No, I don’t anticipate getting a DVD from the anti- folks. I have gotten a couple of letters from some anti-sexuality statement Lutheran congregations, but that’s as far as it goes.

I definitely support the actions suggested by the Human Sexuality statement and the implementing resolutions, as well as the statement on rostering gay/lesbian clergy. The resolutions allow for individual congregations to call ministers who they want to call. When the resolutions are adopted, congregations will continue to have absolute authority to call who they want to call. Under the resolutions, congregations will be able to call openly gay/lesbian clergy, which means talented, dedicated people will be able to use their talents fully in the church….but congregations will not be forced to call a member of the clergy they do not want to call.

I don’t think there will be much debate about why we take the positions we are taking. In fact, I have generally disappointed with the low level of debate and clash between the two sides. I was at a public forum, sponsored by our synod, earlir this year, and there was very little said on either side. Bishop Rogness repeatedly asked for comments on both sides, and there was silence. I’m not sure if people have already made up their minds, or we had an overwhelming fit of “Minnesota Nice,” or what was happening. But, there was very little said. When something is said on the anti- side, it’s usually an appeal to Leviticus and the Pauline anti-gay statements–that’s it.

Thanks again for your interest. I hope you’ll follow this blog and my Tweets.

Do you think there will be discussion on why people take different stands on sexuality issues – not the arguments per se but more the psychology of why we take our stands, so we might learn a bit about ourselves as human beings? The positions we hold are, to a degree, “given” to us by where we happen to be born and raised. Yet we argue with each other as if we thought issues through thoroughly and arrived at the right conclusions. We are certain of it!

I think people on both sides of issues should be challenged with this thought.

Al

First, here’s what I think you said:

Since one’s faith is accidental,
then it shouldn’t make sense to believe one has an exclusive understanding of truth.
Therefore, folks should lay off beating each other over the head with opposing “truths”
and get on with the business of solving their problems.
Am I close?

I could get caught up in responding to the notion of accidental faith, and the same goes for a discussion of an exclusive truth. But I think your point is that it is just so ridiculous to fight about who’s right.

Being right don’t get the bread baked. Being right doesn’t satisfy anyone’s need for food, water, a homeland, or anything else concrete. So ultimately, I agree with you. In fact I’ll go another step and say that I think that most of the time it should be possible for people who are in opposition over a concept (like truth) to work together on just about anything concrete (like not killing each other). Self interest is a pretty good motivator.

But it’s not as good a motivator as justification.

One group says God gave them a particular chunk of land. Another group makes the same claim. Each group will fail to follow God’s will, (each group will fail to be justified by God) if it allows the other group to have possession.

It’s not just about being right, It’s about failing one’s God given role in life.

That’s a pretty tough nut.

People will fight to the death, and kill a lot of their enemies doing so, for a lot less than their immortal soul. They’ll do it for freedom, for land, for the girl next door (whether she wants it or not), or for a pair of shoes. And feel justified doing it.

As far as things go with the Palestine/Israel thing, I suspect there will never be a resolution that lasts very long, unless the people are convinced that it is in their own self interest to do so.

Until then, those whose faith is expressed in compassionate actions will be the ones to bring a bit of peace here and there as it is possible. Whether the faith is accidental or not!

David Thompson

For instance Al, you and I are members at Pilgrim Lutheran. I was raised as a Lutheran; I don’t know your religious upbringing. I do know that both of us read and have been influenced by Buddhism. As we grew up, we devoured new information and it disturbed, tested and informed our previous ideas. What a great experience!

Incidentally, there is plenty of Christian evangelism going on in Tibet! This certainly aids the Chinese government by severing the Tibetans from their spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, and their cultural and religious identities. A pity, though one can hope the Christian evangelists tell them about the great Christian leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., as well. I sincerely doubt that happens because the evangelists I met in China never talked about MLK.

Interestingly, the Chinese government has taught the Chinese people about Martin Luther King, Jr. He is used as an example of the hypocrisy of democracy and the oppression of minorities in the U.S.A. The facts that we now celebrate his work with a national holiday and that he is praised in our schools is not mentioned.

Keep up the good work!