Tuesday, January 12, 2010

129: Debate on ELCA Allowing Gay Pastors: Still Flaming (and Some 1 Chronicles)

1 Chronicles 25-27
The first lot, which was for Asaph, fell to Joseph,
his sons and relatives,
the second to Gedaliah,
he and his relatives and sons,
the third to Zaccur,
his sons and relatives,
the fourth to Izri,
his sons and relatives,
the fifth to Nethaniah,
his sons and relatives,
... [and on and on and on] - 1 Chronicles 25:9-12


We're regressing here. Chronicles is back to the monotonous slog of listing names. Things listed today: singers, gatekeepers, officials, army divisions, and officers. That's it, just lists. I'm very much looking forward to the end of 2 Chronicles (still a week and a half away unfortunately). It looks like we're back to moderately interesting stories after this horrible business is over.

*News*
I think I've talked about this in a news article before, but I'm revisiting it. The ELCA (aka the Lutheran church) has allowed openly gay clergy to serve. The vote was in August 2009, but the debate (and the stupid) still rages.

The article is relatively informative and unbiased until it reaches the halfway mark, then the stupid shines through. Here's how it starts:
But it is wrong, [Rev. Ken] Sauer said, to accuse ELCA members who do not support allowing homosexual pastors in committed relationships to serve their congregation of being anti-gay.
Right, "I want a pastor, just not a gay one". What's anti-gay about that? The article continues:
"All of us share our lives with family, friends and church members who live in that lifestyle," Sauer said.

But the behavior is separated from the person, he said.
AHHH! This is my argument, he's just using it on the wrong side of the debate. Of course sexual behavior is separated from the person, nobody meets someone and immediately asks themselves "who does this person have sex with?" (at least I hope not). So if you aren't anti-gay, and you are fully capable of separating someone's sexual behavior from their everyday life, then why the hell do you care if your pastor is gay? Unfortunately, the article continues digging it's hole:
The church has faced ethical matters before, he said. The difference is, when it struggled with divorce, it did suggest the norm of a marriage between a man and a woman should be changed.

When it struggled with premarital sex, it never suggested the norm of waiting for a sexual relationship until after marriage should be changed, Sauer said.
You might need some background information to understand why these paragraphs infuriate me. The ELCA only allows monogamous, life-long (married if it were legal) partnerships for it's gay pastors. Which means no premarital sex.

Now lets go over this again; when the church struggled before with divorce, "it did suggest the norm of a marriage between a man and a woman should be changed". Which is so different from right now, when it's suggesting the norm of a marriage between a man and a woman should be changed. Let's go over the second part; when the church struggled with premarital sex, "it never suggested the norm of waiting for a sexual relationship until after marriage should be changed". Which is also very different from right now, where it's not suggesting the norm of waiting for a sexual relationship until after marriage should be changed. (end sarcasm) What the hell people? Are you trying to be blatantly bigoted or are you just stupid? This is the exact same situation on a slightly different issue, why should the standard be different for gay people?

We're still not done with this article:
"A pastor who is not sexually trustworthy destroys the ministry," [Rev. James Nestingen] said.
Not sexually trustworthy?! What is that suggesting? What does that even mean? What are we trusting our minister for that has anything to do with sex? Does this guy think gay people go around raping people? So many questions.

I'm going to end this before I have a hemorrhage.

(via Argus Leader)

1 comment:

  1. My parents have a new minister at their church and they have said on occasion that it would be good for me to meet him. I'm planning on seeing him within the next few weeks, but I am so tempted now to ask him if he is indeed, "sexually trustworthy."

    It would be hilarious, but I gotta work up the guts.

    ReplyDelete

 

Copyright © 2009, Page Info, Contact Me