Update--see below --Additional Up-Dates see below
Third Up-date see at very end:
As I was rereading comments on the Outlook concerning Professor Erwin C. Barron's article “The Bible in the homosexuality debate.”, I started wondering what his position on ordaining LGBT people was. So I googled.
Barron not only agrees with ordaining unrepentant homosexuals he also believes that gay marriage is a good thing. I don't think one should write an article, such as Barron has, using two different sides as though he is coming from a neutral position, when in fact, he has a very definite position. And he believes that those who hold a view that the Bible teaches that homosex is sin have hate filled hearts.
Below is Barron's comment at Topix.
"Written to a Mormon elder and the SLC Tribune:To the editor and dear Elder L. Whitney Clayton:
You may say you don't hate me and want to treat me with respect. But you most certainly are acting like you DO hate me and have NOT in any way shown respect to me.
Last month, I married the love of my life in my church with a congregation full of good Presbyterians and family and friends, gay and straight. It was the most wonderful day of my life.
It was beautiful, scriptural, loving, and uniting.Now, you and your Mormon buddies have treated me with ''respect'' by spending millions of dollars to interfere in my life, take away that wonderful marriage, and stick your thumb in my eye from thousands of miles away in Salt Lake City. WHY?
You say it is a moral issue for you. Well, fine! Why do you get to impose your morals on me? It just doesn't make sense! And I won't even get into the whole notion of polygamy. You have NO RIGHT whatsoever to preach to me about ONE man and ONE woman.
I pray for your interfering, disrepectful, hate-filled souls.
Erwin C. Barron, PhDPacifica, California"
What is the point of the article he wrote?
Up-Date The wedding performed "at the Old First Presbyterian Church in San Francisco. The Reverend Maggi Henderson officiated." (Scroll down the page at The Bay Area Reporter)
On the Old First Presbyterian Church Page is this:
"Discussion of recent California Supreme Court decision declaring prohibition of same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. Steve Taber presented a lengthy and technically researched opinion as to the viability of incorporating same-sex marriages into our repertoire of celebrations. Both the Associate Stated Clerk of the General Assembly [Mark Tammen] and the Stated Clerk of San Francisco Presbytery have found his conclusions valid. Pastor Maggi stated that this is a way for us to show love and support for members who are making a serious commitment,and all her usual pre-marital procedures would remain in place – counseling, etc. We thoroughly discussed this concept and then Pam Byers presented the following motion: The Session authorizes Pastor Maggi Henderson to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies, and will consider requests for use of the sanctuary for these ceremonies, under the California Supreme Court ruling of May 15, 2008. These services will include pastoral and congregational celebrations and blessings following guidelines in the July 3, 2008 letter from Stephen Taber, Esq."
One might wonder why I would post all the information I have here. Two thoughts come to mind.
First, Barron wrote what was meant as guidance for Christians, that is he was suggesting a way to discern how to get past the divisions in the PCUSA. Yet, as a member of the PCUSA he was attempting to bypass all of the Scripture, Confessions and Book of Order. Barron needs Jesus Christ’s transformation, but he must first admit he is sinning. He tried to write in such a manner that he could cover his particular sin and get others to call it good. None of us are allowed to do this, and we are all sinners.
And second, while our Church is being torn apart by the gay community’s insistence that all accept their lifestyle some pastors are encouraging the tear. They are flaunting their disobedience before a broken world that needs the gospel of Jesus Christ. The world needs the proclamation of Christ's transforming grace bought by his blood. Instead we have pastors affirming the brokenness and encouraging the sin.
Third Up-Date
Jack Haberer contacted me with a very gracious note. He did not know that Barron had participated in a gay marriage or that he was advocating for LGBT ordination. Haberer has written that he would welcome having me share on my blog that I contacted him and that he "was not made aware of Mr. Barron’s direct involvement in these matters" and he is "looking into this further – and will respond accordingly."
33 comments:
Viola,
While I agree that one ought not pretend a neutrality that is false (case in point: Fox News), it is actually the most honorable form of argument to attempt to present both sides of a debate as fairly as one is able. Indeed all the best intellectuals and apologists through history have been good at accurately representing the opposing side in a debate, people like Aquinas actually made a habit of graciously presenting the opposition first in writing. It is a sign of respect.
It is possible to completely understand a person, think them reasonable and honorable, and still disagree with them. It's one of those funky things about being human. We just don't agree and there is no universally accepted standard which can arbitrate.
I think the Outlook is sinking lower and lower.
John Erthein
Erie, PA
I agree with John Erthein. It would seem that the Outlook is now a mouthpiece for the Covenant Network.
What we must remember is that we stand on truth, which leaves us little with which to defend ourselves. This is on purpose. It's time to embrace the cross.
Question for Aric: Does Fox News pretend to be neutral? (I actually don't know.) What about the New York Times and PBS? They also have a non-neutral point of view; do they claim to be neutral (I don't know here either)? It's OK to have an editorial point of view as long as one doesn't claim not to. One must also allow non-neutrality for one side (Fox) if one allows it for the other (NYT, PBS).
Sorry, Viola, this is off topic, I know.
Now, on topic: it appears that Dr. Barron not only favors gay marriage, he has actually been one of the parties in a gay marriage. This should definitely have been disclosed in the Outlook article, because it is very much an extreme position for the PCUSA.
Whereas I agree with Aric regarding giving dignity to the arguments of one's opponents- it is most disingenuous to portray oneself as neutral.
Mark Roberts has done a stellar job at this generosity of spirit, while also being very upfront on where he is coming from.
Honestly, I *feel* mislead by the Outlook. There should have been a caveat in the author's bio. at the very least.
sadly,
dm
Clay & John,
I don't think we have anyway of knowing if the Outlook editor knew about Barron's position or his gay "marriage." So, although I certainly wish that the Outlook would be more balanced with its articles, I am not attempting to implement them in my posting.
Aric, you write, "It is possible to completely understand a person, think them reasonable and honorable, and still disagree with them." This is true, but Barron has still written in his comment that the Mormon he is writing about is disrespectful and has a hate filled heart. I can only conclude that he feels the same way about this who believe it is unbiblical to ordain LGBT people or who voted for proposition 8 in the California election.
And on top of that Barron isn't simply presenting both sides he is using the two sides as a means to make his argument. And in fact,in his first article he stated, "
I spent more than six months in each of these congregations, worshiping with them weekly, participating in Bible studies and potlucks, attending Sunday school, and interviewing members of the congregations. I explored how each congregation taught about ethical authority and how they actually authorized their public stance on homosexuality. I interviewed members about their understanding of the position taken by their congregation; I asked about their experiences with homosexual persons, and we talked about many other ethical issues."
This is the place where he should have been honest.
Debbie those are good off the topic thoughts.
Viola -
I haven't read the article and I don't know Mr Barron or the motives of the editors of the outlook so I should refrain from commenting much, but it does appear to me that he would have been wiser to identify himself and his position from the outset, while continuing with the basic method of his article which is to layout his experience of both sides. This kind of thing can be fruitful in my opinion, though it appears it has been poisoned by his failure to disclose his position from the beginning.
Debbie, re: our off-topic tangent...
Fox does pretend neutrality, both explicitly in their slogan (Fair and Balanced) and implicitly through the neutrality news outlets have traditionally claimed outside of articles and commentary explicitly labeled as editorial in nature. I would agree with you that there is no such thing as genuine neutrality in the media (including NYT and PBS). However, it isn't a mere matter of left and right. Fox, in their demonstrated willingess to be dishonest for the sake of ratings, is a less credible news source than most - independent of political bias.
Viola: Thanks for doing the homework that I had intended to do. As I was reading Part II of Dr. Barron's "analysis", I noted the use of words and phrases that subtly tilted his writing to the pro-ordination side of the question. I wondered about his bona fides; you took the next step. Thanks.
Mac
Re: the stuff from Old First Presbyterian's Web page:
The Session doesn't have the power to decide who the pastor will or will not marry. It does have the power to decide on the use of the sanctuary.
However given recent GAPJC decisions whatever the pastor did it wasn't a marriage (and also therefore couldn't be in violation of her promise to be bound by the church's polity which I think led us into lala land). I assume that applied in pre Proposition 8 California but I might be wrong.
Thank you for all the excellent research on this Viola.
It is a shame that the Outlook does not have the same level of professionalism or decency.
Aric,
You have clearly been reading, listening, and watching too many left-leaning news organizations. Fox News has regularly been praised for their balanced reporting in their hard news. They clearly have commentators that are very conservative, and others that are liberal. Even there they regularly work hard to create a balance -- the Hannity and Colmes show comes to mind.
Statistics have shown that during the election the major news outlets have regularly skewed their coverage in favor of Obama. While Fox News has presented a nearly perfect 50/50 coverage.
Here is a very interesting article on the topic:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
During the primaries the Clinton organization praised Fox News for being the most fair and balanced, while lambasting the other news outlets.
On the other hand, just like the Outlook, the standard news outlets have increasingly favored more liberal groups and agendas, while all the while presenting themselves as "objective". They are the deceivers. I believe that, for the most part, the concept of "objective journalism" is all but dead. Personally, I read and listen broadly (Fox News and NPR included) and take everything with a grain of salt.
Maybe if you took the time to do a little more research yourself?
Both Aric & Adel Thalos,
I think you for your thoughts on the media, but my posting is not about them so I would perfer we stay on subject.
Pastor Bob,
If I remember correctly the last decision was based on the state's law that it was not a marriage so I don't think it will work this time unless the California’s Supreme Court rules all of the gay marriages contracted before proposition 8 invalid.
Adel Thalos said "just like the Outlook, the standard news outlets have increasingly favored more liberal groups and agendas." Can you verify this with statistics? I believe that the evangelical content of the Outlook has increased in recent years compared to when it was much more theologically liberal. I don't have statistics, though.
Debbie,
I am unaware of any statistics taken for such a small news outlet. If you are aware of any, I would be happy to consider the analysis. This is simply my own observation, especially after reading many of Haberer's horrendous commentaries (again my opinion).
Folks, I am a complete open book. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to talk to me. Please quit talking ABOUT me, and talk TO me. My email address is erwinbarron@yahoo.com.
I notice that "Viola" never gives her name or address in her blog, so I cannot "Google" her and find out anything about her as she did with me. If she had asked me, though, I could have spared her the trouble.
I would love to have a conversation with you, Viola, if you would reveal yourself. I am happy to talk with anyone about my life and my opinions.
Just so you will all know I did e-mail Mr. Barron and my full name which I think most of you know is Viola Larson. And google all you wish, but as I told Barron I am not the nurse that sometimes comes up and I am not a Viola string. If you google thoughtfully, you will probably find my e-mail address.
I’m a member of Old First in San Francisco, and a lifelong Presbyterian like The Rev. Dr. Erwin Barron. Old First has a long history of standing up for people’s rights and just causes. Our minister voted at the 1861 General Assembly to uphold the integrity of the Union and in opposition to the pro-slavery position taken by commissioners from the secessionist southern States. During the 1940’s, Old First protested legislation which sent thousands of Japanese-American citizens to internment camps. In 1970 Old First ordained one of the first two women pastors in our Synod. And the roof never caved in because of any of that.
We can’t guess what Jesus Christ would say about same-sex marriages. We do know what he did in his own time, and was constantly excoriated by the religious establishment for including the excluded - talking with, eating with, welcoming everyone - women, foreigners, lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors. Jesus also forbade his listeners, and us, to judge others.
Mary Russell
Viola,
Dr. Barron is right. His life is an open book. I don't think he has tried to hide anything. But that means, as I have written to Jack Haberer, that the Outlook was, at best, very careless in asking people to write article series for them. It's hardly a secret that Dr. Barron supports GLBT ordination. A simple Google search confirms this. And yet Jack Haberer is surprised this is the case????? This is amazing to me.
BTW, while I think it is wholly appropriate to consider someone's activism on a specific issue, I am personally uncomfortable with bringing up someone's personal life, even if he mentioned it somewhere else. To be honest, Viola, I cringed a bit when you mentioned Dr. Barron's "marriage." I think it would have been better to confine your remarks to his activism.
John Erthein
Erie, PA
John,
While I agree with you about a person's personal private life. I have to disagree when it comes to "marriage". In fact, if marriage were purely a private matter, then "gay marriage" in a secular society would be defensible, in my opinion. But because marriage is a community affirmed, expression of the virtue and life of the community it is for that reason, not a merely private matter.
Hi Mary,
Welcome to my blog.
Several thoughts come to mind. First I am not sure what being a life long Presbyterian has to do with the subject at hand?
Second I rejoice that your Church has a history of opposing all of those sins, such as slavery, and putting non-treasonous and good American citizens in internment camps. But what has that to do with calling sinful actions non-sinful. Or as the Bible puts it calling evil good.
No, you are right, we can’t guess what Jesus Christ would say about same-sex marriages. We can, in fact, know what Jesus would say about same sex marriages.
When questioned about divorce, Jesus stated, “And he [Jesus] answered and said, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’”(Matt 19:4-6)
Jesus grounds marriage in God’s creation of male and female. That is very clear. But not only that Jesus up-held the law stating that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He also said that “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matt 5:17-18)
And yes Jesus did gather around himself many kinds of sinners, thankfully he still does. But he came to die for “us sinners” to forgive us and transform us. Of course none of us will be perfect until the second coming of Christ. But nonetheless as 1 John teaches those who belong to Jesus Christ don’t keep practicing sin. That is they don’t keep on sinning with the thought that their sin is okay.
And to truly love the sinner as Jesus did we must bring them to Christ who alone can save and transform.
John,
I appreciate your point of view, I was concerned myself about writing about Barron’s marriage. However, and several points on this, the truth of where Barron was coming from I felt out-weighed my concerns.
First of all the letter of his that I posted was about both his activism and his marriage. They were combined and even led him to accuse someone of having a hate filled heart. (And he didn’t have to do that., the letter I mean)
Beside this is the fact that he was writing about ethics using the homosexual debate in the PCUSA without stating his point of view. Jack wrote to me that since he know this was gleamed from Barron’s dissertation, and since his desk was so crowed with work he simply didn’t think to check on his author. The only fault I have with Jack on this is that after reading the first two articles, he like me, I think, should have thought that this seemed awful slanted toward the LGBT side and checked to see why.
And it isn’t that a person who is a practicing gay should not write for the Outlook, it is simply that he should have allowed his readers to know where he was coming from.
Next when I saw his wedding announcement in the paper along with who officiated I felt that was more than a problem with Barron’s orientation and his article, this was a problem with Old First and the pastor there and the Covenant network. And this I combined in my head with what I had already written about a Church in the Sacramento Presbytery. http://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2008/11/davis-community-church-in-sacramento.html "Davis Community Church, in Sacramento Presbytery & Covenant Network lawyers make plans for pastors to officiate at gay and lesbian civil marriages" And if you know one of the nicknames for Sacramento and a line from the Music Man you will understand when I say we “Got Trouble in River City.”
How is it that a legal debate over the un-lawfulness of divorce in a society that sold women into marriage - sold them! - becomes justification for gay persecution, sometimes by people who even fully excuse divorce?
"Jesus grounds marriage in God’s creation of male and female. "
As if God had created only and exclusively male and female (this is a Greek bipolar view of nature, and it is refuted by a plethora of counter examples) and that God only unites male and female.
God unites whom He unites.
The proper interpretation of this passage is that all those whom God has united - whomever they are -, no man can separate. Without exception.
Jesus grounds the illegality of divorce for any marriage in the invocation of God's name to seal that marriage.
Paul, for example, takes this to mean Christ and the Church.
Why don't we use the Scriptures in context for a while, and then maybe we will be wise enough to know how to properly curse people with them as well.
sylvia
Hi Sylvia,
Most Christians who hold the Bible to be God’s word do not excuse divorce except in some cases where there is abuse or adultery. I believe in that same text, I used, Jesus himself provides for cases where there is immorality. But divorce on the grounds of incompatibility is not biblical.
The Hebrews certainly believed that God created only male and female. And actuality the Greeks, are the ones who came up with some different genders, (if you read Plato, for instance.)
And you can argue all you want that there are other kinds of genders beside male and female, but if you attempt to align that with either the Old or New Testament you simply will find no texts to help.
And I was addressing the issue of LGBT marriage when I quoted Jesus, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’” The man leaves his family and is joined with a wife because God made them male and female. They stay married because God has joined them together. That is two different things.
Viola - how does your personal judgement regard divorced women and men - once joined forever by God - when they remarry?
"And you can argue all you want that there are other kinds of genders beside male and female, but if you attempt to align that with either the Old or New Testament you simply will find no texts to help."
Well then.
Since the Biblical texts are so terribly wrong about there being only two genders, then how can they be right about one kind of marriage - if that is what they are saying, I am not convinced.
Probably even wrong about what Jesus said about marriage.
Sylvia
Mary,
The difference is generally Christians when they have suffered a divorce one or both have repented and they know it is sinful. Those practicing homosex insist they are not sinning. Of course in some churches divorced persons may not remarry and still be in ministry. I do believe that Jesus does give an out when he says, "save for the cause of immorality. “
Sylvia,
If you don't believe the Bible is God's word and has authority that kind of ends the discussion between us because I don't think the Bible is wrong about there being only two kinds of gender. That doesn’t mean I won’t talk to you but we simply don’t agree on the most basic foundation of Christianity. Of course you never said you were a Christian, I was just assuming.
Viola,
Really?
Is your view of the biology of human sexuality taken entirely from the Bible?
The fields of biochemistry, physiology, neurology, and psychiatry mean nothing to you?
What about geology, astronomy and physics?
Sylvia
Sylvia,
I think perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. The Bible has the ultimate authority. This doesn't mean one can't learn from all of the sciences you listed, but still the Bible's view of things theological and this includes moral or ethical is the standard.(I am curious how one learns about gender from astronomy.)
Anonymous,
I don't accept anonymous comments if you want to add your full real name I will post your comment.
Post a Comment