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.”
Like we talk about Dan Quayle now?
This Comment Removed by Moderator
Better a heathen than a heretic.
It could turn around real fast. Really, it could.... ;x ...Certainly doesn't look like it from this view, though.
Besides the serious health issues which arise by having multiple partners, the Vatican, has condemned gay marriages:
The Vatican has condemned same-sex unions as deviant and a threat to society in a fresh attempt to halt the growing momentum towards legalising gay marriage in North America and Europe.The Holy See urged Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills that would recognise gay marriage in a strongly worded document approved by Pope John Paul II- causing anger among gay rights activists across Europe.
"Marriage exists solely between a man and a woman...Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," said the 12-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour...but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."
The document also denounced gay couples adopting children: "Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children."
It was the second time this year the Vatican instructed Catholic lawmakers to vote against bills legalising gay marriage.
Church authorities have also repeatedly condemned homosexuality in more general terms this year, although they say chaste gays should be welcomed into the Church.
In March, the Vatican released a new glossary of sexual terms which said countries which allowed gay marriages were inhabited by people with "profoundly disordered minds". LINK
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."
The gift of God is the Holy Spirit, which is present in every true believer. Those who want to destroy our confidence in God and reject God's word are not true believers, but enemies of God. Whoever follows Jesus teachings and believes He is the only way to forgiveness and eternal life will receive this gift, and not by legislating corrupt behavior.
In regards to "sects of Christianity", I am more of the opinion that one "sect" generally has a different personality than another. A true "church" is made up of individuals professing a common faith. How the charismatics conduct their affairs different from certain Baptists or Presbyterians is another matter, since I have been "forced" in a way to fellowship with presbyterians when I don't fully accept their covenant theology. We do agree on that which truly matters and that is why I would worship with those who teach infant baptism when I would be more inclined to a believer's baptism.
When it comes to the differences between those who believe in the the Doctrines of Grace (5 pt Calvinism) vs the American Religion (a hodge-podge of Arminianism, Pelagianism, and gnostisicm) beyond superficiality, there is little in common. We share a belief in a Trinity, but the Trinity of the American Religion (adopted by many 'Bible' churches, Southern Baptist organizations and by the many independants who claim to be "seeker sensitive") has very little to do with the Biblical Trinity.
Those of the Reformed faith (aka "Calvinists") worship a Sovereign God, whose Will is unthwarted by the creation. The American Religion, characterized by various Free Will theories, say that God is powerless to save and that salvation is completely up to man, governed by an alleged "free-will" choice. The former says that man is unable, the latter says that God is unable. The former says that God chooses, the latter says that man chooses. The former says that God's Will prevails, the latter says that Man's Will prevails. The former says that God's salvation is 100% effective for some (the 'elect'), the latter says that salvation is hypothetical for 100% of the people.
Calvinists believe that man's default state is born in sin, naturally rebellious deserving Hell and without God intervening in each individual's life all would perish. The American Religion says that man's default state is sinlessness, ie. a child needs no savior and if died would merit heaven because sin is only sin when consciously practiced. Heaven is man's to lose, not to gain. This is where FWT breaks off into various sub groups. Some think that one must "Choose Christ" in order to be saved. Others think that one must "Reject Christ" in order to be damned. Then you have those who reject even a Hell so salvation/condemnation is nothing more than where one sits at the table.
Calvinists recognize that after salvation, one's earthly troubles increase; the American Religion teaches that after salvation one's earthly troubles diminish. It is the latter that brings us these tradegies of Health & Wealth prosperity doctrines since the original premise is that Life with Jesus is supposed to produce temporal increase, despite Christ's claim that "In this world you will have tribulation.". From the spiritual aspect, Calvinism is opposite of the American Religion again. Calvinists generally believe that while the physical world is in battle, there is spiritual peace that comes from the Paraclete. Clearly the American Religion believes that through a complex system of quid pro quo, Jesus is the Great Santa Claus that know who has been bad or good and puts a Lexus in the driveway for those who prayed harder, or who showed the most self reform. As for spiritual peace, there is always the Christian Psychologist and the various Counseling and 12 Step Programs available at the church. Feel pain in your life? Take a pill and stop beating your spouse.
Calvinists view God with awe and reverence knowing that all things work for good to those who are within His will. Even salvation requires a change of heart before belief and faith can take place. IOW, The Spirit indwells prior to salvation. The American Religion says that man's heart is already good enough to recognize the gospel and to place within itself conviction. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is optional (though strongly advised) and is sought through that complex system of good works in order to merit indwelling. The reformed teach man's heart is a mess and needs cleaning by the Spirit, the American Religion teaches that man needs to clean-up his heart first before the Spirit will come in.
In short, Calvinism is Theocentric. The American Religion is Anthropocentric. Calvinism recongizes God's Sovereignty for God's Glory. FWT/American Religion feels that it is all about man. It is man who is sovereign and it is man who receives the glory of salvation. Jesus Christ is nothing more than a Plush Toy Genie Jesus to the saved, and through the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism (Pessimillennialism coined by others) Jesus Christ ironically "loves" the reprobate through remarkably profound violence and destruction.
It is hard to find two more dissimilar religions that claim to use the same textbook. It may be that the American Religion uses their Bible as a stage prop and couldn't care less to the contents unless fragments could be looted to compose pithy choruses, chants and bumper stickers.
"An enemy sowed weeds amongst the wheat."
I hope they stick to their principles.
Except that God's Will is bound to His Counsel, and man's will is bound to sin and death. Just as much as we would not expect God's Will to change, we have the same expectations for man. Now what does this have to do with the concept of "free-will"? No one here is denying that personal beings have a will, or is that the point, just bring up red herrings?
Both God and man choose for those who are believers
Let's cut to the chase. How many that God chooses do not come to salvation?
The man who accepts and believes in Jesus Christ is then by grace provided efficacious grace by the Holy Spirit to make that faith effective for salvation.
I am well aware of the anthropocentric teachings of man. I choose to get my doctrine from Scripture, not made up by people who are irked by God's Sovereignty. Given that the natural human state hates God (Romans 1:20) is an enemy of God (8:6-8), is a slave to sin, without righteousness, by nature a "child or wrath" in relation to God (6:19-20; Eph 2:1-3) doesn't understand the Gospel message and considers it foolish (1 Cor 2:14) is blinded to the Gospel command to repent of sin by Satan (2 Cor 4:4), and would prefer to be crushed to death by falling rocks rather than bow the knee to God (Rev 6:15-17) is going to overcome all of that from a spiritually dead state and "choose Christ"? Or is your response, in effect, a hand waving denial of clear Scripture?
Many legalistic Calvinists get the cart before the horse, believing that if man believes in Christ through faith in Him, that this usurps God's Soverignty...
First of all, this is a rhetorical question formed out of a presuppositional hypothetical is a logical response to the Free Will Theorist who rejects Scripture and keeps insisting on Free Will as the means of salvation. Since you folks won't accept the Bible, those who believe in the Doctrines of Grace in apparent futility try to reason with you using your own line of argument. (Oh, and the "legalist" Calvinst dig is a nice insertion. Who are these legalist Calvinists? Another strawman fiction?)
Such a theology misses the Soverignty of God because it omits His mandating man to have free will by His decree.
For it to be "theology", it must be a about God. One way in how we know about God is through His revealed Word. Now I know that there is no such Decree in the Canon of Scripture, so I wonder where you discovered this nugget about this alleged Divine Decree of man's Free Will. I could rant about the obvious internal contradiction
Job 15:15-16 "If God puts no trust in His saints, and the heavens are not pure in His sight, How much less man, who is abominable and filthy, who drinks iniquity like water!"
The Bible states right here that God can't even trust Moses, David, Abraham and "the saints". But you want to foist this idea that though God can't trust them, that God is more than willing (by Divine Decree even) to trust His perfect Will and Soveriengty to the wicked and unregenerated man. (excuse me while I laugh)
God neither usurps His decree nor abandons man,
Then may I reaquaint you with Romans 1 which is a chapter that devotes itself to describing the conditions on why God regularly abandons man.
but recognizes faith for righteousness because it isn't a work
That is a red herring also. Faith is a gift from God (see Ephesians 2:8; Gal 2:22-23). Even if it was a "work", it still originates from God. What do you think "God has dealt to each one a measure of faith" means? (Rom 12:3) What kind of self-serving heretic would take something that was given to him by God and claim that he didn't get it from God, but instead made it himself? This question doesn't even address the lunacy of thinking that a person who hates God and considers the Gospel foolish would on his own place his faith in that which he loathes and despises.
Since Christ has already died in sacrificial atonement for all sin, the wrath of God has already been answered.
Then why repent or use free-will for anything if all sin of every person has been paid for? You are saying that God the Father is unjust, in that if His Son paid the price for all sin of every person, 2000 years ago, then if anyone goes to Hell on account of sin then God is demanding double payment for sin. For the wages of sin is death. So riddle me this, how can anyone still be responsibile for the consequences of sin if Jesus Christ paid the price already? You are teaching the worst form of antinomianism in that because of Christ, there is no one who will go to Hell no matter what they think about God.
not to distract from the Calvinist's faith but to encourage him to further study how God also provides for man to have free will and remain obedient to Him while in fellowship with Him.
How arrogant of you! Here you provide absolutely no substantiation for your clearly anti-Biblical claims, then you say that it is the Calvinist's responsibility to make sense out of the irrational babblings of the Free Will Theorist. It appears to me that the Calvinist already has his homework finished and has merely echoed the words of the authors of Scripture. Free Will has no basis in Scripture, (hence the remarkable absence of it in any discussion of it and its hypothetical applicability to soteriology) and has to contradict most of Scripture in order to hold it.
No thanks, I don't need to wrest Scripture, I just need to remain firm.
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.