|
|
|
|
I think some here might find the following article to be of interest. It is available on the web from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-30-faith-edit_x.htm
but I reproduce it here for your convenience. Some of the matters the author raises have been addressed on this message board quite recently.
___________
A rabbi's struggle: To allow gay clergy or not?
USAtoday.com 4/30/2006
By Gerald L. Zelizer
Over the past few decades, the cultural battles over homosexuality have been waged in courtrooms, workplaces, schools and any number of other public forums. Religions, too, have become divided over the issue. You need not look very far for headlines showing splits over the acceptance of gay clergy or congregants.
My faith is in the midst of just such a struggle.
My personal journey in rethinking this choice reflects one side of the debate underway in Conservative Judaism, a denomination with an ideology between the more stringent Orthodox and the more liberal Reform. Its resolution will affect the roughly 1 million American Jews who identify with our religious approach.
The issue of lifting the ban on gay rabbis was first considered, but rejected, in 1992. I was then serving as the international president of the 1,200 Conservative rabbis in the USA and worldwide. At the time, I supported our decision: No. The Torah's prohibition in Leviticus — "Do not lie with a male as you would with a female; it is an abomination" — seemed too absolute to allow any wiggle room.
After all, I reasoned, those who violated other biblical injunctions — such as not keeping kosher or committing adultery — also were unsuitable to be rabbis.
My fealty both to the Bible and my denomination's decisions affected me personally. My cousin, a gay rabbi, openly challenged the refusal to lift the ban and had difficulty securing a synagogue. Sadly, he abandoned the pulpit. Surely, my support of the ban contributed to his exodus.
But the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, composed of our most learned rabbis and professors, is revisiting the earlier ruling. (A decision is expected by year's end.) The debate goes on.
At our Rabbinical Convention in March, the matter was passionately debated, as it is in the field. A survey taken in 2003 by Keshet (rainbow), an advocacy group at our New York Jewish Theological Seminary, found that 83% of 222 respondents at the seminary want gays and lesbians to be admitted to Conservative rabbinical and cantorial schools. Others, though, such as Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, the retiring chancellor of that flagship seminary, contend that uprooting the Torah prohibition would do violence to the underpinnings of our whole religious faith.
What I think
I feel differently. Since the last go-round, as I have become acquainted with more pious and knowledgeable gay and lesbian Jews, I have asked myself why God would design some people with a trait — for which there is paltry evidence that it can be reversed — and then designate individuals with that characteristic as "sinners?" Even if triggered by a gene mutation, as some argue, what is sinful about that? Too many gays I met suffered in their efforts to engage in heterosexual sex, marry heterosexuals, even bear children, only to realize that their homosexuality was immutable.
Conservative Judaism has always taught that we must upgrade our biblical understanding with new scientific knowledge. Contrary to the biblical assumption that gayness is a sinful choice, our best knowledge today indicates that it is as determined and irrevocable as blue or brown eyes. Of course, adherents of Orthodoxy and even some in my own movement will charge: "How can one be so presumptuous as to think he can improve on the biblical word of God?" Well, Judaism has done that from its inception, especially when moral considerations required it.
The biblical demand of "an eye for an eye" was interpreted in the Talmud as the monetary value of a wounded eye, and not an actual gouging. The Bible also orders the stoning of an unruly son, but the Talmud already qualified that as theoretical, saying, "It was never done nor will it be done."
Abraham Heschel, a pre-eminent 20th century theologian, wrote that the Torah is not a literal stenographic recording of God's voice, as over a long distance telephone, but a human interaction with the divine revelation.
Adapting to society
Changes in secular society have also contributed to the push for a change in my denomination's attitudes. Of course, religion should adhere to its beliefs and not slavishly respond "me too" to all of secular culture — as with, for example, the growing sympathy with euthanasia. But in instances where secular society develops just insights, religion should not stubbornly retain its own unjust ones. Sometimes, the sensibilities of society are ahead of religion. This is the case with homosexuality.
I have changed a lot since 1992, as have many colleagues. Gay/lesbian Jews are God's creatures, too. Some, like my cousin, are knowledgeable, observant Jews, qualified to be rabbis but prohibited because of a sexual preference not of their own making. It is time to lift the prohibition against gay rabbis by using the same blueprint that Judaism has employed to rectify other unjust religious dictums.
Will I rush to hire an assistant or intern rabbi who is gay? No. I need some time for truths that my mind now understands to reach my gut. I need to get comfortable, for example, witnessing a rabbi and his male partner dancing at my synagogue's spring social, or seeing two lesbians hand-in-hand at the Torah while celebrating their daughter's bat mitzvah. I am confident that, eventually, religious commitment will trump sexual orientation.
Should other faiths allow gay clergy? That is not for me to say. I know only that other faiths have the same goals of both incorporating believers and encouraging the most committed to serve as clergy. Beyond that, I can only describe my journey, in hopes others might learn from my experience.
Gerald L. Zelizer is rabbi of Neve Shalom, a Conservative congregation in New Jersey, and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad to hear that there is hope for the world.
I think, perhaps, that we get a somewhat skewed perspective here -- we hear more about those people who preach fire and brimstone, and less from reasonable and moderate people from other faiths, denominations and countries.
Thank you for posting that, JFR.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... is the sheer humanity of the writer. It takes a good and brave man to distinguish between what he considers to be morally right and his instinctive 'gut' feeling - and then to but his weight firmly behind the former, rather than the latter.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
It takes a good and brave man to distinguish between what he considers to be morally right and his instinctive 'gut' feeling - and then to but his weight firmly behind the former, rather than the latter.
Maybe that's why he is a rabbi.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A good man, obviously. If only there more like him, and a few priests among them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean - they are there, but they are still far between, and easily heckled and shouted down by a large and aggressive conservative camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say it is a pretty reasoned and human response. Yeah he has it about right. I dont know about someone who is active in the lifestyle being a priest or rabbi or a minister, but none of us is without sin no matter what you believe may constitute sin. I think it should be debated a lot more and that each individual who is called to serve his religion be considered for that on an individual basis. There are many sides to this and I would not be for a blanket recommendation for gays in the clergy. It would not suit me as well and I know there are many who would be uncomfortable about it too.
At the same time, I am not convinced that if Christ were here with us now, that he would forbid someone who is gay from being his desciple. But then Christ could read into our heart and soul.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not far from here we have a woman priest who is lesbian and has a partner. There was a lot of noise from her conservative colleagues when she got the job, but she was warmly welcomed by her congregation, and, as far as I know, the noise has died down.
What do you mean by "who is active in the lifestyle", Ken? There is nothing special about her lifestyle, except that she is gay and lives in a monogamous relationship with another woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ken,
>I am not convinced that if Christ were here with us now, that he would forbid someone who is gay from being his desciple. But then Christ could read into our heart and soul.
Well, I'm very glad that you think that, but I'm surprised that you put it in that way. It sounds like you think there is a good chance that he would forbid them. Yet I don't think he ever said anything about homosexuality, nor sexual morality. If it was a major barrier to becoming a Christian, then surely he would have said something about it? (The assumption is that the Old Testament laws still apply -- yet so many of them have become redundant that I don't understand why anyone can make that assumption.)
How do we know that none of Christ's disciples were gay, anyway? There's certainly something homoerotic about the nature of Jesus's relationship with them!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they were slightly homosexual, i think Jesus would already know that right?
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supposedly Jesus knows whether all of us are straight or homosexual or anything in between. Or at least God does -- not sure whether Christ knew everything when he was a man or not. Come to think of it, he can't have done, otherwise he wouldn't have needed parents to bring him up.
Who is to say whether Biblical figures were gay or straight? The Bible only specifies actions, not thoughts. You can easily be gay without ever having sex or a relationship with a man. This is something that fundamentalist Christians easily forget.
By the way, are you Christian, Josh? I'm not -- I'm an atheist -- so my views tend to be pretty scientific; when considering the question of God I tend to treat it as a thought experiment rather than anything that could be considered fact.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If Houdini was alive at the same time as jesus I think the we would all be houdwinks rather than christians.
One hocus pocus for another.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc,
>If Houdini was alive at the same time as jesus I think the we would all be houdwinks rather than christians.
To be fair, Houdini never claimed he could do anything spiritual or supernatural. In fact, later in his life he was very fiercely critical of those who claimed they could (especially if they took money for it) -- a sentiment I absolutely agree with.
If he'd been around in Biblical times, and people had been taken in by him and genuinely believed that he was capable of magic, they'd have had to be seriously deraged. Come to think of it... 
On the whole, real magicians and illusionists passionately dislike those who claim to be able to do real magic -- people like Uri Geller -- when all of their effects can be proven to be easily achievable with a little sleight of hand. They tend to be sceptical and intelligent thinkers, provided they are up front and honest about the fact that they are deceiving you.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i used to be a christian, but im not anymore. i dont believe in God..
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same here. I was confirmed into the Church of England (Anglican communion) but I don't consider myself a Christian any more. (Some people consider themselves Christian without believing in God -- I'm not quite sure how that works!)
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
who knows.? i dont. lol.
~Josh~
my dad's a big time christian, so i dont live with him. i live with my step-dad and my mom. so its nice. i dont have to go to church, but i always end up going with my dad when he comes around. lol.
~Josh~
21.
Love who you want to.
~Josh~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was in the chapel choir at my school, so I got into the habit. Before that, I had to go as it was compulsory, but I found it terrible boring. It's quite fun when one actually gets to sing. Once I left school I stopped both singing and going to church. There was no point if I didn't believe in God.
I continue to like SATB music (sung by all-male choirs).
I don't have anything against regular church-goers in the Church of England. I do dislike happy-clappy evangelical churches, though. They always seem to me to be out to con you into subscribing to something you're not interested in. (They're usually homophobic, too.)
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
Who is to say whether Biblical figures were gay or straight? The Bible only specifies actions, not thoughts.
These verses are fom the Authorized Version (in USA called the Standard Version). Let each person read them with an unbiased mind and make his own judgement.
I Samuel 18:1-4
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul... Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle...
I Samuel 20:30
Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him ... "do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and unto the shame of thy mother's nakedness?"
II Samuel 1:26
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej, Ken needs to read what Paul said about the Law. Paul said the law was passed away. He ask, are you saved by the law or by the death of Jesus? By the Law we are all condemed to death but we are saved by the blood of Christ. Man could not be saved by the law, so a new covenant was made. Was Abraham rightious because he followed the law? Nope, he was human, among other things he was jumping Hagars bones, which was a no no. He was found rightious because he believed everything God told him and did everything God told him to do.
The law could never save you, because you could never keep every dot or tittle. If you broke even the slightest of the law you were condemened to death. Christ died for you to pay that debt.
So If you profess to be a Christian and the bible is the word of God. Then you cant just pick out the parts you like and disregard the rest.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, yes indeed, JFR. The only thing is, it stops just short of saying anything of absolute substance. Was that intentional?
People who read the Bible see what they want to see. Where we see a homosexual relationship I suppose homophobes see David and Jonathan shaking hands and professing undying brotherly love. I agree it seems pretty conclusive to anyone with an open mind.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Josh, Im an agnostic. I believe there is a higher power, I dont believe in all the other stuff. Just for fun, go to the library and check out a book called "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Yep the same guy who wrote "The Lion, The Witch and the wardrobe" The "Chronicles of Narnya".
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, it could be argued that Paul was wrong -- that he never actually knew Christ in the flesh, and only had a hazy idea after his death. Paul's "conversion" is one, I think, that a lot of scientific Christians would have a problem with, because the only time things like that happen in the modern day are during seizures -- and seizures are a medical problem, not a theological one.
Actually, come to think of it: no. If one thing in the Bible was wrong, it would bring the whole thing crashing down. It looks like just another case of picking and choosing.
Aargh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read "Mere Christianity", but I've read his "Space Trilogy" -- "Out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra" and "That Hideous Strength" -- about a man who is kidnapped and travels in a spaceship to other planets. The books work reasonably well as science fiction, but they work much better as allegory. The second book (Perelandra) has a literal recreation of the Fall of Man. They're worth reading if you come across them.
C.S. Lewis was an interesting chap, as he was a highly intelligent man, an atheist who converted to Christianity. I don't necessarily agree with his views, but I think they are worth considering.
It's a pity his other works have been so dwarfed by Narnia. I seriously object to the hijacking of Narnia by the Christian right -- Lewis was a member of the Church of England, which is considerably more moderate (though not as moderate as I think most of us would like).
Sorry for rambling.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David I guess I could have stated that a bit more clearly. I usually use that approach with other Christians I talk with so they will not just reject everything I say from the first word of the sentence.
I do not think Christ would turn anyone away. He obviously accepted the fact that his deciples were sinful in many ways, but that did not mean they could not promulgate His message of forgiveness. In fact it would seem odd to me that even if Christ thought of being gay as a sin He would not forgive it anyway as his message was all about forgiveness.
It would not make any difference to me if you were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a homosexual relationship between Christ and his deciples or between the deciples themselves. I think it is irrelavent to the message, but then I am not always logical in all my thoughts.
Wouldn't it be a nicer world if everyone would not worry so much about the speck in the other guys eye while at the same time had this log in his own? Yeah it is a biblical quote but a bit messed up in wording.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I do not think Christ would turn anyone away. He obviously accepted the fact that his deciples were sinful in many ways, but that did not mean they could not promulgate His message of forgiveness. In fact it would seem odd to me that even if Christ thought of being gay as a sin He would not forgive it anyway as his message was all about forgiveness.
Okay, right. What do you personally believe? From that you seem to imply that it is a sin -- because there's no need to bring up the question of sinfulness.
Yet the following:
>It would not make any difference to me if you were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a homosexual relationship between Christ and his deciples or between the deciples themselves. I think it is irrelavent to the message, but then I am not always logical in all my thoughts.
would seem to indicate that you don't think it's a sin. After all, Christ wouldn't sin, would he?
>Wouldn't it be a nicer world if everyone would not worry so much about the speck in the other guys eye while at the same time had this log in his own? Yeah it is a biblical quote but a bit messed up in wording.
Indeed it would. Too many people don't see the log in their own -- or, worse, they try and distract attention from it by complaining about the specks in others'.
Homosexuality would be a non-issue if people were not so frightened of something in themselves. I wish it would occur to those who preach against homosexuality that the more homophobic you look, the more you look like a closet homosexual yourself.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, right. What do you personally believe? From that you seem to imply that it is a sin -- because there's no need to bring up the question of sinfulness otherwise.
etc.
Sorry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DFeeej, I agree with you a thousand percent. Most people are unaware that he wrote a lot more than the Narnya books. Have you ever read the "Screwtape Letter"? Its an interesting read.
Lewis was in love with an American Lady who had two boys. When she died he adopted the boy and raised them. The Chronicles of Narnya were written for them.
His Sci-Fi books were nothing but allegory, however thay were so well written.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Correction "thats Deeej"
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... an easy starting point is Richard Attenborough's 1993 film 'Shadowlands', starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger. It tells the story of Lewis's relationship with Joy Gresham and her subsequent death from cancer.
Richard Attenborough's biopics (others include 'Young Winston'[1972], 'Gandhi'[1982], 'Cry Freedom'[1987], 'Chaplin'[1992] and 'Grey Owl'[1999]) are not always one hundred percent accurate in detail, but they always have integrity and emotion - well worth a watch!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
