Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins
"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More
Mark Tooley August 22, 2003
When arguing for church acceptance of homosexuality, most advocates talk about monogamy. But others are bolder.
“I am a strong ally of those in healthy, polyamorous relationships,” declared Debra Kolodny. She argued that having multiple sexual partners can be “holy.” Kolodyn was leading a workshop at the WOW (Witness Our Welcome) 2003 convention, an ecumenical gathering for “sexually and gender inclusive Christians.”
Hundreds of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual people gathered under the “queer” banner in Philadelphia August 14-17 to urge religious acceptance of non-traditional sexual behaviors.
According to WOW’s schedule brochure, it was sponsored by the homosexual caucus groups in most mainline Protestant denominations and Dignity USA (for Roman Catholics). Other supporting groups listed in the program included People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, McCormick Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), Episcopal Divinity School, Chicago Theological Seminary (United Church of Christ), and Wesley Theological Seminary (United Methodist).
According to the president of Wesley seminary, Wesley paid a fee for a table with promotional material at WOW 2003. But Wesley did not endorse or give financial support to WOW beyond this fee.
Kolodny, an author and former national coordinator for The National Bisexual Network, was leading a workshop called “Blessed Bi Spirit: Bisexual People of Faith.” Although focusing mostly on bisexuality, Kolodny, who is Jewish, explained that she could not conclude the session without discussing polyamory.
“There can be fidelity in threesomes,” Kolodny said. “It can be just as sanctified as anything else if all parties are agreed.” But she was careful to stress that polyamory is unacceptable “if there is deceit.”
Kolodny said polyamory does not usually involve simultaneous group sex. But there are exceptions, she admitted, as she recalled a friend of hers who shares a bed with his wife and male partner. When asked by a workshop participant how polyamory was different from “recreational sex,” Kolodny responded that consensual recreational sex could be a part of polyamory. But polyamory usually involves some level of commitment and intimacy.
Noting she herself had never been polyamorous, Kolodny explained that as a busy attorney she simply did not have time to conduct the complicated “negotiations” necessary for “holy” polyamory. But she expressed admiration for persons with the time to organize.
Most of Kolodny’s talk was about bisexuality, not polyamory. “I disagree with the queer movement [when it claims] that sexual orientation is predetermined,” Kolodny said, asserting that the existence of bisexuality “challenges all that.”
“I know a lot of women who chose to become lesbian,” Kolodny said. “Love between two people is always beautiful,” she added, and should be regarded as part of free choice.
“I’m not sure we can make the case for genetic predetermination,” Kolodny stressed, saying sexual preference depends on opportunity, support, and spiritual experiences.
Kolodny lamented that the “queer” movement insists on the “party line” of genetic predetermination as part of a “political strategy.”
“The queer movement relies on, ‘We can’t help it. We’re born this way,’ Kolodny said. “It feels so safe. If you don’t say it you’re thrown to the lions and you’re evil.”
She contrasted the insistence on genetic predetermination with the teachings of Judaism and Christianity, which say: “God gives us choices.”
“Free will is essential to our humanity and essential to our being created in the image of God,” Kolodny said. She charged that denying free choice in sex preference was “perpetuating the hetero-patriarchy,” helping the “radical right,” ignoring bisexuality, and making it easier for “hate” to continue.
Rather than creating “absolute poles” of sexual preference, Kolodny said the world includes a wide spectrum of choices. She recalled the hostility of her “dyke” friends when she abandoned her strict lesbianism for bisexuality. Many homosexuals suspect bisexuals of trying to gain the “privileges” of the hetero-patriarchy by seeking sexual partners of the opposite gender.
Another workshop leader who addressed a sexual minority sometimes forgotten by the “queer” movement was the Rev. Erin Swenson, formerly Eric. Swenson is a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) minister and family counselor whose sex change operation made Swenson the first post-operative transsexual minister in a major denomination.
Swenson was married with children. But after suffering for years from a desire to be a woman, Swenson finally divorced and had the operation. “I don’t recommend that any one become transgender,” Swenson said. “It’s a very painful process.”
“Some people accuse me of not being a woman,” Swenson complained, citing “ultra-feminists.” Swenson prefers being called simply “Erin and a child of God” to any label. “High heels are very uncomfortable,” Swenson playfully admitted.
“Transgender people won’t come to your church unless they truly know they are safe there,” Swenson warned. Even ostensibly “gay” friendly congregations are sometimes not prepared for transgender people. “Get your church to be trans friendly,” Swenson urged. One need is for bathrooms not marked male or female.
Swenson described the United Church of Christ as “miles ahead of anybody” in making itself open to transgender people. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in contrast, declined Swenson’s offer to volunteer in the creation of church resource materials for transgender church members.
“Transgendered people threaten communities because they threaten our assumptions,” Swenson concluded. “It is threatening but also freeing.”
Leading a workshop on “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Issues in the Roman Catholic Church,” Mary Louise Cervone complained that tolerance rather than justice” is the norm in America today. A former president of Dignity USA, Cervone, with her same-sex partner at her side, wondered how many “nameless men and women” must die before this country moves beyond tolerance to freedom for all people.
“Our best hope for change rests not with bishops and the pope but with Catholic people,” Cervone insisted. “Change won’t come form the top down. The Catholic people must demand freedom.
Cervone affirmed her lesbianism as a “gift of God.” She confessed she has a hard time attending the Catholic Church, because the “church is not where we find freedom. It’s where we go to hide.”
“But you can’t kick me out,” Cervone declared defiantly. “Where in religion did we get the idea that some people are more worthy than others?” she wondered.
The Rev. Jorge Lockwood, who is Global Praise Coordinator for the United Methodist Church’s Board of Global Ministries, led a workshop called “Redeeming Our Bodies, Congregational Song as a Path of Liberation.”
“As queer people, we have another way of looking at the body,” Lockwood said. He complained that churches too often are uncomfortable with the human body and suffer from “liturgical constipation.” He observed that too often people think the “desire of a 25 year old gay man for another 25 year old man is a beautiful thing,” but the desire of a 65 year old for a 25 year is “dirty.”
“We have all learned to challenge Romans,” said the Rev. Mari Castellanos, referring to St. Paul’s letter that, among other Scriptures, is critical of homosexual behavior. Castellanos leads the Justice and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ. “We must do likewise with all texts that go against our brothers and sisters that are being claimed as the unerring Word of God.”
But Castellanos also urged the WOW 2003 audience to embrace “justice” issues beyond their own. “When we leave this earth, queer bishops won’t matter as much as whether the hungry are fed,” she insisted, to applause.
“This president and this Congress have systematically torn down the social net that sustained all of us,” Castellanos mourned. “We must lobby our government on behalf of the poor of the world. Our experience of exile has taught us compassion.”
Castellanos promised that “we will take on scary proposals such as the Marriage Protection Act. We will turn the tide that threatens to obliterate the social contract.” Echoing the name of a radical homosexual group, she insisted: “We must continue to act-up!”
Rev. Yvette Flunder, a United Church of Christ pastor from San Francisco, celebrated a string of political victories for pro-homosexuality advocates, including the election of an Episcopal Church homosexual bishop, the arrival of legalized same-sex unions in Canada, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against anti-sodomy laws.
“The Holy Ghost can break loose in an atmosphere of injustice and give us more justice in three weeks than many years!” Flunder enthused. “These wouldn’t have been miracles under Bill Clinton!” she exclaimed, citing the irony of pro-homosexuality strides under a conservative government.
The Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the predominantly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches, asked all the heterosexuals at WOW 2003 to stand and receive applause. “Thank you!!... I know what people do to you,” he told them, saying they pay a price for solidarity with homosexuals.
Perry said he “just got married” to his male partner of 18 years, who has had AIDS for several years. He likened the plight of homosexuals who cannot legally marry to slaves who also had no legal right to marriage.
“I will not give up until every one of us can marry,” Perry insisted, comparing Heaven to attending the WOW 2003 conference.
A brief skit produced for the WOW 2003 audience showed three troubled disciples in a storm-tossed boat. One, a young woman, declares: “I am bisexual and can’t find acceptance in the gay community.” A man says, “I am a 19 year old gay. Or am I queer? And I’m Presbyterian. But I’m not sure what that means!” A third person complains she is age 22 but cannot “find a voice” in the gay community.
Then a figure representing Jesus appears, played by a young woman wrapped in the rainbow flag, which is the emblem of the homosexual movement. “Take heart, it is I,” she says. “Do not be afraid.”
Opinions vary....:o)
How does a dead man take the medicine that will cure him? So you do not mean REALLY DEAD just sorta dead I assume??
Could I have a scripture on the Holy Spirit making grace efficacious?
Trust me, I agree. I also think you know what I mean by my statement about Arminianism, even if you may not agree with that. I think a case could be made.... :o)
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Conditional statement. Only the ones who believe will be saved from perishing and have eternal life. Whosoever here is not every man, but the subset of men who meet the condition, i.e. belief.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Same statement, same condition, same outcome. Whosoever is not every man, but the subset of men who meet the condition.
There is more to salvation than just these verses, although they are a good start. They don't address the totality of the doctrine.
My statement stands, one scripture does not a doctrine make.
"Libertarian Christian" is an extremely difficult balance, because it's not even a balance which should be struck.
We're called to be Christians. Not "Libertarian Christians" -- just Christians. Theonomically-astute Christians may end up identifying with a great many "libertarian" positions, but that is a consequence of applying Christian Ethical Logic to the voting booth -- not a "balance to be struck".
There are some (relatively few) issues which are sufficiently logically-difficult that they may not be solved with a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test -- for example, Public Display of a Ten Commandments Monument on State Property (for myself, I do not support taxing an Atheist to pay for such a monument, but I do see accepting a donation of such as being morally-equivalent to the Public permitting a VFW-donated monument to War Veterans on public property, and well within the Public's "collective ownership" of the Public Commons).
However, MOST of the time (I'd guesstimate better than 95%), a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test will supply the theonomically-astute Christian with the Biblically-Correct answer on questions of Public Policy, whether economic or social or whatever. For is it not said:
Do we then imagine that Scripture leaves us without guidance at the Voting Booth? That "democracy" permits us to shelve our Bibles, in favor of our personal desires and prejudices, on Election Day? If so, then Democracy is an Idol, and American Christianity worships at her altar.
There is no need for us to "strike a balance" as Christians between Libertarianism and Christianity, because there is no balance to be struck. We should simply be Christians -- even on Election Day.
I tend to think that if all American Christians -- or even all Church-going American Christians -- were to get serious about Biblical Theonomy, even just so much as to rigorously apply a simple "Ten Commandments/WWJD" test on all questions of Public Policy, it would revolutionize the Party Platform of the GOP. I also tend to think that we shouldn't expect any such change in our lifetimes.
So be it. IMHO, we should simply be Christians -- socially, culturally, and politically. In my case, that roughly translates into checking to see if there is a Libertarian candidate, and then checking his website to see if he is Pro-Life (30-40% of Party Libertarians). If he is not, then I go on to examine the rest of the electoral slate (Republican, Constitution, etc.) But regardless of Party Labels, the important thing (to me, anyway) is, does the Candidate advocate Christian Moral Ethics? Does he oppose Murder and Aggression? Does he oppose Theft and Contract-Breaking? Does he oppose Fraud and False Witness?
In short, I am not a "Libertarian Christian". I am not even, strictly speaking, a "Christian Libertarian" -- at least not if the two philosophical terms are supposed to be balanced (they are NOT balanced; they are not even in the same league).
I prefer to consider myself a "Theonomically-Minded Christian", which at present means that I identify myself in terms of tactical politics with the Pro-Life wing of "Libertarianism", most (but not all) of the time.
However, while the Platform of the Libertarian Party (which is already sufficiently flawed as it is) could change tomorrow, the Christian Moral Ethic changeth not. Am I a "Christian Libertarian"? I am to the extent that a Libertarian candidate endorses the Christian Moral Ethic. But it's purely a one-sided proposition; there's no "balance" with Libertarianism to be struck. Libertarianism must conform (and frequently does -- on Property, Parental-Rights, and Religious-Liberty matters) to Christian Moral Ethics, in order to warrant our interest; but Christian Moral Ethics are under no obligation to conform to Libertarianism.
Thus endeth the Rant.
Nice try dragging me into the debate, too. ;)
Never said it did.
(Joh 3:17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
"Through Him" still implies a condition. The world cannot be saved except through Him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.