I’ve just returned from a vacation in Colorado and am catching up on the news of the past few days. I’m pleased by the amount of coverage we’re seeing of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s recent convention, although the depth of the articles varies wildly. Some are fantastic and cover a lot of ground and some are somewhat lacking.
Even though I’m Lutheran, I’m a member of a congregation in the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. The two church bodies share the name Lutheran but not altogether much else when it comes to doctrine. So I’m not an expert in the ELCA, although I have a great many friends who are clergy or members of ELCA congregations. And I know more than a few formerly ELCA clergy who have joined the Missouri Synod or other Lutheran church bodies in the last decade. The theological underpinnings that led to the most recent vote in favor of rostering clergy who are in same-sex relationships has caused some clergy and laity to leave in the past.
Anyway, of the many reader submissions and private notes I returned to was one from reader “Tony” saying:
This post is worthy of your reading (it even calls GR out!)
Now, feel free to go over and read the post headlined “lutherans make historic vote, and the AP wire F’s it up” for some GetReligion-style commentary. (I wonder why “Lutheran” is lowercased but the cuss word is capitalized.) Anyway, it criticizes the following Associated Press headline and lede:
Lutherans to Allow Sexually Active Gays as Clergy
The nation’s largest Lutheran denomination took openly gay clergy more fully into its fold Friday, as leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to lift a ban that prohibited sexually active gay and lesbian people from serving as ministers.
Author Drew Tatusko writes:
Provocative right? Also dead wrong.
This sort of language focuses on sex again. It sounds like the ELCA is now going to allow sex holidays and maybe even sexual orgy liturgies for those who are really horny on Sunday mornings. Of course this feeds into the crap that groups like the American Family Association and Americans for Truth like to spew from their venomous bung holes.
The only problem with the critique of the headline is that, well, the ELCA did vote to allow sexually active gays as clergy. And it’s kind of hard to ignore that major vote when that’s what the whole story is about. Tatusko goes on to explain that homosexuals have better sex than heterosexuals before saying that reporter Patrick Condon can not be trusted — I kid you not — because he once told a Minnesota Republican blogger that he enjoyed reading his blog. Then Tatusko wonders how GetReligion will “spin” this article.
Well, as it turns out, this was one of the articles that I wanted to look at here. I won’t quibble with the headline, on account of it being factual and fair, and I can’t say that I find Tatusko’s writing to be terribly convincing — but there were a few other issues the story raised. Let’s look at the two paragraphs that follow the excerpt above:
Under the new policy, individual ELCA congregations will be allowed to hire homosexuals as clergy as long as they are in a committed relationships. Until now, gays and lesbians had to remain celibate to serve as clergy.
The change passed with the support of 68 percent of about 1,000 delegates at the ELCA’s national assembly. It makes the group, with about 4.7 million members in the U.S., one of the largest U.S. Christian denominations yet to take a more gay-friendly stance.
“Gay-friendly” is the term I want to look at. What does that mean?
The ELCA adopted a “social statement” that, among other things, endorses “chaste, monogamous and lifelong” same-sex relationships. To the media, I’m sure that sounds quite friendly. Now, let’s look at that statement in the context of what the Christian church has confessed for thousands of years on the basis of Scripture. What the church has taught about sexual relations is that God created man and woman to live together as man and wife in a chaste, monogamous and life-long relationship. This is for our own good, for the procreation of children, for the intimacy of man and wife, etc. The church has taught that sex outside of this arrangement is sinful and that deviation from this natural order is a consequence of the fall into sin. And the church proclaims the forgiveness of sins to all of us who sin sexually.
Now, I know that many (all?) of the mainstream media believe with their heart, mind and soul in the inherent goodness of homosexuality and badness of the church’s teaching that homosexuality is not what God wants for us. But let’s just go with a thought experiment.
Pick something else that Scriptures teach is a deviation from God’s will. Anything will do, really, but let’s take an easy one from the Ten Commandments — “lying.” (On that note, it’s the eighth commandment, Elizabeth!) Okay, now let’s imagine that one church body endorses lying. And now let’s imagine that another church body takes the position that lying falls short of how God wants us to behave. This second church body has a doctrine against lying, its pastors preach against it and its publishing house has devotionals on lying. This second church body also has a doctrine on the forgiveness of sins — including lying. This second church body has pastors that absolve parishioners who confess that they are liars. Its pastors preach that sin is forgiven in Jesus Christ and it administers the sacrament of Holy Communion that, among other things, offers forgiveness of sins to liars.
Now which church body is liar-friendly? Some (be they liars or not) would much rather have a church in which lying is condemned — and forgiven — then one where they are told lying is A-OK and nothing to feel guilty about. Some would believe the second church to be infinitely more friendly. What’s more, some would feel that the church that embraced lying didn’t have liars’ best interests at heart. Some would feel that a church that embraced lying wasn’t friendly to liars at all and that what liars need is to have their sin clearly identified and forgiven.
So is it the job of the mainstream reporter to decide that one of the above churches is friendly and the other not? Or is that a theological issue that is too complex to be trivialized? Should it be any different if the churches are discussing sexual morality?
NB: As I’ve been following the proceedings of the ELCA convention, I was struck by how civilly the delegates disagreed with each other. (Or at least most of the delegates were civil!) Your comments should also be civil and focused on journalism.
 | Posted at 8:31 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (79) |
August 23, 2009, at 9:36 am
Honestly, Mollie, this “liar-friendly” nit has to be the teeniest one ever picked here since I first encountered GR. OK, go off the “press doesn’t get religion” reservation when you must, but at least find stuff to protest whose meaning is not already transparently clear to the average (and below-average) newspaper reader.
August 23, 2009, at 9:46 am
Mollie,
As expected, but not as I had hoped, you spun this back to focus on your own ideological position that homosexuality is a sin. Then you go to say that those churches that are welcoming and affirming are lying to their people. Unbelievable. The fact that the AP wire report clearly used ideologically loaded language to frame the issue in totally inaccurate terms, which is what I thought GR was to focus as a watch dog for religious reporting, was something that you chose to use as a platform to spread more spurious red herrings in the service of your ideology.
My use of snark and harsh Language in the style of Luther himself was intentional (just read Against the Roman Papacy - my language is soft compared to Luther). Looks like it worked, as it worked for Luther. I actually stopped using capitals for everything some time ago as a design choice, nothing more. The emphasis got the attention to the article which is what I wanted.
“Now, let’s look at that statement in the context of what the Christian church has confessed for thousands of years on the basis of Scripture.”
And this is the basis for the problem itself. “Is” does not imply “ought.” I wonder if you were to sit in Wittenburg after Luther rightly condemned the political and theological foundations of the Church if you might hear the same thing about everything from papal authority rooted in Peter to the authority of the Church over all things scriptural. Yet this is the same assertion you are using to tell people that the ELCA is lying? Absolutely absurd and I hope people see that. The entire basis of the second half of your article is rooted in an equivocation that is completely errant. Unless of course you also believe that being gay is a choice. That assumption requires more reading.
Yet I digress. This is an example of how you spun it back to focus on the wrong thing - your own ideological assumption that this is about sex. The fact is that it’s not about sexual activity for those seeking to legitimate their relationships. It’s about recognizing fidelity between two people who are madly in love with each other, who also happen to be the same gender. But see, that’s the hard part to accept for people who refuse to listen to alternative hermeneutics on the six passages that condemn male on male intercourse (Jack Rogers, William Stacy Johnson, and others can help). You can’t frame it in terms of what the ELCA defined these relationships as because that part is Scriptural. Instead the focus has to be on sex.
Perhaps you should have focused on the journalism here as well. That you chose not to leaves your nota bene wanting.
August 23, 2009, at 10:01 am
One correction, Mollie did not actually say that the ELCA was lying, but the association is not much of a leap here is it.
August 23, 2009, at 10:23 am
Mollie:
Thanks for pointing out the dispute over the 10 commandments—with Lutheran/Catholics having one order, Anglicans/Reformed having a second order, Jew having a third order, and the Orthodox having their order as well. Heaven help us.
On to your post—the job of a religion writer for secular publication isn’t to endorse one side or the other. It’s to observe and report.
Take this dispute out of a church environment for a second and put it in the work world. Let’s say there’s two companies. One which will hire only celibate gay employees and fires anyone in a same sex relationship. Another which will hire gay employees, and give them insurance benefits if they have a partner.
Which is more gay friendly? The second company. This is not rocket science.
If a colleague of mine at the Tennessean asked for a recommendation of a gay friendly church they could attend with their partner— I’d send the to St. Anne’s Episcopal Church or Downtown Presbyterian- -not to Two Rivers Baptist or Faith Lutheran (a Missouri Synod congregation). The first two would embrace gay couples, the second two would bar them from membership—and probably from showing any public affection.
The argument you’re making is a theological one, not a journalism one. Calling a church gay friendly is a description, not an endorsement.
August 23, 2009, at 10:26 am
Two fundamental questions for a denomination before becoming “gay-friendly”:
1) (As alluded to by the author…) Can a “gay-friendly” denomination remain faithful to other basic tenets of Christianity? There is no evidence that it can. The American Anglican Council prepared an extensive report for a recent primates meeting that catalogs classical heresies that have been espoused by the presiding bishop herself. See http://tinyurl.com/bks6ro .
2) Can a “gay-friendly” denomination not undergo precipitous decline in membership? Again, there is no evidence that it can’t. The United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopalian denomination… And it is not because of civility or lack thereof. The United Church of Christ has not seen the bitter acrimony and is the most liberal with respect to homosexuality and was this year’s fastest declining.
“Civility” is a problem not a feature. If I was a representative at one of these conventions and my denomination was about to take a path that would lead into heretical disarray and precipitous decline, I wouldn’t be “civil.”
August 23, 2009, at 10:29 am
I’d like to address the lying example. It’s generally healthy to tell the truth with people you trust. Indeed, truth-telling is evidence of trust, and lying corrodes trust. There is no real friendship, family, or community without truth telling.
And yet, not everybody can be trusted to know the truth about me and not use that information to exploit or hurt me. Those who are not trustworthy do not deserve to hear my truth.
So, historically, lying has sometimes been the best — or even the only — defense available to oppressed people facing overwhelming and illegitimate force.
The specific example I ask my own students to ponder is this: “if you are in my attic and the Gestapo is at my front door, I will lie like a rug!”
That would indeed be a violation of the Commandment. But many a faithful Christian told lies of that nature during the Holocaust. Can you honestly say they were sinful?
August 23, 2009, at 10:29 am
Drew wrote:
You’re right. It’s unbelievable, because it’s not what she wrote. Rather, her post showed how using the word “friendly” in the story implicitly carried a value judgement about traditional Christian moral teaching on homosexual sex acts. When you remove the controversial issue of sexuality from the rhetorical device (by substituting “lying” for the more controversial homosexual sex acts), the value judgement becomes clearer. If the AP wants to run an opinion column that evaluates ELCA’s position as “gay friendly”, that’s fine, but that’s not an objective description—it’s a value judgement.
If that were true, then no change in the ELCA standards for ordination wouuld have been necessary. The change that is newsworthy in that ELCA no longer requires its homosexual clergy to be celibate; it requires them to be in “committed relationships” (whatever that means). It’s all about permitted sexual activity; it’s not about the validation of relationships. People can be “madly in love with each other” without having sex, and ELCA’s prior ordination standards didn’t prohibit that. The standards prohibited certain sexual activity.
August 23, 2009, at 10:31 am
Mollie,
The difference between ‘lying’ and ‘gay friendly’ is found in the basis of the modern moral standard. Modern morality has been recast in terms of consent. Immorality thus becomes a product of compulsion. Think through the ten commandments, for example. We throw out the first five because they don’t fit so well in the new world - both God and parents being obsolete. That leaves us with “Thou shalt not:
6. Murder.
7. Steal.
8. Commit adultery.
9. Lie.
10. Covet.
You can also throw out commandment ten at this point, because that is a secret sin of the heart, and it doesn’t really matter in our new world unless in leads to more overt action. Besides, people in general like being envied. Since man is primarily focused on his own self-interest, we adjust the surviving four commandments to account for this reality, and so arrive at their modern form. “Thou shalt not:
6. Murder me.
7. Steal from me.
8. Commit adultery against me.
9. Lie against my interest.
Now it must be stated that people understand that protecting “me” usually requires protecting “everyone like me” , and so the specific gets generalized - at least so long as “me” is in a category at risk. This is why (for example) unborn children can be killed. Born people will never again be unborn, and so feel free to dispatch a category of people with whom they have no connection of risk. The cost-benefit calculation shows no cost for the actor who chooses to abort, since they do not placing themselves in an unprotected category by their decision.
Notice now that each of the remaining commandments has been structured around compulsion of the individual. Murder, stealing, and lying are all obvious examples of compulsion. Adultery is an interesting example here, in that it is classically thought of as a violation of a covenant. But the modern world has refashioned it into a form of lying. It’s not that John had sex with Tiffany, but that John promised he would not have sex with anyone but Marsha. Adultery now hangs upon a freely chosen self-imposed constraint. There are two very important corollaries. John’s adultery with Tiffany isn’t really wrong unless Marsha finds out about it, and John’s adultery with Tiffany isn’t wrong at all if both John and Marsha freely consent to extra-marital sex. Which is a pretty good summary of the modern attitude towards the subject.
And so we return back to the difference between ‘lying’ and ‘Gay Friendly.’ The reason why no connection can be made between homosexuality and lying is that homosexuality has been morally justified on the basis of consent. It is considered morally righteous when people freely consent to act upon their authentic desires. ‘Freely consent’ is the key phrase. It implies a lack of compulsion of the individual will. Only homosexual acts that do not involve free consent will be judged immoral. Lying however will always involve some sense of compulsion. People do not want to be placed at a disadvantage against their will because someone else had an interest in falsifying the truth. That is the difference.
carl
August 23, 2009, at 10:34 am
Dale, I corrected that after I posted it. And it is about the legitimacy of a kind of relationship. I would implore you to take that up with people who are actually seeking this kind of legitimacy.
August 23, 2009, at 10:45 am
Oh, Mollie. The “shoot the messenger” gang is out to getcha, as usual. Forget being civil and focussing on journalism. Ad hominem atacks are always SO much easier!
You DID focus on the journalistic use of the term “gay-friendly.” (Although you might have better used murder instead of lying as an example?) Your detractors don’t bother to answer the your reasonable question, “What does gay-friendly mean?” You deserve far better.
It is a sad, sad, sad world out there. (But then, you already know that, don’t you?)
August 23, 2009, at 10:50 am
Ed - see Bob’s comment above. gay-friendly = a welcoming and affirming policy towards “a publicly accountable, lifelong, monagamous, same-gender relationship”. If a church does not affirm that, how friendly is it towards gay people? Not a hard concept here. Talk to gay people. The posture that we welcome you, but do not affirm your relationship is really not that welcoming or friendly. a church that outright rejects that form of relationship in any form is less so friendly.
August 23, 2009, at 11:05 am
Drew #11:
O.K. Now that’s the succinct answer to Mollie’s question, I think. (Whether I, or she, agrees with it is beside the point, and no need to go into that here. Far better than the multi-para, uncivil, self-serving diatribe you first delivered.
August 23, 2009, at 11:12 am
@ robroy
1) i would have to read that report to see if the evidence is compelling. i have doubts that this is a tenable claim since it is rooted in a slippery slope fallacy. it is also theologically loaded. as i mentioned, the reformation itself was viewed as heretical. the anabaptists after that by the lutherans. yet these denominations persist. even orthodox doctrines shift and change over time.
2) related to number 1 there are numerous variables that predict membership decline and doctrine is not really one of them. lifecycle, the demographic imperative, geographical shifting with families and industry, economy, church marketing, economic affluence, etc. all come into play.
August 23, 2009, at 11:14 am
@ Ed
my first comment was not addressing her question, it was addressing her comments on my piece. maybe that’s why it sounds uncivil and self-serving to you.
August 23, 2009, at 11:19 am
Mollie:
One other thought. If I were to write a follow-up story this week on homosexuality and faith, and were to say that among the gay-friendly churches in Nashville are the 9 Missouri Synod congregations, and the three Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church — all of which hold the traditional view of marriage—those churches would go ballistic. My email box and voice mail would be filled with angry letters and calls, with demands for a correction. The same would not be true if I listed several local Presbyterian, ELCA, Episcopal churches.
August 23, 2009, at 12:09 pm
The press is not asking about what Lutherans believe concerning salvation. Long ago, on the frozen prarie, I learned Lutheran teachings through the Lilla Katekises av den Herr Doktor Mårton Luther. There is a hymn that shows what I learned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqxSYsjDAIc
Trygare Kan Ingen Vara or More Secure Can No One Be pretty much sums up what I was taught. We are saved by no effort of our own, but by faith. Period. All this monogamous relationship talk is simply another form of indulgence peddling.
As the video shows, we are like birds who feed on the crumbs in the beard of the heavenly father. The concept of Justification by Faith has nothing to do with sexuality. Which the press is ignoring, treating Lutheranism as just a variety of indulgence factory religion.
August 23, 2009, at 12:51 pm
BOB:
You are raising the serious question, of course, as a professional. Thank you for engaging the actual content of the post.
MZ is questioning the very use of this kind of term — gay-friendly.
There is no neutral way to use that kind of term. That’s the point.
The coverage has to find a way to accurate describe the beliefs of people on both sides of this debate and the traditional Christian view is that homosexual acts are sin. My twin rocking chairs post is an attempt to note that there are different views on the left, as well.
You can’t do any kind of balanced coverage with a term like “gay-friendly” in the mix. It’s like right-wing publications that refer to one side of these battles as “Bible-believing.” That makes the other side WHAT?
You can use facts — like which side supports the Vatican, or which side backs 2,000 years of Christian doctrine. But you have to find a way to avoid these loaded labels.
As a rule, GR doesn’t like left-wing or right-wing labels.
August 23, 2009, at 1:21 pm
You can use facts — like which side supports the Vatican, or which side backs 2,000 years of Christian doctrine.
If there are two more “stacked” or “loaded” phrases in these discussions, I can’t imagine what they are. There’s a lot more agreement on what’s “gay-friendly,” then there is on “supports the Vatican, or which side backs 2,000 years of Christian doctrine.”
I’d question the bias of a journalist who offered these as “facts.”
August 23, 2009, at 1:57 pm
[2] Drew Tatusko says:
It should be noted that Drew Tatusko’s position is predicated upon the opposite ideological premise - that homosexuality is not a sin. Within that difference lies the entirety of the argument.
Also, there has been no discussion of what the word ‘friendly’ actually means. There seems to be the presupposition that friendly should mean “unconditionally affirming.” But that is not a good definition. As in:
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy. Proverbs 27:6”
If a man believes that homosexuality is wrong, then his actions as a friend will be dictated accordingly. He would be less than a friend to act otherwise.
carl
August 23, 2009, at 2:04 pm
I’d propose as alternative, more neutral terms “gay-affirming” or “gay-accommodating”.
August 23, 2009, at 2:14 pm
I think “affirming” is a good word, as well. It’s more specific and doesn’t seem to game the issue one way or another.
August 23, 2009, at 2:20 pm
Drew,
I never actually argued for or against any theological position on homosexuality.
This is not the place to discuss your particular theological approach that doctrine should change in response to social changes — or its opposite. It is a good place to discuss whether one theological approach should be described by the mainstream media as friendly — leaving the other approach to be considered unfriendly.
Are there better words to use? Is there a way to be more precise with the language?
August 23, 2009, at 2:34 pm
Leave aside the discussion about who is right or wrong in an absolute sense and stay on the journalism: Mollie’s point about “gay-friendly” is beyond dispute, I think. It takes connotative sides. But I also recognize the drive to keep writing from getting too clunky.
You can’t always use a long phrase like “more accepting of the spiritual equality of same-sex relationships” or the like, every time you want to make that point. So as a practical matter, we all look for shorthand that doesn’t squeeze the nuances too much.
Inevitably, partisans and technical experts on any side will be left unhappy by mass-market shorthand. But they aren’t the primary target for a MSM writer. The goal is to be generally understood, not to nail minutia to engineering tolerances.
Having said that, though, in this case I think that “gay-accepting” would be better in this context. Yes, it’s also shorthand that leaves a lot out. (An ambiguity in the shorthand in this case: whether it means accepting of gay people or behavior.)
But at least to my ear, “accepting” seems more neutral than “friendly.”
August 23, 2009, at 2:49 pm
How about this: Pro-gay-rights…. ?
It works in other contexts.
Davis:
The Catholic church does have a catechism. You can look it up. It’s organized by subject, which makes it easy to look up individual topics — even subjects that are controversial in liberal circles.
August 23, 2009, at 2:58 pm
It’s organized by subject, which makes it easy to look up individual topics — even subjects that are controversial in liberal circles.
Your condescension aside, I realized that this probably isn’t in dispute. You’ve tossed out the term, when talking about the various categories of Catholics, “pro-Vatican” or somesuch that is profoundly loaded and I was likely reacting to that.
No journalist can, without bias, say there is a “fact” about “which side backs 2,000 years of Christian doctrine.”
August 23, 2009, at 3:00 pm
Jeff and Terry:
“Gay accepting” or “gay affirming” or “pro-gay rights” would probably be better. But “gay friendly” is commonly used in secular settings to describe an institution that welcomes and affirms gays and lesbians. The newspaper company I work for is gay friendly, offering benefits to same sex partners and no discrimination in hiring. The church publisher I used to work for was not gay friendly—an employee with a same sex partner would get fired. There are churches in Nashville that are gay friendly and some that are not—just like there are churches who are Democrat friendly and some are not— and some who are rock and roll friendly and some are not.
August 23, 2009, at 3:01 pm
Pro-gay rights takes us out of the realm of religion, and into the world of legal rights, so it is problematic. I think “gay-accepting” or “gay-affirming” gets closer to what the journalist is getting at and understandable to the reader, which is the most important goal.
August 23, 2009, at 3:06 pm
Mollie, Jeff, and TMatt:
If a journalist can refer to other institutions as “gay friendly”— colleges, businesses, neighborhoods,etc—why can’t the same term be used for the church?
August 23, 2009, at 3:07 pm
Feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, but determining whether an institution is gay friendly or not is a matter of observing and reporting—not rocket science. If you get fired for being gay, than the institution you work for is not gay friendly.
August 23, 2009, at 3:08 pm
“Gay-friendly” is the term I want to look at. What does that mean?
“Gay-friendly” is rhetoric. The intention is to persuade under the smokescreen of merely describing.
So is it the job of the mainstream reporter to decide that one of the above churches is friendly and the other not?
In their minds, the social-engineering agenda trumps all other agendas.
August 23, 2009, at 3:39 pm
BOB:
Accepting doesn’t even really work, because the issue in this case is accepting behavior. It’s better simply to work with neutral language and strive to be fair to people on both sides. That’s journalism.
DAVIS, again:
Are you aware of a church with 2000 years of history that doctrinally agrees with the emerging doctrine that acts of gay sex are not sin? Yes, you can get into arguments about the Church of England, which has not changed its teaching other than in the small, but very powerful US Episcopal Church. Even there, the doctrinal change is very recent.
The left wants to change the doctrines. That’s understandable and they have every right to do that, if they have the votes. That does not change the history of the doctrine
August 23, 2009, at 4:11 pm
To build on what Bob Smietana said: if you take two churches, one that explicitly condemns homosexuality and does not welcome gay people, and another that respects and welcomes gay people, it seems pretty simple to call the second one “gay-friendly.” Anything else, to me, seems counterintuitive to say the least. It’s hard to imagine any journalist giving that viewpoint much consideration. It reminds me of St. Augustine’s view that the Donatist heretics should be condemned, persecuted, and punished, but only out of “love.” Does that make him Donatist-friendly? Presumably he thought so, but the Donatists probably felt that they’d just as soon do without his friendship.
I’d also add that the “liar” analogy that Mollie draws only works if you start from the assumption that homosexuality is deviant. If you don’t believe that, then you could just as easily draw an analogy to race. I’m not taking a position here, just arguing that Mollie’s points don’t make all that much sense outside of a framework of normative assumptions that many journalists don’t share (and shouldn’t necessarily have to share).
August 23, 2009, at 4:15 pm
Terry
Accuracy is also important in journalism.
In their employment policies, the ECLA and the PCUSA and TEC are more gay friendly that the SBC or the LCMS or the WELS. Just like Gannett is a gay friendly new organization in its employment practices, while Christianity Today is not.
Determining which position is theologically correct, that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame. And Mollie is arguing that it’s more theologically friendly to call homosexuality a sin than to accept gay pastors. Fine—but that’s a theological argument, not about journalism.
Again, if you get fired for being a same sex relationship, than your employer is not gay friendly, at least in terms of employment practice—which, in the end, is what the Lutheran vote is about.
So gay friendly is an accurate term for a journalist to use.
August 23, 2009, at 4:24 pm
BOB:
I very strongly disagree. There is no need to use such a loaded term in this case.
You’ve changed your logic in the course of this argumenent.
Suffice it to say that MZ wants to see language used that accurately describes the views of both sides, those who back the ancient doctrines that gay sex is sin and those who want to see the doctrines changed.
Would you accept gay-sex-friendly, since the ELCA had a policy that accepted — was friendly to — celibate gays and now has a policy that accepts — is friendly to — noncelibate gays, those having sex within certain undefined doctrinal boundaries?
Didn’t think so.
August 23, 2009, at 4:24 pm
To call churches that embrace homosexual behavior “friendly” and to say that ones that don’t embrace homosexual behavior are not “friendly,” one must operate from the assumption that nothing is wrong with homosexual behavior.
While that is a position held by the vast majority of the mainstream media and in very recent times by a minority of churches, it is not the position of historic Christianity.
Nathan points out that the lying analogy only works if you START with the assumption that homosexuality is deviant. And it is true that Christianity and Judaism historically come from that perspective. Some churches change their doctrine in response to changes in society. Others think the idea that you change a doctrine because the elite have changed their minds on something is anathema.
But to say that one church “respects” gay people and one doesn’t seems to miss what I wrote. What does it mean to “respect” an individual who is committing a sin (according to historic Christianity — not according to current opinion)? Is it to forgive that individual who is a sinner? Or is it to tell them that they are not sinning?
Historic Christianity has one perspective and much of elite American society has another. Should reporters say that one perspective is more true than another? Or is there a better way for journalists to handle their vocation — reporting facts rather than calling one theological approach friendly and one not?
August 23, 2009, at 4:34 pm
@ mollie,
“I never actually argued for or against any theological position on homosexuality.”
You do when you say, “Pick something else that Scriptures teach is a deviation from God’s will.” Your theological position is assumed here and your conclusions are a clear derivation from that premise. That is from where my critique ultimately originates.
August 23, 2009, at 4:38 pm
Bob Smietana writes:
Actually, I never once argued in favor of one theological position or another. I made the journalistic point that journalists shouldn’t game the debate by declaring one side “friendly” to homosexuals and one side “unfriendly.”
Some people view homosexual behavior to be a deviation from God’s order and, as such, the embrace of that deviation (rather than speaking the truth in love and forgiveness for that sin) to be most unfriendly. Some people believe the job of the church is to forgive sins and that avoiding calling something a sin is like a doctor telling a patient that cancer is nothing to worry about. Now, to be sure, other people say that a church body considering homosexuality a sin is most unfriendly.
Which theological position is friendly? Which one is not friendly? What term should a journalist use?
August 23, 2009, at 4:40 pm
@ Terry
Nathan (#32) presents the same basic argument as Bob. Quite simple. If I invite you to my home and then tell you over dinner that I do not accept or affirm your relationship to your partner, how is that friendly? Would you be of the opinion that I am a friendly neighbor?
I think if you can answer this question, since it is the same logic outside of any theological context, it would help.
August 23, 2009, at 4:41 pm
I think concentrating on the whole “gay-friendly” issue is a case of missing the forest for the trees. Drew’s initial critique was of the headline, which Mollie dismissed as “factual and fair.” Both of those words seem to be doing a whole lot of work. Consider this hypothetical:
Let’s say a conservative Texas church decided that some of its congregants were in rather serious violation of church doctrine: it had come to light that a group of singles were engaging in pre-marital sex. The church decides as a body, led by the pastor and the elders, that they are going to commence a Matthew-18-style process of church discipline, to bring such violations to and end and bring their young congregants to repentance. They undertake the process, first by meeting with one on one. For those who do not listen, they meet with one or two others. For those who still fail to take correction, they meet with the whole congregation. Finally, for those few who have declined to change their behavior after the entirety of the process, the church votes to ask them to leave, to break fellowship with said congregants.
A local newspaper reports this story, headlined “Church votes out sexually-active singles.” The headline would be factually accurate, and wholly misleading. That is the problem with the above AP story, and it seems odd that Mollie chose to dismiss such a problematic headline as merely “factual and fair.”
August 23, 2009, at 4:43 pm
DREW:
So you want gay-sex-friendly or, if you choose to avoid the question of sexual ethics, gay-relationship-friendly.
But, again, you are asking the press to start with an affirmed doctrinal position.
MZ is requesting language that is neutral.
August 23, 2009, at 4:48 pm
Tim,
I wasn’t persuaded by Drew’s critique of the headline (Lutherans to Allow Sexually Active Gays as Clergy).
What is the problem with that headline?
August 23, 2009, at 4:49 pm
@ terry
Actually I just wanted to see how you would address the question. Boiling this to semantics is not helpful in my judgment.
Again:
Nathan (#32) presents the same basic argument as Bob. Quite simple. If I invite you to my home and then tell you over dinner that I do not accept or affirm your relationship to your partner, how is that friendly? Would you be of the opinion that I am a friendly neighbor?
I think if you can answer this question, since it is the same logic outside of any theological context, it would help.
August 23, 2009, at 4:53 pm
Drew,
I’m not Terry but the whole point of my post is that different people have an understanding of what constitutes friendliness and love from a church perspective. And, since that is true, should the mainstream media favor one theological approach over another?
August 23, 2009, at 4:54 pm
I have answered.
You do not accept the answer or its link to journalism that attempts to be fair to believers on both sides of the issue.
Words matter in journalism.
August 23, 2009, at 4:55 pm
@ mollie (#41),
The headline is misleading because it only mentions sexually active gays! That can be any kind of sexually active “gay.” What if it read “Lutherans agree to ordain sexually active heterosexuals.” You seriously would not find that to be at least a tad misleading? And that is Tim’s point.
August 23, 2009, at 5:00 pm
Friends,
Thanks for a wonderfully interesting discussion.
Despite my fervent desire that every comment would be the height of civility and on-topicness, that hasn’t been the case.
We’ve had to delete and edit comments from all sides.
I’m headed out to dinner to celebrate my oldest’s birthday (she’s two!) and am going to shut this thread down and will reopen it later. I really do apologize for the inconvenience and look forward to further comments when I reopen it later.
August 23, 2009, at 10:04 pm
And we’re back. Fire away.
August 23, 2009, at 10:13 pm
OK, here’s a question linked to MZ’s thesis.
Would a gay Lutheran be greeted in a friendly manner if he or she joined a LC-MS congregation — while agreeing with the church’s traditional stance on the sinful status gay sexual acts? How about a traditional Roman Catholic Church with a chapter of Courage (http://couragerc.net/)? How about Eastern Orthodox? An Orthodox synagogue?
Ah, you say, but these conservative Lutherans would not be friendly to gay partners, to gays involved in public, committed relationships that openly reject or imply rejection of the church’s teachings?
So, again, do we need a term such as gay-sex-friendly or gay-marriage friendly or something similar?
August 23, 2009, at 10:31 pm
Terry to a gay couple, none of the are friendly no matter how you slice and dice the words up to fit some predisposition to be “even handed.” From their view, this is a strawman.
It is exactly the same if you were told, we welcome you, but we do not welcome you in the context of your relationship. Sex or no sex, that’s hardly friendly. Pragmatically, I would like to see a sociological analysis of data to see if people actually make the distinction that you are suggesting. My intuition based on previous studies is that they do not. Just an hypothesis, but I think a reasonable one.
August 23, 2009, at 11:04 pm
Drew,
You are not answering Terry’s question, obviously.
Are you able to answer his question?
August 23, 2009, at 11:19 pm
Hello! Drew asked for LGBT to come and join this conversation. I assume there is not one speaking here on this issue. I’m trying to read through what is being said, ect. I’m going to take on the first one that caught my attention and I apologize if this has been covered.
Rob said
I attended a United Church of Christ for a time in Canada. My understanding in their decline is not so much tied to becoming affirming to LGBT, but their teachings on the resurrection and the person of Christ. This was one reason I left after understanding what some teach, however, the church I attended did not teach this.
With that they have seen a decline, but I believe most churches in Canada are seeing a quick decline any way. Canada is not as spiritual based as the United States. I think in general you could say Canada is becoming more agnostic than to blame the decline on homosexuality. I say this as I lived in Ontario, yes more liberal, for a lengthy time.
Ok, going to look at more comments. Felt I needed to address this as I have lived there.
Jules
August 23, 2009, at 11:23 pm
Welcome, everyone.
Remember to keep comments focused on journalism and not on theology or personal feelings about homosexuality.
August 23, 2009, at 11:42 pm
ok, going to take on the last question instead of trying to weed through a lot of comments. I think this will give my view at least.
tmatt said:
First, gay-sex-friendly? I would HOPE not that word.
I think what needs to happen is this, an acceptance of a person no matter who they are. This whole “gay-friendly” thing is frustrating to me. Its as though I can’t escape one part of myself. I can’t just walk into a gathering (church) and people just see me as a fellow follower of Christ. “Gay-friendly” at the end of the day tells us in the LGBT community we are welcome. Which is nice. Its good to know you can walk into a gathering and the woman I’m with isn’t my “good friend” or the hushed thing people talk about. I also don’t think I have to be around people who absolutely agree with me. Such as, should a church be “gay-marriage friendly”. Heck no. I’m not about telling people how to feel. I would rather be accepted as a believer first ,discuss each other these things and grow together.
As a Christian and a lesbian my first desire is to be able to be just in fellowship. The fact is the Church (universal) has to come to the reality there are LGBT who are Christians, who have a faith story to tell. We aren’t some fairy tale, we are real. To continue to ignore that and to say it isn’t real goes against the foundation of the gospel.
It also needs to be understood that at the time of me dealing with my sexuality I was married. I had NO one to turn to in my faith community. I knew I couldn’t just work through it all and just discuss it. The discussion was closed before I could even open my mouth. I was lucky in that I found a therapist who didn’t pick a side. He sat and listened. Not every person dealing with their sexuality is that lucky. Too many sit in silence and sadly deal with it in unhealthy ways, because the discussion is closed. It isn’t that a church needs to say they are “gay-friendly” it is that they need to say “we are faith journey friendly with no judgement, but to help and support.”
Ok, that is all I have tonight. I hope I gave some perspective. I can only speak from my experience where I’m at. Please let me know or ask what you would like. I will try to answer to my best!
Jules
August 23, 2009, at 11:46 pm
Folks,
This isn’t a discussion about how churches should or should not identify themselves. Hardly.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW JOURNALISTS SHOULD WEIGH IN ON THEOLOGICAL DEBATES.
If you’re not talking journalism, you’re on the wrong comment thread. Feel free to take that discussion elsewhere. But here at GetReligion, your comments should be about the mainstream media.
If you don’t understand what I’m saying, that probably means you should not be posting here in this thread.
I’m going to have to delete some more comments, alas.
August 23, 2009, at 11:49 pm
Jules,
I think you misinterpreted the question. We’re not talking about self-identification. We’re talking about how JOURNALISTS should describe various theological approaches to doctrines of sin, sexuality, etc.
Feel free to read the original post to understand more about that.
August 23, 2009, at 11:57 pm
Okeydoke, then it seems like journalists ought to use language that’s clear and descriptive (isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?). People rely on journalists to be accurate and unambiguous. Since “friendly” means different things depending on context, then either explain the context or use clearer language like “open and affirming” or “willing to ordain and marry lgbtq individuals and couples.” “Gay-friendly” is an irresponsible journalistic term if it’s going to lead an lgbtq person to think that they will be affirmed in their relationships in a church that won’t.
August 24, 2009, at 12:05 am
Ok - so leave it to me to butt-in.
Drew - you’re trying to operate in the abstract as though you could come up with a universal principle of relationship acceptance, one that is agnostic of all other behavior that is either a result, or feature, of that relationship. If you refuse to accept Mollie’s principle, that there exists (ontologically) a separation between a person and their behavior - then you’ll never be able to answer TMatt’s question. And you’re in for a long night.
TMatt - we absolutely need a term that serves the purpose on both sides. One that to the traditionalist makes enough of a distinction between behavior and person so that an LC-MS or WELS, etc. church could accept it, without loading it in the other direction either. Gay-sex-friendly still maintains the friendly language but loads it a bit crassly - I recognize the hyperbole - but I’m just sayin’.
I really think there ought to be a very specific term that isn’t loaded in either direction - how about: one-man-one-woman. It’s clear - it’s fairly neutral and it describes something in the positive without necessarily making an inherent value judgment in the language alone - even though the ideas behind it certainly have values inherent.
Anyway - one thought from a non-journalist-non-blogger in California.
I like to think of myself as friendly - in very general terms.
August 24, 2009, at 12:07 am
So we are ultimately reduced to the question of what the meaning of “is” is. To summarize, as I see it:
Mollie started out with the perfectly good Lutheran catechetical (and journalistic?)inquiry. “What does this mean?”, (“gay-friendly”),and posited one hypothetical. I think the discussion has gone downhill from there, getting into personal, religious or otherwise, opinion and preference (or prejudice, if you will.) And the question sill isn’t answered. What the meaning of “friendly” is is as varied as our individuality. And I think that’s the crux of Mollie’s question. The term is so variably definable that it becomes meaningless. And,, as such, is poor journalistic usage.
I’m not sure there is a better term. Katie probably comes close, but then we get into defining “open’ and affirming!” And we can go on for another week or so.
Sigh
August 24, 2009, at 12:28 am
Delete away. Had you waited I was going to apolgize after seeing your one comment. FYI: any journalist would know caps are rude. Just letting you know.
BTW: journalist should know they can perpetuat ignorace. NPR’s title did that. “gay-sex-friendly” in a head line is insulting and does not promote education.
August 24, 2009, at 12:34 am
I feel like I’m off in my own little corner, but…I like it over here! Mollie, you asked “What is the problem with that headline?” Let’s say that tomorrow, the Catholic church decided to reverse its policy of requiring celibacy on the part of its priests; priests are now allowed to marry, build families, etc. AP headlines its article “Catholic Church announces new policy: married priests OK”; Reuters headlines theirs “Catholic Church announces new policy: sexually-active priests OK.” Both headlines would be factually accurate, but Reuters’ headline would be entirely misleading. The headline of the story in question is factually accurate, but hardly fair, and very misleading.
August 24, 2009, at 1:08 am
Tim,
First off, I actually do see your point and I appreciate you hanging in there with me.
But I’m not sure I’d have a problem with the “Reuters” headline you propose either. I mean, for one thing, married priests are CURRENTLY allowed in the Roman Catholic Church (under certain conditions) so the “AP” headline would be somewhat inaccurate.
And I don’t think of “sexually-active” as a dirty or uncharitable phrase — particularly if the church is now endorsing that sexually activity.
August 24, 2009, at 1:57 am
As a Gay guy, I see gay friendly as a term that fits general commercial usage: user friendly, newbie friendly, baby friendly, senior friendly. It appears to have begun in advertising and then gradually spread out. It is very descriptive, but whether journalists should use it to describe churches is problematic.
As long as I can remember, there have always been congregations around that were open to Gay people even when that conflicted with the denomination’s rules. In social settings, people would mention that church X was understanding or tolerant. In Chicago, there was a Norwegian Lutheran Church in Lakeview that was open to Gay people. Word just got around, just as Gay Catholics always knew which priests were understanding.
With Mainline Denominations, there is a problem using gay friendly. In the past, many of the understanding congregations were closed by the denomination when it was realized that Gay people were attending. Journalists who highlite a denominational stance as gay friendly run a risk of bringing all this up again.
August 24, 2009, at 7:26 am
“And I don’t think of “sexually-active” as a dirty or uncharitable phrase — particularly if the church is now endorsing that sexually activity.”
of course you wouldn’t but that is speaking from opinion,huh? thought we couldn’t do that? and I would expect someone who is straight to not be offended.
it is easy to say what the headline said as not offensive, but as a lesbian the moment I read it I tweeted how I didn’t care for it. The wording was horrible and supported ignorance. Few seconds later glaad had their headline and I said how I liked it better. It was stating the fact of commited LGBT that were accepted as clergy.
journalist can bring feeling, good, bad, fear. They can promote, fear, education, and even bigotry. NPR’s headline caused a feeling with in many LGBT because it promoted a negative view of LGBT and the actions of the said church.
Had a headline said, “Fat People are Now Allowed to Eat Their Way Through Service” people would have been readily offended and rightly so. Get it?
August 24, 2009, at 9:59 am
Mollie:
IMHO “gay friendly” is a perfectly accurate journalistic description in the context in which it was used. The smokescreen arises from “hate the sin, love the sinner” types who balk at being implicitly labeled “unfriendly” to anyone.
Tough toenails, folks, theological postions have social consequences. If one’s theology makes one de facto unfriendly to certain people, it should be important enough to live with that fact.
I very much appreciate those who have commented here on how “hate the sin, love the sinner” feels from the viewpoint of those being “loved.”
August 24, 2009, at 10:25 am
@ Mollie,
I am not answering Terry’s question because all he has done is answer my question with a question! Basically he is asking a question like, so are you stupid or dumb? My answer to his question is that neither option is suitable.
So yet again, this would be like asking a heterosexual the same thing. That the church does not make that distinction in that case, it is unfair to level that distinction to those who are same gender. It’s really not that hard folks. You are either friendly to someone’s sexuality or you are not.
@ Tstanton - I don’t think that you can make an ontological distinction between being and act which is correct and there you go. It surely does not work out pragmatically here. You are what you do and you do what you are. It’s an irreducible dialectic in the development of societies and intelligence (see Berger for the former and Piaget for the latter, Kegan actually combines the two).
If you need to obscure what “friendliness” means by slicing it for this particular case (which is what Mollie and Terry seem to think we should do), which I think is a stupid move unless we need to cut the word “friendly” from our vocabulary altogether since it is apparently “abstract”, use the terms “welcome and affirm.” Churches welcome gays, but may not affirm their behavior. Fine from the church polity side. But I’m telling you, for a gay person that is a totally disingenuous disposition. If you don’t affirm, you don’t welcome - period.
This is boiling down to “friendly” actually meaning “tolerate” when we welcome but not affirm. It’s like saying that I tolerate you, but if you were different, well then I would affirm you too! Like rewarding good behavior with friendship. But since I think it’s unfair and unrealistic to distinguish a person’s “being” from their actions, language, chemistry, etc. this is all a moot point. Remember that friendship is a form of love, not tolerance.
August 24, 2009, at 11:43 am
Chiming in, the problem with using “sexually active” rather than “in committed relationship” in the headline is because it actually is inaccurate. Or not sufficiently accurate to convey the correct meaning.
Would you say that orthodox Christian teaching approves of being “sexually active?” In other words, if someone asked you, “Does Christianity approve of people being sexually active?” you very likely would have serious issues giving a simple yes or no, because in fact, Christian teaching is all in favor of some forms of sexual activity, and thoroughly disapproving of others.
I acknowledge that some people feel that all forms of same-sex expression are equally sinful and don’t feel the need to make any distinctions. The ELCA felt the need to make some very clear distinctions, and the headline clearly blurs them. That is sloppy journalism at best.
August 24, 2009, at 2:16 pm
One problem with the coverage is that it ignores the fact that Lutheranism is a world religion, not just confined to the US. And it overlooks the rather clear trend of virtually all First World Lutheran Churchs to welcome and affirm Gay people. ELCA is now in harmony with the churches of Denmark, Finland, Holland, Germany, Norway and Sweden. Why there is all the coverage of TEC in regard to its world wide communion and non about ELCA remains a mystery. I find it telling that when a church becomes more liberal than its communion we get loads of coverage. But when a church becomes as liberal, the press gives us crickets.
August 24, 2009, at 2:29 pm
In following the saga of the Lutherans and Gay people, which I have done for a number of years, there is a new kind of Lutheranism which I have never seen the press cover. That is an increasing emphasis on being a folk church. In Denmark the name is now: Evangelsk Folk Kyrkan, Evangelical Folk Church.
Some time ago the Bishop of Copenhagen issued a pastoral letter to the whole of the Lutheran communion. (I can’t find it on the net anymore.) His argument ran something like this: God has given unto our care all the people who live in Denmark. Some of these people are Gay or Lesbian. Then an explanation of why he could not accept the anti-gay theology as it involved somethings that are no longer accepted. From this he concluded that it is the obligation of the church to provide full spiritual care to GLBT people. Including blessing of unions. The sin status of homosexuality is up to God to deal with at a later date.
Outside the Gay press, I never saw any coverge of this. Perhaps the press could present ELCA as becoming a folk church.
August 24, 2009, at 2:36 pm
[…] at least he isn’t picking the nit that journalists describing a church as “gay friendly” demonstrates bias towards […]
August 24, 2009, at 3:18 pm
What I find completely frustrating is the media’s inability or lack of desire to report Christian news in the context of the theology, practice, and history of Christianity. There shouldn’t be so much arguing about whether or not ELCA or LCMS, or others are gay-friendly, as much as how much this is a break from the Scripture that defines Christian belief and practice.
If the media is supposed to be “unbiasedly reporting” what is going on here, then that is the context. The ELCA has decided “after careful study” that the Scripture that refers to homosexual behavior in the Church is wrong, and they are not going to allow their practice to be defined by it. Who decided, Where, Why, How, and When are all the questions that should be answered here. And maybe what do other churches/church bodies think about this? What does this mean for their future? Or how do Christian Churches or Lutheran churches in particular deal with homosexuality as opposed to other sexual sins or other sins in general.
Because there really is no difference in that. The Bible, the literature that defines the Christian faith, does say homosexual behavior is wrong. It says lots of things are wrong. And that sinful behavior are to be repented of, and forgiveness is there, because Jesus died for all sins.
But also why this is important is it is not just dealing with the world. The world can do what it wants. This is important because from the early Church, Christian Scripture also tells us that while Christians are excused from obeying the Jewish ceremonial Law, they were told by James, the head of the Church, that they should abstain from fornication, and eating animals that were prepared according to methods used for sacrifice. Fornication is sexual relations outside of marriage, and Christian Scripture does not describe marriage between same gender as being an option. The ELCA is binding the consciences of Christians and telling them that something is okay that the Scripture that they confess to be true says is a sin..a sin that can separate them from God, should they remain in it. That’s a pretty significant responsibility that the ELCA has taken upon its shoulders. Since no mainstream Lutheran denomination acknowledges continual revelation from God, another WHERE that journalists can ask is “WHERE does the ELCA get its authority to add or take away from Scripture, without a prophet or a pope?”
There is A LOT of news here, aside from passing judgment. IT takes some logic, some defining of terms, and knowledge of religion, or at least the desire to ask questions or search for answers. There doesn’t have to be any value judgment to report on this either.
August 24, 2009, at 6:37 pm
i find it fascinating that something as clearly and vocally “theological” and totally off the topic as jasonbradyut’s post above was not deleted yet at least one of my comments answering someone and those of others were removed. what a crock.
August 24, 2009, at 8:16 pm
If a journalist is going to report a church as “gay friendly”, that journalist needs to check with the gay community to see if the church is perceived as gay friendly. It would be odd to refer to a church as “family friendly” if that church had a reputation among families for not being supportive of families—same thing with “gay friendly.”
Also, the phrase “gay friendly” is problematic—there are many people within the lgbtq community who do not use the word “gay” to describe themselves. These media guidelines posted by GLAAD are helpful: http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=380
Finally, one reason I think many commenters (including myself) have gone “off topic” is because of the headline of this post: “Why Can’t We Be Friends?” Some of us have attempted to answer that question—it might help to keep the headlines on this site more focused as well.
August 24, 2009, at 8:52 pm
Drew,
You are right — I had failed to delete either the incendiary comment above or the ones in response to it.
I was at my 2-year-old’s annual doctor appointment and then I took her to a baseball game for her birthday.
WHAT A CROCK INDEED!
Anyway, here at GetReligion we discuss JOURNALISM. You are welcome to join that conversation at any point in time. You might note that there are people on all sides of various ideological, social and religious issues who have no problem staying on topic here.
August 24, 2009, at 10:48 pm
[…] kind of relationship. Drew’s post then received attention from Mollie @ Get Religion: Why can’t we be friends?. A whole host of issues are raised for this gay person reading this queer […]
August 26, 2009, at 8:34 am
The first time I visited GetReligion was to read this post. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and the back and forth. After I read all the comments I visited the “What we do, Why we do it” link to learn more about the blog. Here’s a portion from that link that TMatt wrote:
In my opinion this is exactly what happened with this post and the following comments. However, the Mollie did not do a good job moderating or living up to this “mission/blog statement?”.
Is it possible for a journalist or anyone else to report information totally objectively without using words that hint to their core beliefs or let on to “who they are”? I don’t think so. They can be as objective and fair as possible but that is about it.
Mollie was unable to do it as moderator of this post. She started the second paragraph of this post with this:
“Even though I’m Lutheran, I’m a member of a congregation in the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. The two church bodies share the name Lutheran but not altogether much else when it comes to doctrine. So I’m not an expert in the ELCA, although I have a great many friends who are clergy or members of ELCA congregations. And I know more than a few formerly ELCA clergy who have joined the Missouri Synod or other Lutheran church bodies in the last decade. The theological underpinnings that led to the most recent vote in favor of rostering clergy who are in same-sex relationships has caused some clergy and laity to leave in the past.”
By telling us that she is Missouri Synod and the rest of this quote she has already told us a lot about what she believes and how she will approach this topic. This may be unfair and a generalization but I would argue that if I had started this same post and had said, “I’m Presbyterian, I’m a member of a congregation in the Presbyterian Church (USA).” Lots of people would make assumptions about what I believe AND I’ve probably already lost some objectivity (You can also probably figure out how I made it to GetReligion). So Mollie, your comments asking all posters to remain journalistic or stay on topic, or stay true to mission of the blog rang hollow for me.
A couple more points. Mollie started defending her position with this:
‘The ELCA adopted a “social statement” that, among other things, endorses “chaste, monogamous and lifelong” same-sex relationships. To the media, I’m sure that sounds quite friendly. Now, let’s look at that statement in the context of what the Christian church has confessed for thousands of years on the basis of Scripture. What the church has taught…”
Other posters have pointed this out but how is this not a theological argument?
Mollie, here is a part of what you said in comment #37.
“Actually, I never once argued in favor of one theological position or another. I made the journalistic point that journalists shouldn’t game the debate by declaring one side “friendly” to homosexuals and one side “unfriendly.””
In light of what I have already written above you can see that I think Mollie now has a problem, if she’s willing to admit it.
Mollie, you lost your cool, became emotional, and were not objective. You were not fair to the other side of the argument right from the beginning. Since you were representing this blog, that more so than “visitors”, you need to remain calm and level headed. Using capitals and hiding behind your kid in your last post was in bad taste too.
Finally, I agree with many others that the headline “Lutherans to Allow Sexually Active Gays as Clergy” was not good or fair journalism. It was designed to misdirect and gain attention, not report facts and be true to what actually happened.
Thanks again everyone, enjoyed reading all of this.
August 26, 2009, at 2:17 pm
Bryce,
If you think that I lost my cool in the thread above, you should feel the most sympathy imaginable for my husband, who ACTUALLY sees me lose my cool.
Anyway, I can’t say I find your arguments terribly convincing but welcome to GetReligion. I encourage you to stick around and join in more conversations. We have a good mix of folks here and I believe we all learn from each other a great deal.
Best,
Mollie
August 26, 2009, at 4:56 pm
The question nobody seems to be asking, as usual, is— who gets to decide whose relationships are “committed”? The synods? Some ordination committee? For that matter, how will applicants feel about inviting whoever-it-is into their bedrooms?
This sort of fuzzy concept becomes an increasing problem. For instance, some years ago, there was a particularly lurid scandal in the (Anglican) Diocese of Long Island, which was just about ignored by the MSM. (Some of us might think that this was because there was no way to blame “celibacy” or “refusal” to ordain women, and therefore it did not fit their narrative; but that would be a paranoid conspiracy theory.)
The editorial [expletive deleted]s at EPISCOPAL CHURCH LIFE, face with the need to admit something was wrong without risking their PC credentials, wrote that the allegations were of “indiscriminate sex”. Now, it is usually possible to tell whether one is committing adultery or fornication (unless, perhaps, one is Bill Clinton). But how the Belgium do I know if I am being “discriminate” enough?
August 26, 2009, at 5:01 pm
It is possible to answer questions like “Does Church X ordain homosexuals?” But “gay-friendly” brings in all sorts of finagle factors. Is the church that sponsors Courage “gay-hostile”? Is the priest listed on the site for “private spiritual direction?”
August 26, 2009, at 8:32 pm
I’m deleting comments that aren’t focusing on journalism. Just fyi. If your comment has been deleted, feel free to resubmit with a focus on journalism.