Questions for Gay Friendly Pastor?

How does she deal with other religious figures that consider homosexuality an abomination? Does she worry about her church fracturing over the issue?

Do you mind being hypocritical, especially in a teaching and guidance role?

When and where did your god inform you to ignore large parts of his doctrine?

Did your god happen to enlighten you on any one of a hundred areas where christianity is at odds with what is considered ethical by societal standards or is this the only thing he wanted to clear up?

The basis for my questioning is simple: The bible…the only representation of the christian god’s word…never has changed. Further…being against homosexuality, while wrong, is only the tip of the iceberg. So god’s law is actually in harmony with homosexuality, but women are still second class citizens? Slavery is still condoned in the bible? Homosexuality is still considered wrong by anyone who believes the bible literally. As they should, if they profess a belief in the bible. The bible does not have any provisions for ignoring or mutating it’s words. It is pretty clear about itself. It considers itself the true, actual, non-metaphorical word of god and history of his chosen people. Any changes to that is from man. period. There can be no other explaination…save it be a revelation from god (the mormons actually did revise much of what was said and claimed it was from god).

So, unless this pastor has revelation from her god that these changes of viewpoint should occur…then it is just her human and ethical side making her feel this way. That is not wrong…in fact, most excellent!! I wish all pastors had this revelation. But…why stop there? Just examine the fact that you just made your part with your god’s word publically. Why not part with all of the other nonsense too? Then look at it what is left and see if you can believe anything that also included what you just deemed improper.

How can I talk to other religious people who damn homosexuals and oppose gay marriage? What arguments will convince them homosexuality is okay with your God?

Historically enlightenment values have often been adopted by liberal Christian denomination and eventually spread to become the default Christian position. You find abolitionist and gender equality sentiments among the Quakers as early as the 17th century. However it wasn’t until after the American Civil War that opposition to slavery started to approach universal status among American Christians. While to this day the Catholics and many fundamentalist still insist on lower status for women in their church hierarchies.

Do you expect it to take 200 years for mainstream Christianity to adopt more enlightened views such as your own on LBGT issues? If not why?

I would like to know how she personally reconsiles being a GLTB Christian with the bible verses so often used to persecute homosexuals.

I would also like to know her feelings on pre-marital sex in general.

Finally, I would ask her what she recommends for enrolling others in this line of thought.

Why would you support a religion that (generally) does not support you? They claim that their “book” tells them so and that it is the word of the “great surveillance camera in the sky”, but that is (wrong) interpretation. It is like gays and lesbians in the military. They don’t want you, but you faithfully do your duty, which is quite admirable. I have support for the gay and lesbian community and if there is a desire in that community to practice religion and be in the military (even though I don’t approve of either) then more power to you and good luck.

Kriss

What does she think about theory (which I first read in John Shelby Spong’s Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism) that Paul might have been gay? This theory, as Spong explained it, has some interesting implications for the New Testament’s stance on homosexuality; I’d be interested to hear her take on it.

I’m a former Southern Baptist – now atheist – gay man who, ironically, is sorta glad that I was brought up in such an oppressive and hateful religion. If it wasn’t for that I may not have questioned things and wouldn’t be the atheist/humanist/Bright I am today.

With all that said I really appreciate anyone who is willing to work to help stop hatemongering within the religious communities…

I would ask her:

1) What can you, and others like you, do to help enlighten other spiritual/religious leaders that it’s best for them and their flock to stop the intolerant hate speech against GLBT people?

2) Can you blame GLBT people for sloughing off religions after being treated so poorly for so long?

3) Does it matter to you whether being GLBT is a “choice” or not? Do you discern between being “created” GLBT or the possibility of a fluid sexuality over a lifetime? [A side note here: I don’t care how people come to love and be attracted to other people, regardless of gender. Sexual orientation doesn’t have to be concrete over one’s lifetime]

4) How do you feel about GLBT people (single or couples) adopting children?

5) Do you have any reservations about children learning at a young age about GLBT people? [I, of course, don’t mean sexual activities, but about people loving each other.]

6) Do you think GLBT people should be granted the right to marry each other?

7) Do you see GLBT people and their relationships as absolutely equal to heterosexual people and their relationships? In every way?

Thanks,

~Robert

What is your authority for judging this issue?

I’d like to respond with a bit more measured tone. Here is someone wanting a dialogue and kind of getting their head cut off. But I think that the reaction here is instructive.

So my question would be this:

To put it mildly, I think we can say there’s a large amount of hostility toward religion over this issue. This issue has been a phenomenal moral failure on the part of organized religion around the world, and serves to show us that religion absolutely fails as a force for moral leadership in a changing society. Indeed, it is a moral trailer… so late to so many core moral issues that it wallows and even trumpets bigotries thousands of years old as if they were moral successes. While society changes, religion digs in its heels… dragging us back to the dark ages.

Given religion’s track-record… late to the gay rights movement… late to the fight against AIDS… late to the women’s rights movement… late to the civil rights movement… late to the environmental movement… How do you argue FOR inculcating new generations of GLBT individuals into a set of moral codes written when women, children and *livestock* had roughly equal rights? When these individuals and their progeny grow older, will they be voices against the next necessary moral change in society? Will they be the ones raising their voices against the rights and equality of the next group to come along or against the next environmental threat, medical crisis or social need?

Darryl:

It may be inconvenient for you liberal Christians, but the Bible clearly slams homosexuality. Edit your own version that leaves out the parts that are stupid and have done with it, but don’t try to convince us that it doesn’t mean what it says.

On the contrary, the Bible clearly says nothing whatsoever about sexual orientation. You know as well as I do the usual passages that get trotted out on such occasions, so you should also know that exactly none of them mention sexual orientation. So it’s simply incorrect to say that “the Bible clearly slams homosexuality”.

There are, of course, some passages which mention specific sexual practices. Which specific misbehaviours they are intended to address is a matter of some debate, and at any rate, this is for historians to work out.

Even if they do refer to certain homosexual practices in general (as opposed to being in response to specific misbehaviours), that would still only pose a problem to people who take the Bible literally.

For someone like me who follows the teachings and practices of Jesus, well, he didn’t mention any specific sexual practices at all. He didn’t approve of adultery, and that’s about it.

Why do you feel it’s necessary to ignore the anti-homosexual parts of the bible? Why don’t you just realize that the Bible really IS a hateful book, and that gay people would be much better off throwing away the Christian part of their identity? You can be good without believing in the hateful philosophies of Christianity.

Siamang, it seems to me that you’re using some quite selective evidence there. Or perhaps the problem is the majority of Americans were reactionary, rather than the majority of Christians.

Picking one more example, environmentalism very closely associated with hippies, which were in turn associated with George Harrison-style Hinduism and trendy hip Christianity (see Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar for more examples of 70s trendy hip Christianity). Some of my earliest Sunday school memories from the mid-to-late 70s involved a lot of ex-hippie environmentalism.

Going back further in history, I can think of a lot of social movements led by religious people and organisations, including the labour movement, the animal welfare movement and the anti-slavery movement.

The point is that I think it’s wrong to say that “religion” in general was “late” to most of these social movements. Some of them, for sure. But many of these movements were led by religious people and organisations.

We’re talking about an era when the majority of whites supported segregation, and the majority of whites were Christians. It’s not like most Christians were pro-integration, but it was being held back by the throngs of atheists!

You’re also talking about an era when the majority of black people were probably anti-segregation (I’m just guessing here, don’t know much about it) and the majority of black people were Christians, too. Moreover, it’s also not like most non-believers were pro-whatever, and they were being held back by throngs of Christians.

This is the problem that one has when claiming things about “religion” in general: Almost no generalisations are accurate.

BTW: Historically, non-believers have generally pretty much followed the popular prejudices of their day, though again there are some notable exceptions.

But there would be no need for a movement at all if Christianity itself was a force for moral leadership.

I’m not claiming by any means that many social movements have been resisted by reactionaries inside Christianity or other religions. The thing is, if the majority of the population is reactionary (as they often are), and the majority of the population is religions (as has historically been the case in English-speaking countries), then it’s inevitable that this will happen.

It takes time to win over a large population no matter what the issue. We can see it now in Christianity, inside mainline and liberal denominations. Those in a leadership position are often more liberal than most of the congregations. It takes time to win them over if you don’t have a tradition of telling people they must do this lest they burn in hell. This is especially hard if you don’t believe in hell in the first place.

How does she interpret those passages of the Old and New Testament that are about homosexuality?

Jeff,
1/ The eastern orthodox ain’t catholic
2/ There is no need to rewrite the Bible text to do that, all we have to do to dispense with multiple translations is to dispense with multiple languages and adopt a single world language.
3/ The right to bear arms is in the American constitution but not the Bible. Not being an American I am not bound by your constitution.

I’m curious about her thoughts on the pro-LGBT arguments found in the following books:

Daniel Helminiak What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality
Robert Goss Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto

My question is this:

Do you think the whole gay issue with the church is simply one part of a larger struggle/riff; the struggle between strict literalistic interpretations of the Bible, and more open or liberal interpretations?

Those of us on the Christian Left always seem to find ourselves at odds with the Christian conservatives/fundamentalists on issues like homosexuality, literal interpretations of the creation parable, etc. We are accused of not truly believing in the Bible, while in fact the fundies are guilty of “selective literalism;” you see them protesting gay pride events, but not Red Lobster, when clearly the Old Testament says shellfish are an abomination. We liberal Christians tend to take a broader look at the truth of the message of the Bible; love God and love your fellow humans. Don’t judge, but practice sacrificial and unconditional love. Like Rev. Gene Robinson has said, “the Bible is the best witness we have” about God, but I don’t believe in worshiping it. The Old Testament laws were for a specific people at a specific time, and the Old Testament as a whole was writen by men who were trying to understand God as best they could at that time. Our understanding of the Bible, and of God, must continue to evolve. The Church no longer uses Scripture to back the idea of a geocentric universe. The church (even the Southern Baptists) no longer use Scripture to justify slavery.

Jeff:

I think Christendom should hold an international theological convention to adopt a common dogma to unify Christianity.

It’s interesting that you should say this in a thread about Christianity and homosexuality. A rather large and venerable Christian church, the Anglican Union, recently disunified itself over the very issue of homosexuality. I expect we will continue to see further splits.

everything in the Bible is true when you interpret it according to the original intent.

That is just it. Short of ability to ask the original author there is no way to know what original intent was. It could be one of many ways one interprets. There is no way to know for sure.

My guess is

1. that groups/people on the periphery tend to be leaders (either reactionary or radical). Groups in the mainstream tend to be conservative
2. that religions can provide existing structures (both mental and organizational) that can help peripheral groups/people to be effective (instead of building them from scratch)

Hence small religious groups such as Quakers or some of the Black Churches tend to lead on social issues. Large churches (or at least their leaders) such as the Roman Catholic Church are conservative.

Yeah… if it were based on the unambiguous teachings of one moral leader, or one Divine Force…. Then there might be a little bit more continuity.

Indeed.

This is no different, of course, from any other human movement, including most of the social movements that you mentioned. Democracy, for example is not one thing. Nor is feminism.

But my point still stands… taken as an AVERAGE, on the whole, counting all the Christians in the country…. they lag the general population in civil rights issues.

I can’t quite remember the specific demographics, but isn’t “all the Christians in the country” (by which, of course, you refer to only one country) pretty much “the general population”?