In 1994, when the Rev. Katrina D. Foster became pastor of Fordham Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Bronx, she threw herself into ministering to her small, mostly Caribbean-born congregation. She not only preached to them on Sundays but lived in the neighborhood and showed up to support them in everything from surgeries to legal matters.
But Pastor Foster was keeping a secret from her congregation. She held onto it even after a woman came to live with her in the parsonage, then joined the church choir…
But in 2002, when the woman, Pamela Kallimanis, became pregnant, they knew the time had come. So Pastor Foster sat her congregants down one by one and told them that she and Ms. Kallimanis were partners and were expecting a child.
Not one person openly criticized her, she said. Instead, “they threw us the most wonderfully outrageous baby shower in the side yard next to the church,” she said. “The woman I was most anxious about telling” — the church president — “I thought she was going to leap across the table and hug me.”
Sounds like the kind of acceptance and tolerance these United States used to stand up for.
Now Pastor Foster and her roughly 100 congregants face a new challenge: the possibility that she, along with four other pastors in the New York area and 81 nationwide, could be defrocked in 2009 by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The country’s largest Lutheran denomination, it allows openly gay pastors but forbids them from being in same-sex relationships…
“I think we’ve all grown because of her,” said the church president, Emilie Ramdhanie, 61, a Virgin Islands-born social worker. “She’s made us a lot more aware of what it means to be gay and have a full life like anyone else.”…
I think the bigots who clutch their prejudice as some religious commandment – would be just as bigoted within any other philosophical framework. Rationale, excuse – whatever. It still stinks.
Why can’t people get it? Gay people argue that its an innate propensity in some people. Given that, the Lutherans (if they are worth their salt) are saying “innate propensity doesn’t make things right.” Why is that a difficult concept to get?
Count: pedophilia. racism. bigamy. spousal abandonment. murder. philandering. These may certainly be innate propensities, but society still frowns upon people acting on them. Why do people have such a hard time grokking that “yes, your innate desires may be sinful; don’t act on them.”
Eidard, I know you’re smarter than you make out to be.
: pedophilia. racism. bigamy. spousal abandonment. murder. philandering
Weird how just about every religion has practiced or endorsed one or more of these “innate propensities” throughout history.
“Sinful”? In other words you haven’t made it past the end of the 19th Century, yet.
If she were a guy the Lutherans would have given a very loud “NO.” But when there’s girl on girl action…
Janky-o, it would seem Uncle Ben beat me to it, but let me hammer the point home.
“pedophilia. racism. bigamy. spousal abandonment. murder. philandering.”
I don’t know how “racism” got in there, since it’s an attitude, and right or wrong, we haven’t reached the stage of Thoughtcrime yet, where attitudes are prosecutable, so let’s drop that, along with “philandering”, which is dishonesty in romantic / sexual relationships which is also are not an appropriate target for criminal prosecution. We have divorce courts to thrash those issues out in. “Bigamy” is a matter of violating societal custom, and doesn’t really fit either. Point to a “victim” other than society at large is kinda iffy there, so let’s set it aside.
So we have: “pedophilia. spousal abandonment. murder.”
Crimes all. And because they each involve violating rights of others, of directly causing actual harm to someone else.
Here’s the question: What does that have to do with two consenting adults choosing of their own free will to enter into a romantic relationship? Please explain who, exactly, is the “victim.”
You can’t. It’s a matter of ingrained homophobia on your part. You (along with a large majority of humankind, FWIW) could benefit from some introspection. Think about how you came to this attitude. You certainly didn’t arrive at it by logical reasoning, and there’s the problem. It’s irrational prejudice and as such, it’s insupportable.
#4, Uncle Ben,
Well written piece. I agree and could not have said it better than you have.
1. If you are going to preach tolerance, then be tolerant of those who believe in sin, silly as you may find them.
2. Jesus said sin begins in the heart. Includes stuff like lust, hatred, etc. Therefore racism is included.
3. “Nobody gets hurt” is very nice, but it’s not Biblical either. If we’re going to be Christian, I assume you’d like us to conform to the our holy book? Wouldn’t want to be called a hypocrite.
4. “Loving relationship” is very nice. Unfortunately, like 3, it’s not sufficient.
Be reasonable. Christianity holds some seemingly peculiar views about God, the Bible, sin and salvation. If you or this woman don’t want to be part, if you want to make up your own religion, feel free. But can you really expect the church not to follow the Bible?
Janky-o
“Innate propensity”? You gotta be kidding me. What’s next, Phrenology? I know somewhere in there you’re trying to make a point but you sound like a whack job.
I think the point you’re trying to make is that they should join a congregation which is consistent with their religious beliefs.
BTW, comparing this couple to victimizing crimes like murder is pretty stupid. Don’t give up your God given ability to think for yourself just because you joined some religion.
Ok ket’s break this down under then christian rules of engagement as stated by their leader Jesus Christ.
He states (without splitting hairs about being gay or straight) that you should not commit adultery (sex between two married people that are not married to each other) or fornicate (sex outside of marraige between single people).
REAL BASIC. No gay bashing, no bigotry. Goes equally for straight and gay.
he also states that the only TWO ways a marriage can be ended is DEATH or Divorce on ONLY the grounds of Adultery. To add to it, you CANNOT remarry unless the spouse is DEAD. Any remarriage is adultery again and against the criteria.
This pretty much kills most modern christians as they have engaged in fornication, adultery or gotten a divorce illegally by Jesus’ own criteria. And seeing how is is also The God of Abraham (taking in Islam, Christianity and Judaism), it is against God’s own criteria.
So if we put 2 and 2 together we get that MOST clerics should not be leaders of their religion.
NOW, and here is where the lutherns are coming from, IF you repent these actions AND do them NO MORE; then you CAN lead a congregation. BUT it means:
No more fornication
No more adultery
No more divorce
and here is the biggest problem christians will have…
You MUST leave the spouse of other than your original marriage unless that spouse died. Then you are ok with another marriage.
Remarriage is VERBOTEN unless the spouse dies. No ifs, ands or buts. There is no provision whatsoever from God in scripture to get anyone out of this.
This is why most christians themselves are engaged in adultery and unfit to be clergy while remaining in such.
So the Lutherans are scripturally correct that one MAY be a gay, but MUST NOT act on it. Just like one may be straight but must not act on it, unless married and only to who you married.
So using scripture its a sound statement. Using reality, no one abides by that UNLESS they PERSONALLY wish to do so.
But then that’s the whole crux of christianity. It takes a personal effort NOT to do all the wrong things. Just like it does ANYONE even if they have no religion but have common morals.
Cursor_
#9. I’m not sure what I should say. “Born that way” is what the gays say, I was just trying to say it more formally.
#10. Yep! The bar is high, particularly for pastors. There is one “out,” of course, as Christianity understands all people sin and will continue to do so; thus we start our services with repentance and forgiveness, which is so important. It’s when you continue to live with persistent, unrepentant sin that you are liable to getting kicked out of the church (or defrocked). The problem is that you can’t live in an immoral relationship and not be unrepentant. Thus this lady’s problem.
Really, if you think about it, Christianity is far more consistent than the “tolerance” people who are so intolerant. And it’s the only way to escape the consequences of your sins.
So, the Xhristians who don’t believe exactly the same ideological crap as thee – ain’t “real” Christians. Right?
Burn their churches and sow the ground with salt sounds about right.
Looking at these comments and being a Lutheran, it’s refreshing to see some positive statements being made about Christianity instead of the standard “these guys are idiots”.
Let this be a lesson: those fundamentalist wackos are exactly like the Islamic extremists…they don’t speak for the majority.
Janky
LOL. Maybe you stick with “innate propensity”. It has that whole that nice formal “But Holmes, we’re men of science” feel to it. Same with the word “defrocked”.
As for your response to #10, you’re still not using the old nut to make your point. She has been accepted by her local relgious community where she is a leader and is held to a higher standard. There are plenty of religious congregations where she would not have this obstacle – the congregation as a whole may need to change affiliations. No news here, move along.
Personally, you obviously feel (or believe – there’s an interesting debate in itself) that they are sinning. That’s nice and it makes complete sense to me that you shouldn’t get into a relationship with somebody of the same sex.
Extend that out a little bit now. It sounds like you belong a religious affiliation where you share a like minded outlook that homosexuality is a sin. Fine. Odds are, the majority of the people in your country (don’t know where you live but I am assuming a Western nation) don’t agree with you and may even consider your beliefs ethically irresponsible. However, they tolerate the belief in their society and will fight to protect your rights. What they are asking is the same in return.
Jankyoyo said,
“Yep! The bar is high, particularly for pastors. There is one “out,” of course, as Christianity understands all people sin and will continue to do so; thus we start our services with repentance and forgiveness, which is so important.”
Darn right it’s important. It allows you all to be hypocrites with a clear conscience.
#4 – Uncle Ben – I am far from a supporter of organized religion, but in the interest of accuracy, the reason Jesus was so pissed was that the money changers were occupying the temple steps. He wanted them to move their business elsewhere and they refused. Hence the wrath of JC was called down upon them: Jesus broke in to song, crashed a few tables, and danced with some hippie chicks.
>>Count: pedophilia. racism. bigamy.
>>spousal abandonment. murder. philandering.
Whoa! And those high crimes and misdemeanors are the moral equivalent of being gay???
Gotta watch out for the spittle-flecked homophobes; they’re the ones most likely to be running on meth and man-ass.
Tell us o Janky, is it a sin for the deformed of foot to hobble? Is its a sin for the cleft of lip to lisp? Is it a sin for the palsy of the cerebellum to shake? Is it a crime for the blind of eyes to see through their fingers?
Nay, for it is also not a crime for the religious to believe in the unlikely or the homo of sexual to love what they to desire.
I’m sure that pastor is a wonderful person, a great and inspiring leader. But that isn’t really the point here. You can’t just take out a black bible high lighter and blot out scripture every time you disagree with what it says.
We are commanded to love one another and not judge. But Romans 1 is VERY clear and is a warning against “doing what is right in your own eyes.”
You may not like it, alot of times I don’t like it. But we must obey scripture. It’s pretty clear.
And if she’s disobeying scripture, then she’s leading her flock in the wrong direction.
“You can’t just take out a black bible high lighter and blot out scripture every time you disagree with what it says. We are commanded to love one another and not judge. But Romans 1 is VERY clear and is a warning against “doing what is right in your own eyes.”
Oh, I see matt, you just blot out everywhere it commands you to love one another and not judge, so that it becomes “VERY clear” that you can ultimately do whatever you think is right “in your own eyes”.
Brilliant! Then just to cover your butt, you can “start our services with repentance and forgiveness, which is so important.” Janky:11:2
JimR, you can try to put words in my mouth all you want, but that’s not what I said. Clearly, this woman has a choice to make. Her relationship or her commitment to her flock/faith. Make no mistake, THIS IS NOT AN EASY ISSUE. Nor am I saying she can’t have an impact on people’s lives.
And Ben, you have a point. But Romans 1 is pretty clear here. My job is love and not just. But that certainly doesn’t nullify what Paul is saying there.
Again, this is NOT an easy issue.
Matt, I quoted you. It’s exactly what you said.
Oh CRAP!. Matt you’re right, I totally misread your quote. I apologize and deserve one of those stupid awards Dvorak issues from time to time.
I don’t understand how one can write about what “Christians” do or believe. Christians are not a homogeneous group with a single set of beliefs. You’ve got your Catholics who thought your Anglicans and Lutherans were apostates and vice versa, your Metropolitan Community Church which is a gay Christian church and your Mormons who consider themselves Christians, but your Catholics, Lutheran and Baptist don’t. And about a million other flavours or denominations that call themselves Christian. They all claim to follow the teachings of Christ as they interpret them. Christ did not condemn homosexuality. He didn’t mention it. Not once.
Christ was, however, asked the following question (Matthew 22:36):
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?.
And depending on which of the many versions of the bible you read,
“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments depend the WHOLE Law and the Prophets. (emphasis added)
Ive checked further on – it doesn’t say in the fine print “does no apply when said neighbour lives with someone of the same sex or takes it up the butt”.
Once upon a time American Christians (OK, maybe not every single one of them) believed that miscegenation was a sin and a crime. How is that any different than homosexuality? I know that homosexuality is condemned in the old Jewish part of the Bible, but we’re talking about Christians right? The Jews didn’t like miscegenation – except they called it marrying a gentile – but it’s the same thing. And it’s condemned in Exodus 34
Most Christians today, I think, see nothing sinful about an interracial couple – miscegenation. Perhaps one day a similar attitude will apply to same sex couples. I think if Jesus were asked about homosexuality he might have suggested that a same-sex couples’ love and commitment to each other were not sinful but blessed.
But I might be wrong cause I don’t really believe in any of this crap. People can love whoever they want. It’s when they start hating others that we have problems. Peace.
I support Janky-O and his or her views and reasoned discourse on the problematic modern issues that face a religious faith that is several times older than the society in which it is practiced. I do not support an openly gay pastor as head of a church congregation. I however do favor anyone who is gay to participate in the seeking god through practiced devotion and acceptance that Jesus is their savior. Honestly, I am a LCMS church member and share the view of many others within the church that people should be included whenever and however possible when it pertains to worship and study. However, it is entirely another matter to change the basic tenants and practice of a particular faith just to make outsiders happy. This will never happen. It is dissolute and threatens the very identity of the religious practice it seeks to be a part of. The word FAITH is used for a reason. Gods peace to you all.
>>However, it is entirely another matter to
>>change the basic tenants and practice of a
>>particular faith just to make outsiders
>>happy
Nobody is seeking to “change the basice tenants (sic) and practice of a particular faith just to make outsider happy”. The Lutheran church as been debating this issue internally for some time. And the whisker-thin majority by which they rejected global acceptance of gays and lesbians as clergy suggests that a substantial minority of the clergy feel that it’s fine and dandy. See below.
“– A national meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America rejected (503 to 490) a proposal Friday that would have allowed gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy under certain conditions.
The measure would have affirmed the church ban on ordaining sexually active gay men and lesbians, but it would have allowed bishops and church districts, or synods, to seek an exception for a particular candidate — if that person was in a long-term relationship and met other restrictions.”
I think the Catholic Church says something similar. That gay behavior is different from a state of objective disorder that gays exhibit. It;s the behavior not the thought.
#28 – I stated that I was a member of LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod NOT ELCS of which you are citing. The ELCS is a schismatic branch of the LCMS. They are very different from the LCMS. Please pay attention when trying to correct someone who has a very strong knowledge of which they speak. It only reflects poorly on the conversation as a whole. That being said, church elders within my own church have trouble agreeing on budgets and basic issues. I commend anyone who takes up the challenge of confronting these very difficult issues. They have my respect. I do have my own beliefs and try to let my voice be heard when asked. I just hope that people do the same. Gods peace be with all of you.
>>Please pay attention when trying to correct
>>someone who has a very strong knowledge of
>>which they speak.
Oh, I do pay attention, especially when speaking with an intellectual giant such as yourself.
That being said, I don’t recall having made any comment about which synod you belonged to. Perhaps it is YOU who should be paying attention? ECLS, LCMS, they’re all LUTHERANS. And the LUTHERANS (no matter which splinter group) seem to have a substantial number of adherents who think that GLBT preachers are OK. I realize that the LCMS is particularly right-wing when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of others, but that makes no nevermind. Homophobia may be a “basic tenant (sic) and practice” among neocon Luthreans, but it’s hardly universal.
Mister Mustard,
Ok, you win, you are right. Please ignore any posts by me. Thanks, I AM a mental giant. Just ask my three year old daughter who says “Is there anything you don’t know daddy?” Gods peace be with you Mister Mustard. I do not wish to engage in this conversation further. What I said before stands. Whomever disagrees with this CAN and should. Gods peace to everyone.
MikeN,
I think you have that right. I few this as a kind of transitional position. I acknowledge a ethical consistency about it, even if I don’t agree.
The same standard is reasonable when applied to other “sins.”
Let’s say stealing. Most of us are born thieves.
But the church would allow us to be the diocesan treasurer as long as we didn’t act on that natural “God given” inclination.
Just having a “born” desire to steal is not the sin.
Similarly, most of us guys have a “born” orientation to cheat on our wife. But unless and until we do, we remain qualified for church service.
My trouble isn’t the logic of it — it’s the special status of being gay that creates the moral dilemma.
If you resist homosexuality, you can’t just decide to be hetero. (In contrast: I may be a natural-born philanderer but if I resist that, I can chose to be a husband and father.)
I’ve heard conservative Christians make the absurdest claim that “Traditional marriage is an equal right.” Their twisted logic is that any gay person can turn him/herself straight and then get married.
Lastly — I get tired of pointing this out on this blog — intolerance is not a hallmark of all Christians. Maybe not even the majority. (I don’t know the statistic.)
I attend two different churches right now and they both have gays couples in about every fifth pew with nobody objecting that I ever hear of.