"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More

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.”

Would you deny that giving food to a starving person is doing good ?

Luke 18:19 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

The problem here is that you are trying to reason away Isaiah 64:6 rather than trying to understand it. This process of reading new meaning into a passage is called eisegesis. Nothing good comes out of denying Scripture because you don't understand it, or it doesn't meet the world's standards. In the question that you have posed here, you are using the world's standard for "good" and judging God by it. When Isaiah said that all of our works are as filthy rags he meant even giving food to a starving person. The reason why this seems strange to you is that you confuse human works with spiritual righteousness. Everything you do, outside of the will of God is unrighteous. Read the Sermon on the Mount where several of the Ten Commandments are explained in terms of motivation. The point being, while unregenerated, why are you feeding the starving person? Certainly not to glorify God. Human altruism is superficial in that there is always a personal motive in doing so. Why did you feed the starving? Because of some personal guilt? For the praise of others? To get the person to quit pestering you?. The regenerated man of God feeds the starving, perhaps, because he is doing so out of obedience to God, so that the Father is glorified in the sanctified works of man.

The Anthropocentrism of Free Will Theory (the American Religion) that glorifies man by saying "I chose Christ of my free will" also believes that his own standard of judging right from wrong prevails. This is the heresy of the WWJD movement, in that folks pretend God's Will is fashioned from man's subjective idea of what is right and good. This is why legalism prevails so often in the American Religion, because of its acute philosophy of man centered thinking, that if I feel that it is good, then God must be pleased by it. In truth, any work done outside of the Will of God, performed for any other reason that to directly glorify Christ, is an evil work because the motivation is to glorify man (yourself in this case) rather than to glorify God. (John 3:30)

So lets review your questions in light of this truth.

Do you think Jesus was telling us that no one can do good when he told of the Good Samaritan ?

What is the context of this parable? The whole parable ended with a rhetorical question to answer the lawyer's question of "Who is my neighbor?" The question was changed by Christ to be "Who do you think was a neighbor?" with the ultimate answer being "He who showed mercy.". But to read that and yet miss the opening question "What is the Law?" will lead you to think that the contextless work of attending the needs of a neighbor is what is righteous. The context is "Love the Lord With All of Your Heart, Soul, Strength and Mind, and your neighbor as yourself." (which is the Ten Commandments summed up) The latter does you no good if you ignore the primary. And if you are following the former, then the loving your neighbor as yourself is conducted under the influence of glorifying God.

Do you really believe God created man unable to do good so that He would have a reason to sacrifice His Son on the cross ?

That is the debate between infralapsarians and supralapsarians. I think that the latter still has underestimated God's Purpose. Your question is loaded, and I am not certain if that was intentional, or more relevatory of your disposition. I do not believe that God was surprised by A&E's rebellion, and in fact I believe that they were in the garden no more than one day.

Look at it this way - in the form of stacking dominoes so that they fall into one another. Infralapsarians tend to treat God's Soveriegnty as quickly setting up dominoes in place as soon as the first Adam domino fell. Supralapsarians have God setting up the dominoes before Adam fell. I see God not only setting up the dominos like the supra's but also placing many dominos ahead of the Adamic one.

I say again, God created man(and woman) with free choice ;and that means each may choose good or evil, may choose to obey or disobey,and will be judged on his own choices.

You must admit that at this point in the game, the opinion is rather academic. The relevant question is does man today born with a free will. Clearly the answer is no. The natural man's will is born a slave to sin and his spirit is dead. He cannot serve two masters. (Matt 6:24)

Would you also care to discuss the problems caused by the Western tradition of stating the commandment "thou shall not kill" when killing in self-and national defense is ordered by God elsewhere ? I think much anguish might have been avoided were the commandment stated as "thou shall not murder", which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

Oh now you are going to be nice and toss a softball :)

Thanks to language changes and people rendering 1611 English in twentieth century definitions, there will be people who tout that line. (With the popularity of the NIV, this should eventually do away) Actually you don't need to be a Hebrew scholar to interpret that one for those who are against citizens packing heat for self-defense.

Matt 5:21-22 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder,' and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

There you have Jesus Christ's commentary on Exodus 20:13. "Thou shall not kill/murder", is explained as murder without cause. Furthermore, striking a brother without cause, even name-calling a brother without cause also falls under the "Thou shall not kill/murder" command. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that killing in self-defense is "cause" and therefore permissable. Actually, an argument can be made here that all forms of resistance with cause is justifiable, so the choice of a lethal weapon rather than a can of mace or pepper spray is according to the personal tastes of one dispensing the deterance.

When Christ died on the Cross, being a perfect man, body, soul and spirit, He had a perfect Spirit which could be sacrificed to make atonement for the original sin.

You deny the Atonement with that statement. It wasn't Christ's Spirit that bought forgiveness of sin, it was the death of His physical body!

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1Pe 2:21-24)

Now, how did that get in there??? Shoots your little theory all to hell, doesn't it?

The universal position that all of man's works are unrighteous fails to give credit to the work of Christ and the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit.

Where did you cut and paste this from? You haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about. You are denying the Atonement, and what it did, with this Gnostic crap. Your thelogy (and I use the term loosely) is Pelagian and gnostic, and is doubly heresy.

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.