Weird Republic

Some interesting and long reading from http://www.weirdrepublic.com, especially re: the ECUSA ordination of Barry Stopfel (sponsored behind the scenes by Shelby Spong) and his book The Courage to Love. The author of the Weird Republic article was peripherally involved in the Church where Stopfel was a priest at Saint George’s Church in Maplewood, New Jersey.

The style is direct and a little overtly polemical for my liking - and while decrying ad hominem attacks the author indulges deeply himself -yet but the analysis of the logic, motivation and rationale of Stopfel et al remains compelling. The apparent source is revealed:

For each of its 287 pages Courage to Love clings tightly to the itemized guidelines for gay propaganda first articulated by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill back in 1987. Will Leckie is careful to follow the Kirk-and-Pill admonition to:
“talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible”,

on the theory that a relentless bombardment of such chat will make gayness seem normal. At every opportunity Leckie is quick to
“use talk to muddy the moral waters”

and
“raise theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings…”

Will Leckie also favors the Kirk/Pill admonition to
“undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as an antiquated backwater.”

In short, smear your intellectual opponents rather than engage them in honest debate. Leckie unfailingly follows point two of the gay agenda:
“Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”

As Kirk and Pill remind gay activists,
“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be included by reflex to assume the role of protector.”

I have no prior knowledge of "Kirk and Pill" phenomena - it may be a "conservative plot", a "faux manual for gays". But if it's just fodder for conservative hysteria, it's critically close to the mark.

What really caught my attention was this quote from Task Force on Changing Patterns of Sexuality and Family Life (quoted in the book):

“It is our conclusion that by suppressing our sexuality and by condemning all sex which occurs outside of traditional marriage, the Church has thereby obstructed a vitally important means for persons to know and celebrate their relatedness to God. The teachings of the Church have tended to make us embarrassed about rather than grateful for our bodies. As a means of communion with other persons our bodies sacramentally become means to communion with God.”

The author's response this is strong to say the least. Read it for yourself. The quote above reminds me of the "know god through sex" arguments - using the term "yada" (Seinfeld fans beware!) - I saw a while back.

Some more quotes from the author - highlighting the inseperable relationship between doctrine and practice:

The intent of new-wave Christianity is to be therapeutic, to reconcile people to their behavioral quirks, to welcome as congregants people whose behavior would previously have defined them as un-Christian, because Christians defined themselves as a people who did not indulge in certain behaviors. This is nothing less than a redefinition of Christianity.

And finally with regard to the Uniting Church, and its Interim Reporton Sexuality (1997), the following quote from the book Courage to Love (p.152-3) added a new perspective:

“I believe we are all bound by the same sexual ethic…Whenever human sexuality is self-serving, oppressive, demeaning to oneself or another, or is compulsive and impersonal, it exists in a state of sin…”

Doesn't this sound a little like the lead up to "Right Relationships"? What are the sources and who are the authors of the UCA documents on sex? Can a line be drawn through Spong, Kirk and Pill (however motivated), and Stopfel and Leckie to the Uniting Church Assembly? I think there is a case to be made, but in this brief space I will leave it at that.