change has taken place not because pro-abortionists are winning arguments, but because of the enormous increase in the number of those with a personal, psychological need to deny what abortion is.
Controversies about life, generation, and death are decisive for the fate of any civilization. A society can withstand any number of persons who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But it cannot survive once it adopts the justification for those moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war.
Robert R. Reilly is chairman of the Committee for Western Civilization.
This article was first published in National Review. Copyright © 1996 National Review It can be found at the Catholic Educator Resource Center website.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Megan Writes Her Own Press Release: "Consortium of San Francisco Lutheran Churches to Ordain a Queer Pastor on November 18th."
All the best, Megan!
Shrimp here: Of all the human people I have met venturing on dry land, Megan is the most upfront in her radical revisionism of what it measn to be Lutheran. She seems to truly believe that she has an inside on what Martin Luther would say about her.
I think she actually shows that the ELCA is in deep epistimological problems. I'm only sorry I didn't hear of this earlier. I suppose the ELCA's only hope is to help San Francisco start their own denomnation and let similar minded people from around the ELCA join them.
by Megan Rohrer Wednesday, Nov. 08, 2006 at 6:29 PM
megan@welcomeministry.org
Consortium of San Francisco Lutheran Churches to Ordain a Queer Pastor on November 18th.
A consortium of Lutheran churches in San Francisco are set to ordain an openly queer person to minister to the homeless in San Francisco, in direct conflict with official policies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Christ Church Lutheran, Ebenezer Lutheran, St. Francis Lutheran and St. Mary and St. Martha Lutheran plan to ordain Megan Rohrer on Saturday, Novemeber 18th, 2006 in a service to be held at Ebenezer Lutheran Church at 3pm. The action follows the ordination of Erik Christensen that happened on October 21st at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church in Chicago. Both Eric and Megan were approved for call by the Extraordinary Candidacy Project (ECP).
The Rev. Jeff R. Johnson, pastor of University Lutheran Chapel of Berkeley and president of the Extraordinary Candidacy Project, remarks: "I thank God for Megan and for the courageous witness of Bay Area Lutherans! Megan is a wonderfully gifted candidate for ordination and will make a terrific Lutheran pastor.”
On August 27th, Ebenezer became the first congregation to vote to call Megan (see www.herchurch.org). Like most ELCA congregations that have called ECP roster members, Ebenezer is one of Lutherans Concerned/North America's Reconciling in Christ congregations. This vibrant parish in the heart of San Francisco is known for its cutting edge ministry and "re-imaging" what it means to be church. With its focus on feminism and gender, this congregation is an excellent match for Megan theologically.
Megan explains, "As an extraordinary candidate for ministry, I feel that my access and privilege oblige me to speak openly about the queerness of scripture on behalf of and for the sake of my queer kin. This does not mean talking about queer things all the time, or that I minister only to or for queer people. Rather, it means that I am called to be honest not only about my own queer gender and sexuality, but also about the diverse sex, gender and sexuality constructions in scripture, the nature of God and in the body of Christ."
On January 20th 1990, St. Francis and First United became the first congregations to defy the ELCA, when they called and ordained Ruth Frost, Phyllis Zillhart and Jeff Johnson. On January 22nd the ELCA filed charges against St. Francis and First United which lead to the expulsion of both congregations from the ELCA.
In the 16 years that have past since the ordination of Frost, Zillart and Johnson, the ELCA’s discipline of churches who call sexual minority pastors has been very inconsistent. For example, in 1997, the Rev. Steven P. Sabin was tried and defrocked because of his partnership while serving at Lord of Life Lutheran in Ames, Iowa. Yet, no disciplinary action was taken in 2001 when Rev. Sabin accepted an illegal and “irregular" call to Christ Church.
Rohrer’s ordination comes after the ELCA completed a four year process of “study and discernment” in preparation for a vote in August of 2005 on the issues of gay clergy and same-sex blessings. At that time, the church voted not to change its official church policy allows lesbian or gay persons to serve only if they take a vow of celibacy. However, in response to the policy of the national church, the Sierra Pacific Synod voted at their 2006 synod assembly to commend “the office of the Bishop of this Synod for its exercise of the discretion explicitly granted by the ELCA’s governing documents, and encourages that the Bishop’s office continue to be guided by restraint in the administration of those policies only applicable to sexual minority rostered persons” (resolution 06-06).
It is unclear how the Bishop will respond to the congregations that are calling Rohrer and ordaining her. The Bishop may choose restraint, or to follow the lead of Bishop Ron Warren of Southeastern Synod, who has filed formal charges against out Pastor Bradley Schmeling on August 8, 2006 for "behavior incompatible with the character of the ministerial office."
Rev. Johnson sees Megan's ordination as another opportunity for Lutherans to confront the policy this policy. “Megan’s ordination not only bears witness to her gifts, it is also a strong repudiation of the policy of discrimination and forced celibacy that continues to captivate most Lutherans throughout the United States and the ELCA. I hope that more and more Lutherans will see fit to ignore this policy and find extraordinary ways to circumvent it."
PRESS:
Megan and members of the calling churches will be available for comment 30 minutes before the service and for 30 minutes after the service.
ORDINATION & INSTALLATION:
3:00 p.m. Saturday, November 18th, Ebenezer Lutheran Church, 678 Portola Dr.
GALA FOR THE WELCOME MINISTRY:
6:30 p.m. Saturday, November 18th, Christ Church Lutheran, 1090 Quintara Street.
MORE DETAILS:
http://www.welcomeministry.org (Click on the ordination link at the top of the page.)
or: ecpsems.org/rohrer (Megan Rohrer’s Ordination Homepage)
or: Welcome Ministry office telephone: (415)776-5552x310 (between 11am and 5pm pacific time)
CONTACT INFORMATION
Megan Rohrer: 415-827-2587
Ebenezer Contact: The Rev. Stacy Boorn; 415-731-6470
Christ Church Lutheran contact: The Rev. Steven P. Sabin; 415-664-0915
St. Francis Contact: The Rev. Dr. Robert Goldstein; 415-621-2635
Megan Rohrer
Director
The Welcome Ministry
1751 Sacramento St
San Francisco CA 94109
415-776-5552
www.welcomeministry.org
Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/1732979.php Print comments.
Shrimp here: Of all the human people I have met venturing on dry land, Megan is the most upfront in her radical revisionism of what it measn to be Lutheran. She seems to truly believe that she has an inside on what Martin Luther would say about her.
I think she actually shows that the ELCA is in deep epistimological problems. I'm only sorry I didn't hear of this earlier. I suppose the ELCA's only hope is to help San Francisco start their own denomnation and let similar minded people from around the ELCA join them.
by Megan Rohrer Wednesday, Nov. 08, 2006 at 6:29 PM
megan@welcomeministry.org
Consortium of San Francisco Lutheran Churches to Ordain a Queer Pastor on November 18th.
A consortium of Lutheran churches in San Francisco are set to ordain an openly queer person to minister to the homeless in San Francisco, in direct conflict with official policies of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Christ Church Lutheran, Ebenezer Lutheran, St. Francis Lutheran and St. Mary and St. Martha Lutheran plan to ordain Megan Rohrer on Saturday, Novemeber 18th, 2006 in a service to be held at Ebenezer Lutheran Church at 3pm. The action follows the ordination of Erik Christensen that happened on October 21st at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church in Chicago. Both Eric and Megan were approved for call by the Extraordinary Candidacy Project (ECP).
The Rev. Jeff R. Johnson, pastor of University Lutheran Chapel of Berkeley and president of the Extraordinary Candidacy Project, remarks: "I thank God for Megan and for the courageous witness of Bay Area Lutherans! Megan is a wonderfully gifted candidate for ordination and will make a terrific Lutheran pastor.”
On August 27th, Ebenezer became the first congregation to vote to call Megan (see www.herchurch.org). Like most ELCA congregations that have called ECP roster members, Ebenezer is one of Lutherans Concerned/North America's Reconciling in Christ congregations. This vibrant parish in the heart of San Francisco is known for its cutting edge ministry and "re-imaging" what it means to be church. With its focus on feminism and gender, this congregation is an excellent match for Megan theologically.
Megan explains, "As an extraordinary candidate for ministry, I feel that my access and privilege oblige me to speak openly about the queerness of scripture on behalf of and for the sake of my queer kin. This does not mean talking about queer things all the time, or that I minister only to or for queer people. Rather, it means that I am called to be honest not only about my own queer gender and sexuality, but also about the diverse sex, gender and sexuality constructions in scripture, the nature of God and in the body of Christ."
On January 20th 1990, St. Francis and First United became the first congregations to defy the ELCA, when they called and ordained Ruth Frost, Phyllis Zillhart and Jeff Johnson. On January 22nd the ELCA filed charges against St. Francis and First United which lead to the expulsion of both congregations from the ELCA.
In the 16 years that have past since the ordination of Frost, Zillart and Johnson, the ELCA’s discipline of churches who call sexual minority pastors has been very inconsistent. For example, in 1997, the Rev. Steven P. Sabin was tried and defrocked because of his partnership while serving at Lord of Life Lutheran in Ames, Iowa. Yet, no disciplinary action was taken in 2001 when Rev. Sabin accepted an illegal and “irregular" call to Christ Church.
Rohrer’s ordination comes after the ELCA completed a four year process of “study and discernment” in preparation for a vote in August of 2005 on the issues of gay clergy and same-sex blessings. At that time, the church voted not to change its official church policy allows lesbian or gay persons to serve only if they take a vow of celibacy. However, in response to the policy of the national church, the Sierra Pacific Synod voted at their 2006 synod assembly to commend “the office of the Bishop of this Synod for its exercise of the discretion explicitly granted by the ELCA’s governing documents, and encourages that the Bishop’s office continue to be guided by restraint in the administration of those policies only applicable to sexual minority rostered persons” (resolution 06-06).
It is unclear how the Bishop will respond to the congregations that are calling Rohrer and ordaining her. The Bishop may choose restraint, or to follow the lead of Bishop Ron Warren of Southeastern Synod, who has filed formal charges against out Pastor Bradley Schmeling on August 8, 2006 for "behavior incompatible with the character of the ministerial office."
Rev. Johnson sees Megan's ordination as another opportunity for Lutherans to confront the policy this policy. “Megan’s ordination not only bears witness to her gifts, it is also a strong repudiation of the policy of discrimination and forced celibacy that continues to captivate most Lutherans throughout the United States and the ELCA. I hope that more and more Lutherans will see fit to ignore this policy and find extraordinary ways to circumvent it."
PRESS:
Megan and members of the calling churches will be available for comment 30 minutes before the service and for 30 minutes after the service.
ORDINATION & INSTALLATION:
3:00 p.m. Saturday, November 18th, Ebenezer Lutheran Church, 678 Portola Dr.
GALA FOR THE WELCOME MINISTRY:
6:30 p.m. Saturday, November 18th, Christ Church Lutheran, 1090 Quintara Street.
MORE DETAILS:
http://www.welcomeministry.org (Click on the ordination link at the top of the page.)
or: ecpsems.org/rohrer (Megan Rohrer’s Ordination Homepage)
or: Welcome Ministry office telephone: (415)776-5552x310 (between 11am and 5pm pacific time)
CONTACT INFORMATION
Megan Rohrer: 415-827-2587
Ebenezer Contact: The Rev. Stacy Boorn; 415-731-6470
Christ Church Lutheran contact: The Rev. Steven P. Sabin; 415-664-0915
St. Francis Contact: The Rev. Dr. Robert Goldstein; 415-621-2635
Megan Rohrer
Director
The Welcome Ministry
1751 Sacramento St
San Francisco CA 94109
415-776-5552
www.welcomeministry.org
Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/1732979.php Print comments.
Friday, November 10, 2006
"undermining traditional marriage; and criminalize any public criticism of homosexual conduct.."
THE AGENDA describes how homosexual activists plan on recruiting your children into the lifestyle; how they’re undermining traditional marriage; and how they will eventually criminalize any public criticism of homosexual conduct. (It’s already happening in Canada where the gay agenda is well advanced.)
Former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts has said of THE AGENDA: “This powerful and hard-hitting book lays bare the reality and risks of the homosexual agenda.”
Author Rev. Louis P. Sheldon has issued a call for all Christians to actively oppose the homosexual agenda.
Order it here.
Former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts has said of THE AGENDA: “This powerful and hard-hitting book lays bare the reality and risks of the homosexual agenda.”
Author Rev. Louis P. Sheldon has issued a call for all Christians to actively oppose the homosexual agenda.
Order it here.
New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice
New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice
Sign In to E-Mail This
Print
Single Page
Reprints
Save
By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: November 7, 2006
Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.
Skip to next paragraph
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: Gay Rights
Should people be allowed to alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery? Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.
Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.
“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”
If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender. A handful of states do not require surgery for such birth certificate changes, but in some of those cases patients are still not allowed to make the change without showing a physiological shift to the opposite gender.
In New York, the proposed change comes after four years of discussion among health officials, an eight-member panel of transgender experts and vital records offices nationwide. It is an outgrowth of the transgender community’s push to recognize that some people may not have money to get a sex-change operation, while others may not feel the need to undergo the procedure and are simply defining themselves as members of the opposite sex. While it may be a radical notion elsewhere, New York City has often tolerated such blurring of the lines of gender identity.
And the proposal reflects how the transgender movement has become politically potent beyond its small numbers, having roots in the muscular politics of the city’s gay rights movement.
Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one’s physical parts. But some psychiatrists and doctors are skeptical of the move, saying sexual self-definition should stop at rewriting medical history.
“They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record,” said Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts convened by the city. “If they wanted to change the gender for all the compelling reasons that they’ve given, it should be done perhaps with an asterisk.”
The change would lead to many intriguing questions: For example, would a man who becomes a woman be able to marry another man? (Probably.) Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.) Would a woman who becomes a man be able to fight in combat, or play in the National Football League? (These areas have yet to be explored.)
The Board of Health, which weighs recommendations drafted by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is scheduled to vote on the proposal in December, and officials say they expect it to be adopted.
At the final public hearing for the birth certificate proposal last week, a string of advocates and transsexuals suggested that common definitions of gender, especially its reliance on medical assessments, should be abandoned. They generally praised the city for revisiting its 25-year-old policy that lets people remove the sex designation from their birth certificate if they have had sexual reassignment surgery. Then they demanded more freedom to choose.
Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, said transgender people should not have to rely on affidavits from a health care system that tends to be biased against them. He said that many transgender people cannot afford sex-change surgery or therapy, and often do not consider it necessary.
Read more here.
Sign In to E-Mail This
Single Page
Reprints
Save
By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: November 7, 2006
Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.
Skip to next paragraph
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: Gay Rights
Should people be allowed to alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery? Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.
Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.
“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”
If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender. A handful of states do not require surgery for such birth certificate changes, but in some of those cases patients are still not allowed to make the change without showing a physiological shift to the opposite gender.
In New York, the proposed change comes after four years of discussion among health officials, an eight-member panel of transgender experts and vital records offices nationwide. It is an outgrowth of the transgender community’s push to recognize that some people may not have money to get a sex-change operation, while others may not feel the need to undergo the procedure and are simply defining themselves as members of the opposite sex. While it may be a radical notion elsewhere, New York City has often tolerated such blurring of the lines of gender identity.
And the proposal reflects how the transgender movement has become politically potent beyond its small numbers, having roots in the muscular politics of the city’s gay rights movement.
Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one’s physical parts. But some psychiatrists and doctors are skeptical of the move, saying sexual self-definition should stop at rewriting medical history.
“They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record,” said Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts convened by the city. “If they wanted to change the gender for all the compelling reasons that they’ve given, it should be done perhaps with an asterisk.”
The change would lead to many intriguing questions: For example, would a man who becomes a woman be able to marry another man? (Probably.) Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.) Would a woman who becomes a man be able to fight in combat, or play in the National Football League? (These areas have yet to be explored.)
The Board of Health, which weighs recommendations drafted by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is scheduled to vote on the proposal in December, and officials say they expect it to be adopted.
At the final public hearing for the birth certificate proposal last week, a string of advocates and transsexuals suggested that common definitions of gender, especially its reliance on medical assessments, should be abandoned. They generally praised the city for revisiting its 25-year-old policy that lets people remove the sex designation from their birth certificate if they have had sexual reassignment surgery. Then they demanded more freedom to choose.
Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, said transgender people should not have to rely on affidavits from a health care system that tends to be biased against them. He said that many transgender people cannot afford sex-change surgery or therapy, and often do not consider it necessary.
Read more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...