The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionTainted Love: Sojourners rejects LGBT ad
by Jamie L Manson on May. 17, 2011
Earlier this week, Jim Wallis and Sojourners magazine, upheld by many as the great, white, progressive hope of Protestant Evangelicalism, found themselves on the defense after rejecting a video ad from an organization called Believe Out Loud.
The ad, which can be seen on Youtube, shows a young boy walking up the aisle of a church flanked by two adults. As the threesome moves past the pews, children point at them and adults give them disapproving stares. When they reach the front of the church, the camera raises to show that the boy is accompanied by his two mothers. A clergyman looks at them from the sanctuary and announces, “Welcome, everyone.”
No statements about gay marriage or the ordination of gays and lesbians are made. According to the Believe Out Loud website, the group “is a collection of clergy and lay leaders, LGBT activists, and concerned individuals, working together to help the Protestant community become more welcoming to gays and lesbians.”
In a statement on the Sojourners blog, Wallis reasserted Sojourners support of civil rights for gays and lesbians and their welcome of gay and lesbian staff at the organization.
He went on to explain: “We wish to engage first and foremost in dialogue on difficult issues within our editorial pages, and we typically do not display advertising relating to issues amongst people of faith that have unfortunately, and too often, been reduced to political wedge issues.”
Wallis and Sojourners believe that publishing the ad would have been interpreted as the organization’s taking sides on the issue.
Using a justification typical of the “progressive” Evangelical set, Wallis argues that debates over LGBT issues “have not been at the core of our calling, which is much more focused on matters of poverty, racial justice, stewardship of the creation, and the defense of life and peace. . . . Essential to our mission is the calling together of broad groups of Christians, who might disagree on issues of sexuality, to still work together on how to reduce poverty, end wars, and mobilize around other issues of social justice.”
Wallis isn’t the only social justice-oriented Evangelical to use this argument. Shane Claiborne, the charismatic figurehead of the evangelical “New Monastics” movement and a Wallis protégé, has offered a similar position.
“We’re careful not to get hijacked by those [issues such as homosexuality] but to recognize that these are real issues. . . . Personally, I would not be able to [marry a same gendered couple] if I were a pastor, but I also don’t have any shame in saying, ‘I’ve got a pastor friend who would love to marry you,’” said Claiborne in an interview published in the Oct. 29, 2010, issue of NCR.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Not long after NCR’s story on Claiborne was published, I had the opportunity to speak briefly with him about this stance. He explained that his community had decided that, though they understand that the issue is important for many who fight for social justice, it was not one that they were willing to “die on the hill for.”
What social justice-oriented Evangelicals don’t seem to understand is that many gay people I know -- my partner and myself included -- wish that there were no “hill” to begin with. All we really want is to serve the church without being made to feel that our loving, committed, same-sex relationships somehow taint our faithfulness to the Gospel and, most importantly, to God.
Like Wallis and Claiborne, my partner and I have a deep passion for working with the poor, the hungry, and the homeless. Our commitment to this work does not come simply from a desire for the common good, but from the yearnings of our spirits.
I’m a Catholic with a Master of Divinity degree and my partner grew up Evangelical and attended a Midwestern bible college. For us, the margins are a sacred place where we have some of our deepest experiences of “church,” the way Jesus envisions and incarnates it in the Gospels. It is in the face of the broken and desolate that we most clearly see the face of Christ.
And, yet, because we in a same-sex relationship (as opposed to remaining celibate, as Catholic and Evangelical beliefs would have it), we walk into most churches and church-related activities with deep trepidation.
We look around the room to see if we can locate any congregants that “appear gay.” We know to avoid holding hands during prayers unless we feel confident that it’s a safe space. We know not to be immediately forthcoming about our relationship if someone talks to us after the service.
Regardless of what good work we do for the church, our efforts will be seen by many church people as tainted because of our loving, committed relationship. The congregants in my partner’s home church are extremely proud of the work that she is doing with the poor in New York City. However, if they knew she was in a relationship with a woman, they would cease to talk about her. All of her good work would be invalidated in their eyes.
I have a similar experience in my writing career. Though I do sometimes write about gay and lesbian issues, more often I write about young adult Catholics in the church. My essays on this theme have led several editors to invite me to write books for their religious publishers. Unfortunately, once these editors learned that I am openly lesbian, they rescinded their invitations.
I have been uninvited from many speaking engagements for the same reason. Though my insights into non-LGBT religious issues are appreciated, my voice becomes tainted by my also being openly lesbian.
Elie Wiesel famously wrote “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
While I understand Sojourners unwillingness to “take sides” on the issue of LGBT inclusion, they should also understand that there are soul-shattering repercussions to such decisions. Wallis and Claiborne are very well aware that there are countless gays and lesbians doing the work of justice, feeding the hunger, giving shelter to the homeless, ministering in refugee camps, protecting victims of all kinds of violence. They know these LGBT people, love them, and, at least privately, support them.
But I’m not sure they realize the spiritually damaging results of their unwillingness to be more forthright and prophetic about their support of gays and lesbians. So many religious gays and lesbians have to operate “under the radar,” and keep silent about their personal lives in order to answer God’s calling. (Check out the list of bloggers on Wallis’s “God’s Politics blog. Can you find an out gay person among them?)
By refusing to take sides, men like Wallis and Claiborne only reinforce the need to hide for the sake of serving the kingdom of God.
While it is commendable that Sojourners seeks to defend gay people against physical or legal harm, their unwillingness to fight for their spiritual protection fails to get at the root of most gay and lesbian discrimination.
Most homophobic and homo-hating attitudes in society have their root in the religious belief that same-sex relationships do not have the same potential for goodness and holiness as heterosexuality. One need only look at Uganda to realize the violent, if not deadly, effects that anti-gay, Evangelical efforts can have on the safety and peace of LGBT persons.
But I believe there is an ever more disquieting question that arises out of this situation. What is the real reason that progressive Evangelicals try to sidestep taking a stance on welcoming gays and lesbians into churches? Much as I would like to believe that their desire is to unite Christians with differing opinions on sexuality in the work of social justice, I cannot help but think that this ultimately comes down to a fear of losing financial and communal support.
Wallis himself admitted in his statement that, “Like the larger church, Sojourners ’ constituency, board, and staff are not of one mind on all of these issues.”
So, if Sojourners were to make a definitive statement about something as innocuous as welcoming gay and lesbians into church pews (not even the “full monty” of supporting gay ordination and marriage), they would risk losing a crucial segment of their funding.
Sadly, Evangelicals with progressive viewpoints on poverty and war but conservative convictions about LGBT inclusion are wealthier and more powerful than Christians committed to justice for the LGBT community. So, for the time being, we must accept that our need to be treated with dignity can be sacrificed for the greater good of maintaining a larger base of patrons and enthusiasts.
Many non-profits are forced to make similar compromises everyday. Coming from a background in fundraising for church-based social service agencies, I sympathize with the desire to serve poor and the victimized at almost any cost.
However, when the gays are lesbian who faithfully serve these populations are denied the opportunity to also be upheld and protected, the prophetic integrity of the organization begins to weaken.
What does it profit a Christian social justice organization to gain the admiration of the political and religious world at the cost of harming the souls of so many of its own servants?
[A modified version of this column originally appeared on the Religion Dispatches Web site May 14. Jamie L. Manson received her Master of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School where she studied Catholic theology and sexual ethics. Her columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010.]
| Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Jamie Manson’s column, "Grace on the Margins", is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Grace on the Margins" to your list. |
Thank you for your honest and
Thank you for your honest and insightful comments. I left the Catholic church precisely over this issue. I have a wonderful son who is gay and is very active in the LGBT civil rights issues. Unfortunately, his faith and trust has been trampled upon by Roman Catholicism - whose hierarchy is steeped in ignorance and fear. My husband and I joined the Episcopal Church where all of my family is welcomed. I do pray that the Roman Catholic church will one day see LGBT folks as the kind Christian contributors they truly are.
You are so brave. Thank you.
You are so brave. Thank you.
For Catholics/ Christians who
For Catholics/ Christians who believe that sacramental encounters bestow God's grace, it is arrogant to argue that God, the Creator and Lover of all, would withhold God's grace from a gay/lesbian believer. The argument denies that grace is God's free gift given so that all may know and love God. This is a human diminishment that is scandalous when applied to God.
"would withhold God's grace
"would withhold God's grace from a gay/lesbian believer"
I'm not exactly sure what a gay/lesbian believer is, but God would not withold His grace from them. As soon as they repent of their sins of sodomy the Grace will be flowing again. By living their sinful lifestyle they are refusing God's grace. It is always ready for them. It's their sin no God that is stopping the flow of Grace.
What a confused God you have
What a confused God you have crawler. God creates diverse people then makes them repent for being created that way? You have a very limited small god who does not deserved to be worshipped.
What a mean comment,
What a mean comment, kscrawler. Why do you seem to find it necessary to castigate people? What is wrong with you?
"but God would not withold
"but God would not withold His grace from them"
Actually YOUR mini-god would!
Cheers,
kscrawler on May. 18, 2011.
kscrawler on May. 18, 2011.
You stated:
?"would withhold God's grace from a gay/lesbian believer"
I'm not exactly sure what a gay/lesbian believer is, but God would not withold His grace from them. As soon as they repent of their sins of sodomy the Grace will be flowing again. By living their sinful lifestyle they are refusing God's grace. It is always ready for them. It's their sin no God that is stopping the flow of Grace.?
----------------------------------------
You speak as though those who are gay/lesbian CHOOSE their lifestyle. There is a tremendous amount of evidence from studies of animals that there are animals (insects,fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals) that proves that a fair percentage choose members of their own sex
over members of the opposite sex.
In the mammal group, primates are also included in this number. There is enough evidence that genetics and hormones are factors in the fetal formation of gays/lesbians. Add on to that home and family environment.
Gays/lesbians do not choose their life-style any more than do curly redheads, with green eyes who are left-hand dominant.
The official Catholic Church has not provided one iota of credible evidence to support its claims against gays/lesbians. Where is the scientic data?
As soon as they repent of
As soon as they repent of their sins of sodomy the Grace will be flowing again.
Do homosexual women sodomise each other when making love?
By living their sinful lifestyle they are refusing God's grace.
I would think that those who make these judgements, which Jesus himself abstained from making, might be refusing God's grace. I think God's grace is present when two people, of whatever gender, truly love each other.
Some sanity, at least! I
Some sanity, at least! I always "enjoy" the sermons on TOLERANCE from some LGBT activists who refuse to recognize [ much less tolerate] that genuine Christians have legitimate disagreements with their (LGBT's) same-sex worldview.
"Some sanity, at least! I
"Some sanity, at least! I always "enjoy" the sermons on TOLERANCE from some LGBT activists who refuse to recognize [ much less tolerate] that genuine Christians have legitimate disagreements with their (LGBT's) same-sex worldview."
I doubt that the majority of gays and lesbians do not tolerate Christian's disagreements--I think they do not tolerate their 'judgments' and 'condemnations'. I'm heterosexual, married,and have four children who are not gay or lesbian (not that there would be any thing wrong if they were!) and a practicing Catholic.
Cheers,
I'm sure you meant genuine®
I'm sure you meant genuine® Christians.
On Thursday of this week I
On Thursday of this week I will be burying my beloved brother who is gay. He was 66 at the time of his death. He experienced the tortured life of those who were gay in the US and the Church in the years of his growing up and adult life. I miss him and treasure him still, and I always will.
I am writing to you to ask you not to be primarily cynical in your assessment of those who are not fully enlightened about the issues surrounding homosexuality. There are always struggles of growth, not simply in our personal lives but in the life of the Church. Love is always the of Jesus to life and light.
In God's love,
Mary
A beautiful reply Mary. I am
A beautiful reply Mary. I am all for total inclusion of all people in all aspects of the church, but I realize it will take some people more time to arrive at that kind of thinking. My prayers are with you and your brother who now rests with his God.
A distinction needs to be
A distinction needs to be drawn between the homosexual condition & the practice of it. Most reprehensible in the practice of homosexuality is the scenario of gay couples adopting children. Gay couples should not be raising children. This is a form of psychic abuse of the child. Imagine if Joan Crawford had been gay & had a gay lover just like herself? I mean one mommy dearest is bad enough but two? Oh my goodness!
As always...not worth a
As always...not worth a reply.
I am sorry to hear that you
I am sorry to hear that you are so afraid of women.
What if the two women had been a single mom and her mother (who was just like her)? Would you let them into your church? The data show no evidence of "psychic abuse" in children with two mommys or two daddys.
Let's play with transposition
Let's play with transposition a bit, shall we, and see if we can learn something.
A distinction needs to be drawn between a frightened homophobic heart & the practice of actively hating as a result of it. Most reprehensible in the practice of homophobia is the scenario of hate-filled, self-defined Catholics attempting to prevent loving couples from adopting children. Homophobes should not be raising children. This is a form of psychic abuse of the child, whether that child is born gay or straight.
Imagine if paulte had been straight and had a lover just like himself. I mean one hater is bad enough, but two?
Hello. I am trying to
Hello. I am trying to understand your thought on the issue of gay people adopting children. I have heard people refer to it as abuse, but no one ever clarifies as to how and why it is abusive for a committed same sex couple to adopt a child. Would you please comment further? Thank you.
The male/female family unit
The male/female family unit of father/mother is the norm in human nature and virtuous society. Children are best raised in a home that models that norm because they will grow up knowing and experiencing how male and female complement each other and relate to each other. To deliberately bring a child into a disordered family home life of a same-sex relationship is to do violence to that child's psyche by introducing disordered notions about human relationships and human sexuality.
I grew up in a family which
I grew up in a family which could easily be considered as modelling the "norm". In my family, I learned/experienced something about "how male and female complement each other and relate to each other." But, while growing up, I also interacted with other "normal" families, with grandparents, aunts and uncles, with cousins, with my friends and their families, with the people and their kids down the street from us, etc., etc. So, did I need my family to know/experience "how male and female complement each other and relate to each other." Is the "normal" family the only place or best place where I could learn this?
Imagine that I had same-sex parents, would that have prevented me from knowing/experiencing "how male and female complement each other and relate to each other," given the fact that I would have grown up as part of an extended family and of a much larger community of males and females and their relationships?
Would I have learned that my situation was "abnormal"? Yes, I would if I had met you and listened to you. That would have done severe "violence" to my psyche.
I remember how years ago serious attempts were made to introduce a new religion course into catholic elementary schools in this country. It was called, "Come to the Father." This title caused a considerable amount of opposition among educators because, as was pointed out: many kids don't have fathers, don't know their fathers, are abused by fathers; for many kids, the father-figure has very negative and threatening connotations. Very telling, isn't it?
They now call me a "senior" and "elderly", and as such I claim to have learned a thing or two. Among others, claiming that the so-called "normal family" is the best place for kids to grow up, is quite a stretch!
There is much more to say to you, Debborah, but I'll leave it at this. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to having the kids from a gay couple and from a "normal" couple down the street come to visit me this evening. They do this regularly and we always have a great time. I can't tell if the kids from the gay couple are different from the ones from the "normal" couple. Maybe you could, Debborah. But then, on second thought, I wouldn't want you in my house while these kids are here, because people with the views/attitudes you expressed above, would do "violence" to these kids' psyche. I can't take that chance.
With all respect to you (that
With all respect to you (that you seem unwiling or unable to show to others), the core damage done to any child's psyche is to teach him/her how to hate, devalue and disregard other human beings. These are learned traits. These are examples of disordered thinking. These are violent to the human soul.
'the core damage done to any
'the core damage done to any child's psyche is to teach him/her how to hate, devalue and disregard other human beings."...........Like gays and lesbians, like the children who grow up in their families?
This comment, with its final
This comment, with its final statement about mommy dearest and Joan Crawford, strikes me as exceptionally mean-spirited--even downright hateful.
It's out of place in any measured, rational Catholic discussion of these issues. And it's clear to me that you're personally targeting the author of this piece in a way that says more about you, by far, than about her, with her courage, clarity, and hopefulness.
I know two lesbian couples
I know two lesbian couples and one gay couple who have adopted children. Their kids are respectful, loving, compassionate and heterosexual. The sexual practices of the parents are not in the "top ten most important features" of what makes a good parent.
Watch your back bigots. As
Watch your back bigots. As world populations increase exponentially the tables could turn!
HETEROSEXUALITY (could become in some future world) THE NEW REPREHENSIBLE PERVERSION.
Then it would be, "Woe be unto heterosexuals" as a new fervent crop of morally righteous HETEROPHOBES visit all practicing heterosexuals with atrocities previously reserved for gays.
Paulte, your hypocrisy aside,
Paulte, your hypocrisy aside, we know that two thirds to three forth of all Catholic Clergy is homosexual, and the insistence on an all male, (none) celibate priesthood is actually to provide those men a front behind which to hide, and to give them a secure economical existence.
A distinction needs to be
A distinction needs to be drawn between the homosexual condition & the practice of it.
This piece of faux Jesuitical reasoning always reminds of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland, when he said that he had no objection to people being Catholics, as long as they didn't go to Mass. Personally, I don't need to practice the homosexual condition any more, as I've become quite good at it.
As for the child abuse stuff; I think that children would be a lot better in the care of a same sex couple than in the care of some clergy and religious.
"All we really want is to
"All we really want is to serve the church without being made to feel that our loving, committed, same-sex relationships somehow taint our faithfulness to the Gospel and, most importantly, to God."
This is the fundamental issue here. What you want is an acceptance of your form of morality by people or institutions who disagree with it.
I could say that I would love to be able to steal from others and become rich "without being made to feel that my [insert whatever adjectives would be appropriate here] efforts somehow taint our faithfulness to the Gospel and, most importantly, to God."
But it would be just as nonsensical as your claim because it is opposed to the Gospel and, most importantly, to God. That's why so many people have a problem with it. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent elsewhere.
opposed to the Gospel and,
opposed to the Gospel and, most importantly, to God.
Perhaps you might enlighten us about which passage in the gospel condemns same sex relationships? As to the second part of the above, God knows God must get heartily sick of all those who claim to know more than God knows about what God knows, and what God does or does not oppose.
"Perhaps you might enlighten
"Perhaps you might enlighten us about which passage in the gospel condemns same sex relationships?"
First hit on a google search: http://www.catholicbible101.com/homosexuality.htm
Plus, even if it were mentioned nowhere in the Bible, that still wouldn't be enough to feel confident that homosexual behavior is morally justified. Catholicism has never been a faith that relies solely on literal interpretation of the Bible.
"As to the second part of the above, God knows God must get heartily sick of all those who claim to know more than God knows about what God knows, and what God does or does not oppose."
Fine. Go out and murder people indiscriminately claiming that "no one knows whether God opposes this" and see how you feel afterward.
Thank you Anonymous. I
Thank you Anonymous. I checked that link and, as I suspected, there are the usual Old Testament quotes, e.g. Leviticus, and that great psychological case study, St. Paul, whose words are open to several interpretations, but, of course, you can't answer my challenge with one instance from the Gospels where homosexuality is condemned. How strictly do you follow the other strictures of Leviticus? Have you sold your daughter into slavery recently, and, if so, how much did you get?
Your answer to my second statement is patently ludicrous. If I murder someone, I take away the life of another human being, which is obviously a crime; and I mean a live, born human being, before you go off on some abortion rant. If I make love to another consenting adult, of whatever gender, to whom do I do harm? And please don't tell me I harm the consenting love partner's soul, as you are in no position to make that judgement.
Finally, Anonymous, get a life!!!!
quoting the article: “Like
quoting the article: “Like the larger church, Sojourners’ constituency, board, and staff are not of one mind on all of these issues.” Jim Wallis
"So, if Sojourners were to make a definitive statement about something as innocuous as welcoming gay and lesbians into church pews (not even the “full monty” of supporting gay ordination and marriage), they would risk losing a crucial segment of their funding."
I'm not sure how the board and staff not being of one mind of these issues goes directly to being interpreted as fear of losing funding. It means they don't all agree, so how can they even take a firm stand; yet they work together, as Christians should. What did I miss?
They did vote of one mind.
They did vote of one mind. They voted for the other advertising dollars. Probably so their fellow staff members could keep their jobs. Justice often hurts and sometimes someone has to pay the price. This time it's gays, not Sojourner employees or board members. That's the way it goes. Pope Benedict surely knows this, which is why Sodano and Bertone and a whole bunch of others still have jobs. For some Christians fear and money have a much louder voice than justice and the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for your very
Thank you for your very thoughtful and articulate article. Jesus modeled taking a stance against the current powerful regime. I admire you for following his example.
I'm not a member of the LGBT
I'm not a member of the LGBT community but the comment by Paulte and the absolute certainty with which he judges others is very offputting. To start with only God can judge our hearts. Even with all the infallibility that is floating around in the Church today (every tinpot church official thinks he is infallible), there is no clear position enunciated on homosexuality. It seems to be a "don't rock the boat" issue. Yet we know that solution was never accepted by Jesus. So if it's a WWJD issue, the answer is clear.
theroadrising.VBE5Xblogspot.com
Jamie -- you jump to
Jamie -- you jump to conclusions about Jim Wallis' motives and judge him for not thinking as you do, yet you want everyone else to conform to your way of thinking and living. If you're asking us to choose between you and Sojourners, I'm afraid I have to side with Sojourners on this one. Have you tried to run the same ad in NCR?
Jamie don't lose your faith.
Jamie don't lose your faith. Jim Wallis is a hypocritical blowhard. Have you ever tried to read any of his later work? He loves to be the center of attention - the hero of his own narrative - it's all about HIM. (Sorry for the snide personal attack, but to this reader, his ego is monstropolous.) As far as your personal dilemma is concerned, perhaps if gays and lesbians such as yourself who support the church with financial support and the donation of time were to withhold your contributions, the institutions would take notice. Don't get mad. Get even.
Your courage is heartening. I
Your courage is heartening.
I am glad to sense that you feel secured with your sexuality--which is slowly gaining acceptance in a number of churches.
Our current church leaders, especially the Catholic Hierarchy and priests, should reflect on how the "pre-gospel Christ" would have addressed the issue of homosexuality. I suggest that he is, first and foremost, the compassionate One, not tied to cultural baggage and moralistic imperatives of his time. Critical and modern studies of the Scriptures--written years/decades after the facts-- also suggest that we should not based our judgment on so personal an issue as homosexuality solely on the scripture texts/contexts.
Development of beliefs and morals can not be contested. Think of Trinity, the Assumption of our Lady as examples of the former;as for the latter,slavery, usury, & chastity come to mind. Of course, the churches' take on homosexuality is a paramount example.
Again, I salute you for your openness.
Your courage is heartening. I
Your courage is heartening.
I am glad to sense that you feel secured with your sexuality--which is slowly gaining acceptance in a number of churches.
Our current church leaders, especially the Catholic Hierarchy and priests, should reflect on how the "pre-gospel Christ" would have addressed the issue of homosexuality. I suggest that he is, first and foremost, the compassionate One, not tied to cultural baggage and moralistic imperatives of his time. Critical and modern studies of the Scriptures--written years/decades after the facts-- also suggest that we should not based our judgment on so personal an issue as homosexuality solely on the scripture texts/contexts.
Development of beliefs and morals can not be contested. Think of Trinity, the Assumption of our Lady as examples of the former;as for the latter,slavery, usury, & chastity come to mind. Of course, the churches' take on homosexuality is a paramount example.
Again, I salute you for your openness.
'Elie Wiesel famously wrote
'Elie Wiesel famously wrote “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim."'
I can't help but conclude think that this column boils down to "If you're not with us, you're against us." If one is not openly and energetically supporting the author's cause, one is hindering it.
Thank you for your honesty
Thank you for your honesty and braveness in this article. I pray that more people will come to accept all in the gay community as valued members of church congregations.
If your loving, committed,
If your loving, committed, same-sex relationship involves homosexual acts, then you should worry very much about your faithfullness to the Gospel, and you should be grateful to those who remind you that there is a small...problem with using sexuality in that way.
Where in the Gospel? Not in
Where in the Gospel? Not in the Gospel in my Bible.
How courageous of you to
How courageous of you to share this reflection. I am grateful.
It reminds me of the hardened menatallity of prolifers who can focus only on abortion and not dignity of life in condemning death penalties, poverty and war. Why are our churches so afraid of those who faithfully commit to each other in same sex relationships! God must cry!
Jamie- WAS MIR NICHT BRECHT,
Jamie-
WAS MIR NICHT BRECHT, MIR MACHT STRENGER!
The pen is still mightier than the sword, and your prose wouldn't have half of its power without having all of those doors slammed in your face.
You're in exactly the right place at exactly the right time.
Memo to Wallis and Claiborne:
Thanx for "outing" yourselves and your denominational homophobia. Now, do you think you could possibly find the time to publicly and editorially answer the question of this Minnesota politician?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXpOA3jPC04
Psychic abuse of children in
Psychic abuse of children in straight couples is infinitely more disastrous than in gay situations simply in virtue of the numbers involved. So Paulte,
what is your point? Did God revela something to you directly? Is it not possible that gender is a continuum and we each land somewhere across a spectrum. We are not definitively male or female in our psyches. This is why
we see many men with effeminate traits and many women with masculine traits.
Perhaps in the bigger picture of the evolution of humanity there is an adjustment to the fact that we are out populating our small planet. Its
time to live and let love. There is no such thing as a God given right to
reject another human being because they differ from you. That is simple bigotry. It takes a very narrow mind to believe that all our differences are simply morality based. To expect all people to live in such a manner as to make you personally comfortable is deeply unchristian. Jesu said simply Love one another, he did not say IF. Thank you Jamie for you piece. Hopefully
time will bring us closer together on the issues you raise. We are all made in the image of God, even Paulte; but we need to learn to have respect for
one another despite our differences. Fear not Paulte, you have nothing to fear but fear itself.
TomC.
"...but we need to learn to
"...but we need to learn to have respect for
one another despite our differences."
From Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein - "South Pacific", the musical
"You've got to be taught
To hate and fear.
You've got to be taught
from year to year.
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear!
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught,
before it's too late!
Before you are six, or seven or eight,
To hate all the people
Your relatives hate!
You've to be carefully taught."
You're writing your column
You're writing your column for NCR, whose writers routinely excoriate those who don't believe as they do. John Dear is verbally violent toward anyone who does not define peacemaking his way. Richard McBrien excoriates conservatives and Eugene Kennedy ridicules anyone who disagrees with him. You call people who disagree with you homophobes and homo-haters. Yet you accuse Sojourners of hypocrisy. Do you think NCR would run an article by Cardinal George?
"Regardless of what good work
"Regardless of what good work we do for the church, our efforts will be seen by many church people as tainted because of our loving, committed relationship."
Packing the conclusion into the premise is faulty logic and dishonest. "Regardless of the good work we do for the church, our efforts will be sen as tainted because --we promote abortions -- we got our money by tainted means -- we bend the truth to protect the institution -- insert your rationalization here....."
What is precisely at issue here is whether the Church regards active homosexual relationships as "loving" -- and the answer is, "no."
Few people have spiritual problems with the whole Decalogue: they usually do well on 8 or 9 out of 10. It's just that one that tends to "taint" their otherwise "untainted" moral character...
thank you, as usual, Jamie -
thank you, as usual, Jamie - I was deeply saddened to hear about Sojourner's decision. While fighting bigotry from within the Catholic church, I had put (seemingly false) hope in other organizations that I thought had finally gotten ALL of Jesus' message about liberation and justice. I think in this situation, a vote for neutrality IS a vote for fear and violence of the heart. It saddens me that you and your partner need to second-guess every situation. Being newly married to a man of a different race, I am beginning to understand just a touch of that on a personal level.
Thank you for your courage to call out power on the ways that they are using their power to oppress.
I love this article/essay.
I love this article/essay. My husband's cousin has been in an openly gay relationship for over 15yrs. I know it was difficult, but I'm super proud of the fact that she is now a pastor at a Unitarian church and that they are all accepting of her and her wife!
I was also happy that she became a pastor/minister (I don't know the proper term) in time to officiate at my wedding!
I am now an Episcopalian.
I am now an Episcopalian. I'm proud of how courageous my church has been on this issue. I don't find any Biblical basis for prejudice against gay people, unless one wants to perform ancient Jewish cultic practice in the temple, nor do I think of this way of being human as a sin in any way. Having lived through the civil rights era I know how there can be two positive sides. Like Martin Luther King and The Black Panthers. Seriously, it takes both sides to move forward. The people who think gayness is sinful will not change over night, or any time soon. It will take much education, prayer, thought--a generation change. I still have issues with marriage. Sex is an eartly thing--precicely why I don't think of God as a he, which is a bit limiting to the creator and sustainer of all that is, the Great Mystery, the Ground of Being. Jesus was a he; the Holy Spirit I image as a she for some balance, when I use gender at all in the thought process. Sex at it's basic, why it exists, is for procreation; other reasons are peripheral, no matter how nice. Gay couples can adopt, but they cannot procreate. Marriage was invented to legitemize children. Too many folks are of the all or nothing mind set on this most sensitive of issues. Some of us can be ahead on some aspects and, perhaps, behind on others. Or maybe we're right about the others. Time will tell for this is just not simplistic as some would have it be. We need to move forward toward accepting the full humanity of all of God's children, no matter how shakily, in fits and starts we may move. God loves all her children and we must love one another.
"All we really want is to
"All we really want is to serve the church without being made to feel that our loving, committed, same-sex relationships somehow taint our faithfulness to the Gospel and, most importantly, to God."
I reject your attempt to make me accountable for what you feel. Of course, you are the church so, I suppose, you make yourself feel tainted.
I am seriously, tired of the
I am seriously, tired of the interpetations of what people do. the association with Blacks, African for the gay cause, it is a civil right issue at most, stop usurping the power of Black American Gay or Straight, the catholic church has alway be a hard nut to crack, but the people worshiping in the church, believe what they believe, you should not be insulted. this is the thing I can not get over, how you feel think breath etc. is human and if the world treat you as human this is not enough, I can appreciate the collaborative coalition for GLBT, but just tired of the same complaining, the catholic church, and many other religions is responsible for many abuses not just misunderstanding, so when will GLBT be made whole, or does the alignment with The Black Civil Right Movement keep you viable, the Civil Right movement was not discriminator to people of color, but I find it a stretch to lable it with GLBT, which is long past the right of being GLBT, what ever the conection you have found be it just the Civil Right adgenda, please stop insighting the black fobias along with GLBT until you add GLBT-S to you coaliton, I may resent the fact that sexual preferences a war that impedes Stright people as well, the human movement I get. But if you are to continue I wish GLBT would grow on their merit. God does love you, I am a woman and not accepted in my church because I am a advocate for my own ethnic group, fallen into the hand of a white pastor, with the likeness of the catholic church as a corporation, these young people do not know their history and told with $$$, motivated to think, this is correct, we have G and B people in the church, whom I call who are friends, our discussion are of the heart and faith, not the bedroom or sexual preference. Faith does work it it is your not putting it in the hands of a church corporation or pastor, I appreciate your advocacy, and love you also. I would love to hear you reply, please don't try to read me, this attitude is personal, lets be civil.
Sometimes I feel I've got to
Sometimes I feel I've got to run away
I've got to get away
From the pain you drive into the heart of me.
the love we share seems to go nowhere
And I've lost my light for I toss and turn - I can't sleep at night.
Once I ran to you
now I'll run from you
This tainted love you've given -
I give you all a boy could give you.
Take my tears and that's not living - oh
tainted love - tainted love.
Now I know I've got to
run away
I've got to
get away
You don't really want it any more from me -
To make things right you need someone to hold you tight
And you'll think love is to pray but I'm sorry I don't pray that way
Once I ran to you
now I'll run from you
This tainted love you've given -
I give you all a boy could give you.
Take my tears and that's not living - oh
tainted love - tainted love.
Don't touch me please - I cannot stand the way you tease.
I love you though you hurt me so
Now I'm gonna pack my things and go.
Tainted love
Tainted love
The tone of the ad is bad. he
The tone of the ad is bad. he add is confusing the concept of "being welcome" with "being affirmed". Would an ad be a fair depiction? Or would Sojourners be the first to complain....
-Children in very conservative dresses are brought to school by mother who is carrying a bible a not well dressed
-obviously hip and trendy students point at them
-A teacher wearing a RAINBOW pin stops and gives them a dirty look, so do two well dressed women taking their child to school
-Finally, principle says "all are welcome".
Come to think of it, I bet that Sojourners would scream "unfair" rather loudly
Yikes, I did not mean
Yikes, I did not mean soujourners, but the creators of the ad...
Excellent article, Jamie.
Excellent article, Jamie. Thanks so much. At one point I searched the Gospels to find what Jesus had to say about homosexuality. He cared so much about the subject, He said nothing at all.
Jesus said that a man would
Jesus said that a man would leave his parents and marry his wife and the two would become one. Thus saying, and within judaeism of his time, the definition of marriage as an exclusive bond between one man and one woman was clear.
When asked by the rich young man what he should do to become perfect, Jesus replied "obey the commandments" and included the commandment to not commit adultery.
When asked about divorce he made a distinction between those who commit fornication and those who are married but stray - a distinction notably missing in most Protestant versions of the bible but long understood among Catholics: once you are married, you are not free to sleep around, but if you weren't married but were "just" fornicating, then a future marriage is possible.
So it would seem that from the Gospels at least, Jesus is clear that marriage is understood as only between one man and one woman and that sex outside of marriage (adultery and fornication) is not OK with God.
Now I can imagine that many will huff and reject my reading of scripture as biased but remember if we're seeking a truth or claiming there is a right way to read the Gospel or behave as nice people, then it has to be a two way street. If pro-LBGTQ? partisans can pooh pooh anything I have to say, wouldn't anyone else be allowed to pooh pooh them? And if not, why not? Surely we're not yet at the point where mere asertion of our opinion magically makes it so! But on the other hand, if the Gospel is clear - and I don't see how one can read Jesus' actual words as an endorsement of extra-marital sexual relations being "in obedience to the commandments", will a pro-gay Christian cling to Christ or not?
Post new comment