Compromise

I'm using the title word in the worst and best possible ways. I'll leave it up to you to decide how bad or how good it is.

It seems to me that there are many evils in the world, like war, that we tolerate and sometimes even get behind. We "support the war effort" and "support the troops." On one level, we know war is a terrible, horrific thing but we send young men and women into it out of some sense of patriotism or because it is the lesser of two evils or it's expedient.

There are teachings in the Bible that are just nearly impossible to follow. Love your enemies. Give to whoever begs from you. Sell all you have, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus. Yet we own stuff---from TVs, stereos, libraries of books and CDs and DVDs to cars, boats, houses. Our churches are sometimes among the richest properties in a neighborhood, with some having physical plants that rival small colleges. We make excuses for these possessions---my treasure isn't really bound up in these things, need a place to live, so I may as well take advantage of tax breaks home ownership brings (I can give more to the church that way!), we have to meet somewhere for worship and so it may as well evoke some grandeur of heaven. Let's just not discuss who our enemies are and how we might "love" them.

I've discussed throughout this blog that I feel that barring GLBT folk from church leadership inhibits evangelism, creates undue stress to GLBT folk who are called to church leadership, and sends a message to GLBT folk (especially our youth) that "you're not good enough, you're broken and unworthy, you're God's mistake."

Even if you're uncomfortable with the idea of having a GLBT pastor, can you maybe add it to the list of things that you accept in the world? Say something like, "well, I'd rather all pastors were heterosexual, but since they're not, let's just make it all above board and support them in their relationships. It's better than making them keep secrets, and maybe it'll makes us look better in the media."

I don't know. Something like that.

I can't tell you how uncomfortable it makes me to compare being gay to war. But out of all the things that we just go "well, what are ya gonna do?" it feels really disingenuous to draw the line at issues of sexuality. I mean, I really wish the ELCA could make a social statement that denounces war and join in with the Quakers and Mennonites as a "peace church." On that issue, I really am a Quaker (and, full disclosure, if I could find a "peace church" that was sacramental, I probably would already be there, but for me the emphasis on baptism and eucharist are big things that keep me in the ELCA) and it irks me that we aren't more proactive in preaching peace. I'm fairly certain that it's demonstrable that wars do a great deal more damage to families, communities, EVERYTHING, than a couple of women who live together in legal, spiritual, and physical covenant.

So if I can remain a part of the ELCA and accept that there are pro-military members, can the people who don't want GLBT pastors remain in the ELCA even if there were?