My Denomination did it right

[Non Sequitur]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/21/lutheran.gays/

Recently, the denomination that I am a part of, and am going to eventually be a pastor in, decided that homosexuals in life long, monogamous relationships can become members of the clergy. While this decision doesn't surprise me (my denomination is fairly liberal) I am pleased all the same.

[Lily]

Good for the Lutherans! My fraternal grandfather (who died before I was born) was a Lutheran minister. His wife, my grandmother, was very liberal and very active in the area of civil rights. She was a "what would Jesus do?" kind of woman and discrimination was not in her Book.

[Michael]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/21/lutheran.gays/

Recently, the denomination that I am a part of, and am going to eventually be a pastor in, decided that homosexuals in life long, monogamous relationships can become members of the clergy. While this decision doesn't surprise me (my denomination is fairly liberal) I am pleased all the same.

Yes, I read about the decision - rather close vote I might add.

Three cheers for the Lutherans putting religion ahead of politics. Quite unusual that is these days for religious groups.

I believe that means the two largest denominations of protestants in the US now accept gay clergy.

I think this is a good policy as it tends to reduce hypocrisy. Everyone knows that the clergy has a long history of being a haven for homosexual clergy - its high time the churches admit this.

Likewise with the military. Homosexuals have a very long history of service in the military of every nation. It is good to get rid of the hypocrisy that denies this blatant fact.

[Non Sequitur]

while I am about as far left on this topic as one can get, I find the attention that this issues gets to be confusing and irritating. I was actually pretty nervous about this vote because i didn't want the church to broken over this issue.

[Michael]

while I am about as far left on this topic as one can get, I find the attention that this issues gets to be confusing and irritating. I was actually pretty nervous about this vote because i didn't want the church to broken over this issue.

The issue is loaded because it is the most symbolic issue of the culture war. Losing on this issue means LOSING THE CULTURE WAR entirely.

That's why there is so much fanaticism. The social conservatives have lost on every issue they've challenged - and this one is no different. Once they lose on this issue, the whole political concept of social conservativism is dead - therefore they will fight this one to the last man standing. They have no choice - once they lose on this issue it is all over.

[Americano]

while I am about as far left on this topic as one can get, I find the attention that this issues gets to be confusing and irritating. I was actually pretty nervous about this vote because i didn't want the church to broken over this issue.

I did notice the issue of gay marriage was carefully ignored but definitely a positive step in the right direction.

[Michael]

I did notice the issue of gay marriage was carefully ignored but definitely a positive step in the right direction.

Churches have no need of taking any official stand on gay marriage since they can, and are expected, to refuse to conduct such ceremonies. All existing same-sex marriage laws grant that.

Thus, Churches can only opine on that topic if they are addressing the status of their own clergy. To address the topic otherwise is blatant politicking which the Churches are forbidden to do by law.

[Donkey]

Congratulations. I've been hanging out with a lot of Episcopalians lately, so I hear about this from time to time. The dean of the Cathedral in Cleveland is an openly gay woman.

[Daktoria]

I don't get it. If you're gay and you're married, why does it matter if you're a minister or not? Either way, the denomination should recognize you as a sinner, and from better to worse, it wouldn't make sense to make that strong of a sinner a leader of a parish (or whatever the equivalent is for Lutherans).

[Donkey]

I don't get it. If you're gay and you're married, why does it matter if you're a minister or not? Either way, the denomination should recognize you as a sinner, and from better to worse, it wouldn't make sense to make that strong of a sinner a leader of a parish (or whatever the equivalent is for Lutherans).
What?

It's not about whether or not they are married, it's about whether or not they are gay, in this circumstance.

[Daktoria]

Oh, so if they're gay and married (or united) they get discriminated against still?

[Donkey]

Oh, so if they're gay and married (or united) they get discriminated against still?
Well the Church isn't recognizing their marriage.

[Daktoria]

Well the Church isn't recognizing their marriage.

Well that's just silly.

If homosexuality is an innate characteristic, then the church is excusing people who are perpetually sinning into the clergy while refusing to recognize a willful act.

If homosexuality is a chosen characteristic (which it isn't, but w/e it's the church's stance), then the church is excusing one willful act but not another.

Doesn't make sense to me. Seems like they're just trying to be politically correct to appeal more marketable.

Church marketability, rofl.

[Michael]

While I'm certainly in favor of gay rights and fully legalized same-sex marriage, I must admit that I agree with Daktoria's point. :D

Christian churches really do make themselves appear silly by tearing themselves in knots over the issue (either in opposition or either in an attempt to accomodate) and end up having to do the proverbial 'dancing on the head of a pin' game in order to square their politics with their scripture (again, on both sides).

[Daktoria]

So do you agree from an applied or normative ethical standpoint? =P

[Michael]

So do you agree from an applied or normative ethical standpoint? =P

Neither. Its all just politics to me. ;)

[Daktoria]

Well politics is inherently a matter of empirically responsive strategy, so either you agree because of the way ethics are being interpreted at a fundamental empirical level (normative ethics) or you agree because of the way ethics are being practiced at a higher empirical level (applied ethics).

[Michael]

Well politics is inherently a matter of empirically responsive strategy, so either you agree because of the way ethics are being interpreted at a fundamental empirical level (normative ethics) or you agree because of the way ethics are being practiced at a higher empirical level (applied ethics).
Like I said, neither. When you try to project a motive for my views, you will almost always be wrong. I tend to march to my own drummer.

I agreed that the Churches look silly addressing this issue - regardless if they are 'for' or 'against'. My reason is entirely in regard to hypocrisy and irony.

[Lasher]

Well politics is inherently a matter of empirically responsive strategy, so either you agree because of the way ethics are being interpreted at a fundamental empirical level (normative ethics) or you agree because of the way ethics are being practiced at a higher empirical level (applied ethics).
Gee, Dakotoria, you sure do complicate things!

[Daktoria]

Believe me when I say this, it's as much of a headache for me to organize my thoughts to make other people happy as it is for other people to listen to what I have to say.

If I had my just desserts, I'd probably be fishing for a living for the rest of my life. Where? I don't care. Could be the Bering Sea, the northern Atlantic, the Bay of Bengal, or anywhere else. Preferably somewhere with good music and cuisine though, just somewhere to get away from it all and not even have to care about politics because no third party is going to steal from me to feel good about providing for some other random people. Charity has more to it than just material provision. It's the process and journey that count too.