Feedback needed - please

[andrewlittle]

Friends - I received this email from a group to which I belong in the area in which I live. It details a change in a document that was presented at our last Presbytery meeting. These folks, mostly if not exclusively straight allies, may or may not understand the impact this change has for LGBT folk. I would like to be able to link them to comments made by real-life LGBT - that would be many of you, in case that isn't clear - so they can hear firsthand the reception that this change will recieve in the LGBT community.

I am asking you to post comments, understanding that this may be an opportunity to help people understand. After there are a number of posts, I will email the link to this thread to as many people in the Presbytery that I can, so they can witness your testimonies first hand.

Please respond to the email below. Thanks, Andy.

Dear Friends of Presbyterian Rainbow:

The next general meeting of Presbyterian Rainbow has been set for SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 2008, 10:00am to noon, at the First Presbyterian
Church in Hudson Falls (9 River Street). Please mark your
calendars! We will once again want to make a special effort to reach out to members of our host church and encourage them to become involved in our cause.

At last Saturday's general meeting, we distributed a document called the "Albany Confession 2008" that Rev D.M. [removed name for confidentiality - Andy] introduced at the Presbytery meeting on Feb. 2. Please note that a more recent version of this document differs from the version distributed to Presbytery and Presbyterian Rainbow. The statement, "We resolve to affirm all members of the human community and acknowledge sexual orientation and gender identity as gifts from God," has been changed to read: "We resolve to affirm all members of the human community and acknowledge different life styles as gifts from God." I would be happy to supply electronic copy to anyone who requests it.

Peace!

T.D.
Communications "Hub"
Presbyterian Rainbow

[keltic63]

I know the reception I'd be giving it: Thanks, but no thanks.

how does such a document undergo such a drastic change? It has gone form something affirming and uplifting to a document that is patronizing and offensive. Do these people realize that calling this a lifestyle makes it sound like we were presented with a menu and simply ticked off the boxes for the choices we wanted?

This is a dramatic change in the wording, and one that completely changes the tenor of the document. It moves from welcoming and affirming to offensive and exclusionary. It indicates to me that those who have re-written it and any who sign onto it, have not done the work to understand the reality of the lives of lgbt people.

[Daniel]

I wouldn't consider attending any church with this kind of policy statement. Is that the intent of the person or persons behind the change of language? Don't call us....we'll call you?

Keltic is correct: the language change is offensive. It's gone from affirming to something else entirely.

Lifestyle?

What the hell is that?

The only thing I 'style' is my hair, and that is only because, year by year, I have less of it, and as a consequence it gets shorter and shorter. I put 'product' in it so that it appears to be thicker than it is.

And guess what? The resulting 'product'- the document presented here with the suggested changes- has gone from generous to miserly. It's generosity is wafer thin- and I'm not talking about the sacrament.

Whom does this document- in it's 'new' form aim to please?

Gay folks?

I don't think so.

Find the MO behind this change and you will find a heart of stone or someone who is well-meaning but clueless with a capital C.

In addition, two key words in the document, sexual orientation and gender identity describe the essential 'beingness' (and thus the sanctity) of the persons concerned. The word 'lifestyle' refers to- editorially speaking- the actions of those same persons- and it must be pointed out- firmly- that the current connotation of this word is a negative one. So, unless the authors are prepared to spell out which actions are acceptable and which are not (do they really want to go there?), I would encourage the authors to refrain from fixing a document that isn't broken.

[BrianB]

The use of the phrase "different lifestyles" makes me wonder if these allies truly understand that sexual orientation is not a choice. To have such wording in an official church document would be off-putting at best and downright offensive at worst. A person might wonder why the wording was changed from "sexual orientation and gender identity" to "different lifestyles". Was it changed to placate some of the more conservative members of the Presbytery? This wording would have a chilling effect toward the glbt community.

[Daniel]

This wording would have a chilling effect toward the glbt community.

Absolutely!

[Pablo Rafael]

The change from "sexual orientation and gender identity" to "different lifestyles" removes any real meaning from the statement. Just what is meant by "different lifestyles"?

I have no idea what "lifestyle" I have. I am a church worker who has been in ministry for 24 years. I go to work. I play music for church most weekends. I like to go mountain biking and hiking. I like to do yard work and work on construction projects. I watch movies on Saturday nights. I go out to eat with my parents every Friday night. I don't know if that is a lifestyle.

I don't fit into many of the gay stereotypes that are often called the "gay lifestyle". However, I can certainly tell you what my sexual orientation is. I feel that being gay is God's plan for my life. It was nothing that I chose. Nor is it anything that I do. It is just part of how God wants me to be.

I think we are at the beginning of a new civil rights movement, to give civil rights to LGBT individuals. It is time to be specific and affirming not vague and indecisive. I think the church should be in the forefront of this movement.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends - I received this email from a group to which I belong in the area in which I live. It details a change in a document that was presented at our last Presbytery meeting. These folks, mostly if not exclusively straight allies, may or may not understand the impact this change has for LGBT folk. I would like to be able to link them to comments made by real-life LGBT - that would be many of you, in case that isn't clear - so they can hear firsthand the reception that this change will recieve in the LGBT community.

I am asking you to post comments, understanding that this may be an opportunity to help people understand. After there are a number of posts, I will email the link to this thread to as many people in the Presbytery that I can, so they can witness your testimonies first hand.

Please respond to the email below. Thanks, Andy.

Friends,
I got invited over here to comment, and at first wondered what all the fuss was about--now I see.

Sometimes our straight allies suffer from ignorance, just as we have from time to time.

There are people "of a certain age"--namely those who were young adults in the 1960's--who remember when the word "lifestyle" was a neutral, or even a positive term. Remember? That was back in the days when Martin Luther King used the word "Negro" and we still talked about "the brotherhood of man" and took it for granted that women were somehow included.

For a long time now the word "lifestyle" has come to be viewed very very negatively by LGBT folks. It's become a code word used by our adversaries to belittle our identities. It's a "name" that is imposed on us and that we don't except. Please, if you want to talk about us use the words by which we proudly name ourselves--lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. The term "sexual orientation" is much more preferred than the word "lifestyle"--which has come to be down right offensive to many LGBT persons.

Steven Webster

[BruceChris]

I'm Late for work. See if you can access this.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=26184

P&L, BC

[nmwolfboy]

Oi! i have no doubt that changing the previous phrasing to the word 'lifestyle' would have the immediate effect of offending most lgbt folks who were aware of the change.

'Lifestyle' is a word that's been used to trivialize and marginalize the lives of lgbt folks for decades. The use of the phrase "acknowledging gender identity and sexual orientation as gifts from God" on the other hand includes everyone (lgbt, straight, male/female/other) and does not marginalize anyone.

If i were to approach a church and came across the revised phrase, you can bet i'd be turning around and out the door as quickly as possible. If i read it beforehand i wouldn't even darken the door of that church. Many folks have no idea just how often the phase 'lifestyle' has been used to belittle and demean the full and rich lives of lgbt people.

Besides, the word lifestyle can mean so many different things. Its use in this context isn't only offensive, it's also poor choice of words because it muddies the waters.

Which part of my 'lifestyle' are they referring to? The part where i am constantly trying to catch up on our laundry, the part where my partner and i share our worries about our aging parents, the part where we review our monthly bills and try to make ends meet, the part where we negotiate which parents we're going to visit for Thanksgiving and which for Christmas, or the worry about where we're going to find the money for our airfare to get cross-country and see elderly Aunt Ginny face to face one more time before she passes away? Rather than a 'lifestyle' we think of ourselves as having actual lives.

'Gender identity and sexual orientation' as the terms are typically used are to me inherently morally neutral. Apart from the historical pejorative use of the word 'lifestyle' with relation to lgbt people, the word 'lifestyle' is so broad that it could be construed to include characteristics of living that are not as morally neutral. For example, a 'lifestyle' might include living lavishly at the expense of others, which to most of the world describes the disparity in consumption of resources characteristic of the average American 'lifestyle'. Certainly not morally neutral.

If i were sitting there amidst the Presbyterian Rainbow members when the change was discussed my passionate response would be "If you mean what you say about valuing and including the lives of lgbt people along with straight folk, then say what you mean! Don't parse words and dilute your truth. Reducing the day to day lived reality of lgbt people to a mere 'lifestyle' is offensive! The original wording actually said what you purport to believe."

A lifestyle is vacationing in Cabo every Spring. A lifestyle is having a standing appointment at the salon. A lifestyle is your choice of car. A lifestyle is the kind of house you choose to purchase and where it's located, assuming you're wealthy enough to have a choice in the matter.

My sexual orientation and gender identity (and yours, too) are NOT a 'lifestyle', they are an integral part of who God created me to be, and i deeply resent anyone trying to diminish who i am by using such a dismissive term. i'm certain many other lgbt folk feel the same way.

Pax (even though i'm fired up at the moment),
scott

[BenL]

A lifestyle is not a gift from God. A lifestyle is a series of choices that individuals and groups of people make to order their lives. It is a social term.

Being gay, bi or trans are not choices, good or bad, that gay people make. They are not discretionary behaviors. To celebrate their gifts from God, members of the LGBT community must name their gifts just as Adam named the riches of God's creation. We ask the church to name them and bless them with us. "Sexual orientation and gender identity" more aptly name those gifts that gay people have to offer the church. We believe that those gifts are redeemed intact by Christ and are transfigured just as all our gifts and talents are.

[pnggrad79]

Thanks Andy for inviting me to respond to this. I agree with keltic and stephen, and the rest that being gay is not a menu choice, and I didn't wake up one day, shower, get dressed and looked in my mirror and suddenly decide I was going to fall in love with a woman. It just happened and was no more a choice than than my eye color.

I also tend to believe that these people have their heart in the right place, they seem to WANT to be affirming, but they really sound like they have no clue as to what affirming really means. As a teacher, I would say, YOU HAD IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. Inserting lifestyles into the language of this statement, implies that it is a choice, and that it is something we do, and not something we ARE. We have been called "different" all our lives, and by definition it is not inclusive.

My message to the presbytery is-Leave it alone. It was good the first time you wrote it. Delete "lifestyle" and "different". "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." That is inclusive! That is affirming!

[paul]

Thank you for your desire to reach out and support the GLBT community.

If you have read through the many responses here to the wording change of the "Albany Confession 2008," you probably already 'get it' :).

I was raised on the notion that being gay is a "lifestyle." My church was not as generous as you seem to be, and gay was considered a "lifestyle" that sinners choose. So, I chose the 'lifestyle' of a "Christian" and tried to renounce the gay part of myself for 35 years. I failed. It took me awhile to understand that being gay is not a "lifestyle" any more than having two feet is a lifestyle. I guess one could amputate their feet if they found having feet to be contrary to their beliefs, but then they would be lame. In 35 years I couldn't figure how to amputate the gay out of me, but I was still left lame in the process.

I have recently, in the last two years, renounced my Christian lifestyle. I've succeeded at changing that lifestyle. The evidence and experience of my life (for what it may be worth to you) have shown me, at ridiculous cost, that being gay is not a lifestyle. Some manage to pull it off with great style though.

[HarmlessEccentric]

It's so odd, changing language that works as well as the original version in this message. The first version makes it clear that everyone's sexual orientation and gender identity is a gift from God (straight people too)- if I read it, I'd know that was a safe and welcoming church, and I'd like the way they included the whole family, straight, gay, bi, trans, and all, in their welcoming statement.

The second version- it uses 'lifestyle,' a code-word which means that orientation is chosen, but it doesn't actually use any words related to sexual orientation. At best, reading it, I'd assume that this is a church where my presence would be tolerated as long as I didn't 'flaunt' my gayness by doing something outrageous like introducing someone as a wife or girlfriend, or putting my arm on the back of the pew behind her in that cozy church-going way, a place where people would tell themselves they were 'open-minded' but still be freaked out by my presence. At worst, it would feel like a church with a few people who wanted to be more welcoming but had been co-opted by those who think sexual orientation is a choice, and who hadn't taken the trouble to learn very much about GLBT people and their lives. I definitely wouldn't go to a church with this as their statement.

Besides, this statement doesn't mean anything. A 'lifestyle' is just the way a person lives, and the word doesn't really have anything to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. Different lifestyles are gifts from God? All of them? The high-rolling professional gambling lifestyle? The pimping lifestyle? The killing-puppies-for-fur-coats lifestyle?

The proposal is so silly- it takes a statement that is clear and supportive, and changes it to a statement that is meaningless while still containing a veiled insult. There's no way a church or organization would approve this change- unless they really did want to withdraw their welcome to GLBT people, or unless the group was entirely made up of people who know absolutely nothing about gay people and the ways the church has used language to harm them, neither of which I can believe is true of any welcoming group in 2008.

It seems like this thread must surely be unnecessary, since the people who are part of this group will already know to reject the changed language as soon as they read it. Maybe one or two people working on language were new to GLBT activism and didn't understand the subtexts of the language they were choosing, but the broader membership will, and the language will surely be quickly returned to the first version, which is simpler, clearer, and, I assume, truer to the intention of the writers.

[kara speltz]

I think it's best if we give folks the benefit of the doubt. I recall when the civil rights movement was in full swing, that I would make mistakes, but fortunately my friends would call me on them and help me understand why something that I did or said was based on my ignorance. Let's do the same for them and use this as a chance to educate people. kara

[keltic63]

I think it's best if we give folks the benefit of the doubt. I recall when the civil rights movement was in full swing, that I would make mistakes, but fortunately my friends would call me on them and help me understand why something that I did or said was based on my ignorance. Let's do the same for them and use this as a chance to educate people. kara

I think that this is the purpose of this thread. If I'm reading the situation correctly, Andy is showing this to us so we can give our honest reactions to the document, and then he will direct others from the group proposing the document a chance to view our reactions. some of us are starting to make conjectures about who made the changes and why. I really think we need to express our opinion about the change. Our reaction IS the education. We don't know the motive for changing the wording, and we probably don't need to know it. I'm guessing that Andy was a bit surprised by the change and this is a good way to educate those who may not be aware of how those words will be received by the lgbt community.

[andrewlittle]

I have, as Steve (Keltic) suggested in PM, compiled the responses that existed as of 10:05AM into a word document and sent it to the signers of the original presbytery document.

To clarify some points that have become clear.

Presbyterian Rainbow did not draft either of the versions, and the change was sent out to notify members of the difference in wording. Several PR members have expressed negative reactions.

The document was drafted as part of a larger statement or confession about faith. I am unsure, as yet, as to why the change was made. I think, however, that it is likely that it was made to minimize objections to the document and to still make it affirming and welcming. It is hopefully, becoming obvious that this last goal has NOT been achieved.

I have sent an email to the signers of the document linking them to this thread, and attaching the document to which I earlier referred. I hope and pray that continued dialogue will help restore a more embracing statement of faith, with regard to gender and sexuality issues. I DO think that the effort stems from people who care deeply - they may just not be aware fo the impact of the change.

Keep writing, folks - love these loveable people into making a more prophetic confession.

[Daniel]

Presbyterian Rainbow did not draft either of the versions, and the change was sent out to notify members of the difference in wording. Several PR members have expressed negative reactions.

The document was drafted as part of a larger statement or confession about faith. I am unsure, as yet, as to why the change was made. I think, however, that it is likely that it was made to minimize objections to the document and to still make it affirming and welcming. It is hopefully, becoming obvious that this last goal has NOT been achieved.

So- If I understand the matter correctly, PR was dictated to by by a higher authority (if that is the correct words to use) and is asking for our help.

And if you are correct, as others have already pointed out, the MO behind the change in language is indeed to placate a conservative person or persons and throw the dog a bone under the table.

Now- unless there is some other more benign motivation involved- which has yet to be revealed- I believe prudence dictates swift and decisive action on the part of PR. Perhaps some sort of statement/letter? I don't know. But I hope they simply don't roll over and play dead.

I've said this before on these pages: "We teach people how to treat us".

God loves us as we are, no matter how we dress, walk, talk, what kind of car we drive, our political party, the parties we attend on the weekends, be it with family, out on the town, or at the strawberry social after church.

We are all God's children. We have lives. Not lifestyles.

Thanks for bringing this issue here Andy.

[Vanessa White]

Any opportunity to educate and inform others, especially those who are speaking on behalf of a church or church group, is time well spent in my book. I would like to concur with what many of my friends here have already said.

Lifestyle, as a word, when used to describe/define sexual, affectional, or gender orientation, is neither accurate nor appropriate, whether you are speaking as a church, a politician, family member, whomever. It demeans, degrades, and insults the depth to which our orientation is a part of who we are, who we are in God's eyes. Oh, what a joy it would be, for more churches to openly acknowledge who we are as LGBT persons, in such an inviting, embracing, and loving way as the first statement was written. It is sad to me that statements such as that from churches is the exception rather than the rule, at least in my experience.

Herein lies an opportunity; an opportunity to welcome LGBT brothers and sisters into your church communities with open arms and hearts, and to fully live up to how God and Jesus wants us to conduct ourselves. I love my church, but would be hard pressed to EVER want to return if I were to read a statement such as this; I would feel "tolerated" and not really loved and welcomed at all.

Please, learn to see us through a new set of eyes; and even when the pressure is great to conform so that people don't become uncomfortable, just remember: we have to live in that "uncomfortable" zone every day of our lives.:pray:

[andrewlittle]

So- If I understand the matter correctly, PR was dictated to by by a higher authority (if that is the correct words to use) and is asking for our help.

No, actually. The scenario has become somewhat clearer.

PR is a group within the presbytery that seeks full inclusion and rights for LGBT. I am a member of PR. Members of PR saw and heard the original "confession" at the last presbytery meeting - they had not seen it before hand. They had a discussion that was positive. Then the leader of PR got the revised statement, and sent an email to notify the members. The language in that email (the one in the first post) is judgment neutral, so I was not sure what the motivation was for sending it. It has become clear that he was making sure the members were kept abreast and seeing what comments came back - these have been mostly negative.

I took it upon myself to mount a bit of a campaign and, as I gave everyone the benefit of the doubt as to motivation, I thought an information sharing process would work the best - hence the first post.

And if you are correct, as others have already pointed out, the MO behind the change in language is indeed to placate a conservative person or persons and throw the dog a bone under the table.

That is still just a assumption on my part, and I don't know how good an assumption it is. The other assumption could be that the authors' are entirely unaware of the baggage and drawbacks to "lifestyle" language.

Now- unless there is some other more benign motivation involved- which has yet to be revealed- I believe prudence dictates swift and decisive action on the part of PR. Perhaps some sort of statement/letter? I don't know. But I hope they simply don't roll over and play dead.

Remains to be seen, although I know it being discussed. I also sent a message to every one of the "confession" signers. That email is here:
Good morning, all,
I am sending this email to you as signers of the Albany Confession 2008 document. For what it is worth, I would like to add that I am if full accord with the vast bulk of the document and, had I not been called away because of the “great basement flood on Alfred St”, would have been very supportive of the original document that I understand was read at the presbytery meeting.

My concern, now, is due to a change that was made from the document that was read to the document as it now appears, and I would ask you to consider this response in your ongoing effort.

Specifically at issue for me is the change from "We resolve to affirm all members of the human community and acknowledge sexual orientation and gender identity as gifts from God," to "We resolve to affirm all members of the human community and acknowledge different life styles as gifts from God." My reason for concern stems from how this change will be understood by those who originally seemed to be the recipients of the affirmation.

Since responses directly from LGBT folk are likely to carry more weight than that of an ally, and since some of the responses were quite eloquent, I am attaching a compilation of responses to the change in language that were posted between midnight last night to 10:05 AM this morning. These responses were made on Soulforce.org (not .com as I had originally sent to some of you), a website for LGBT people of faith and allies. I will also try to articulate my objections to the change of language.

The original statement which included “sexual orientation and gender identity as gifts from God” was fully inclusive of everyone as created images of our living God. It fully affirms the “being” and divine nature of all people as they are created – heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and other expressions of gender and sexuality. It helps create an understanding of a level playing field – equality – based on who people “ARE”.

The change creates an equality based on what people “CHOOSE TO DO”, which is problematic for me. I do understand that it was written as “life styles” not “lifestyles”, and that this may represent a subtle distinction, but it is a distinction that, if intended, will be lost on most people. Lifestyle, defined, is the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group. Heterosexuals and GLBT do, in fact, share many lifestyle choices that span a wide range of activities – shopping, entertainment, diet, housing, and even choices in who and how one loves. Lifestyles also include, however, choices that may be essentially unhealthy and contrary to our commonly held faith. Accumulation, greed, using power over others, reckless overuse of resources and theft are all “lifestyle” choices, but do we really want to view them as “gifts of God?”

The problem is that “lifestyle” is a choice made in how life is lived out and, while the word itself may be judgment neutral, the choices made are not. Add to this that “lifestyle” has become a euphemism of the extreme religiously and socially conservative to diminish the essence of LGBT folk to simply a matter of choice – to dismiss the state of “being” as simply a matter of choice – to deny any Godly image in being LGBT. “Lifestyle” has become the club used by those who see no image of God in LGBT folk to oppress them and reduce their very being to that of simply making an unGodly choice. The use of the word reinforces the misunderstanding that sexuality and gender identity are always matters of choice, with no more force or difficulty than choosing how one spends their money or makes decisions on what car to drive.

The LGBT community is well aware of the dismissive nature of the “lifestyle” language, so its use in this “Albany Confession 2008” would actually send the message that is opposite, I believe, of the original intent. It changes the message from one of affirmation to negation and welcoming to dismissive. As evidenced in the 13 responses given so far on Soulforce.org, the LGBT community would perceive it as rejection not embrace. If you would consent to read more comments as they are made, I respectfully ask that you access them at http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4500. (You will have to forgive the CHOICE I made in avatars.)

I realize that my opinion may actually be a “day late and dollar short” contribution to the discussion, but I pray you will at least consider what I have said, and what the Soulforce participants want you to understand.

As yet one more image of a loving and living God responding in love to all my sisters and brothers,

Andy Little

P.S. I will be seeing some of the signers at a meeting this afternoon, and others hopefully at a dinner tomorrow evening. I will be doing my darndest to make sure this is a topic of conversation at some point. One of the signers has already contacted me and said he agrees that the change is a problem that needs to be resolved.

[tdogg]

First, I would like to point out that the revised version fails to follow in the intent of the first statement. It completely changes the context of the words and the intent. So that alone would render the revision invalid, if the intent is inclusion of all.

Next, let's address the word 'lifestyle'. Lifestyles are not gifts from God per se. They are choices people make on how to live their lives. Included in one's choice of lifestyle would be their career choices, the neighborhood they choose to live in, type of housing, whether or not to have children, pets (or not), a house full of electronic gadgets or a more simple life, whether or not to allow their children to use computers, whether to eat out or cook at home, what types of vacations to take, etc. The list is virtually endless.

Not included in lifestyles would be height, eye color (except for tinted contacts - that would be a lifestyle choice), right-handed vs. left-handed, skeletal build, taste preferences (mainly these are dependent on personality traits we are born with), talents, many health issues, hair color, sexuality. These are in-born traits, characteristics that are not due to one's life style choices. In other words, I'm not gay (a non-choice trait) because I choose to work for state government (a lifestyle choice).

That said, my choice to live out and proud and life my life with someone of the same sex is a choice. The fact that I'm attracted to this person, and am an excellent fit both physically, mentally and emotionally is not a choice. For one to use the term 'lifestyle' to describe my being gay is an insult. For those who insist they do not know better, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. You did not choose to insult me. So, now you know, don't do it again.

I think it's getting pretty clear in this world that there are labels that are not appropriate. The science (and yes if you look close enough even the religion) proves that sexuality is a characteristic and not a choice. Using words to imply that it is a choice is to ignore the very proof of our lives. In the realm of sexuality, our only difference is our sexuality. So it's time to stop considering GLBT as different, we aren't. We didn't 'choose' our sexuality the same as heterosexuals don't choose. Who we are attracted to is an inherent characteristic.

Please consider doing away with this useless revision. It will help no one, except those whose life mission is to destroy GLBT people. If you want to be inclusive, respect those whom you wish to include. Thank you and God Bless!

[andrewlittle]

Interesting state of affairs.

I received an email from the author of the "confession" who stated that the communication I originally received was in error. I was told that he may have inadvertently sent the original draft to the chair of Presbyterian Rainbow, not the final. The offending language was in the original, while the affirming language was in the final, he stated.

I won't make judgments ... but I will recite some interesting date issues.

The original version, which was the good one, was read at the presbytery meeting on Feb 2.

The copy I received in the alert, which was changed, was titled "Albany Confession 2008 Final 2(7(08.rtf"

The copy I just received, which is the one that is supposed to be the final version that was read on Feb 2, is titled ""Albany Confession 2008 Final 2 12 08.rtf". It also contains a typo, oddly enough in the section in question.

Who am I to know? But, at least, the original version is the one that is back in play - for now - I think.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

The use of the phrase "different lifestyles" makes me wonder if these allies truly understand that sexual orientation is not a choice. To have such wording in an official church document would be off-putting at best and downright offensive at worst. A person might wonder why the wording was changed from "sexual orientation and gender identity" to "different lifestyles". Was it changed to placate some of the more conservative members of the Presbytery? This wording would have a chilling effect toward the glbt community.

Amen! Being gay is not a "lifestyle"; it is part of our identities, nay our very essences. Not only that but using the term "different lifestyles" opens the door to too many things. Drunkenness is a lifestyle, and it is by no means similar to being gay, nor is it a "gift from God". Basically it makes the wrong point.

[paul]

Interesting state of affairs.

I received an email from the author of the "confession" who stated that the communication I originally received was in error. I was told that he may have inadvertently sent the original draft to the chair of Presbyterian Rainbow, not the final. The offending language was in the original, while the affirming language was in the final, he stated.

I won't make judgments ... but I will recite some interesting date issues.

The original version, which was the good one, was read at the presbytery meeting on Feb 2.

The copy I received in the alert, which was changed, was titled "Albany Confession 2008 Final 2(7(08.rtf"

The copy I just received, which is the one that is supposed to be the final version that was read on Feb 2, is titled ""Albany Confession 2008 Final 2 12 08.rtf". It also contains a typo, oddly enough in the section in question.

Who am I to know? But, at least, the original version is the one that is back in play - for now - I think.

Andy,

"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks..." eh? I love politics :D.

Nothing like a controversial issue to bring out a persons inner feelings and thoughts. We see in people the struggle to please people vs. figuring out what is right. I think there are all types of people involved in this. Some are our ardent supporters and will see things as many here have expressed. Some will land on the opposite side of the fence. Then there are the fence sitters, who are often not undecided in their hearts just in their words. They'll be made evident by the response "hey, these LBGT people are really ungrateful. Look at all we're trying to do for them and all they can do is whine." :lol:

The wording change, no matter when it took place, could represent ignorance or an attempt to fence sit on a controversial subject, or maybe both depending on the number of people involved. Either way, I'm guessing the wording will bring out peoples true feelings. Look at the effect it had here. I hope the people of your church will be as open about their thoughts and feelings as we have been. I think it's the hidden stuff that ends up being the most dangerous.

[Daniel]

Andy,

"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks..." eh? I love politics :D.


I agree....

Nothing like a controversial issue to bring out a persons inner feelings and thoughts. We see in people the struggle to please people vs. figuring out what is right.

I think it's the hidden stuff that ends up being the most dangerous.

Two salient points which are spot-on. It's what we try to keep hidden that bites us in the ass later on.


I received an email from the author of the "confession" who stated that the communication I originally received was in error. I was told that he may have inadvertently sent the original draft to the chair of Presbyterian Rainbow, not the final. The offending language was in the original, while the affirming language was in the final, he stated.

'Cover' or not, it's the right thing to do: what's that biblical verse about the one who says 'no no no, but, in the end, does the right thing anyway?' Blessed are they, right? Blessed may 'he' be.

I won't make judgments ... but I will recite some interesting date issues.

The original version, which was the good one, was read at the presbytery meeting on Feb 2.

The copy I received in the alert, which was changed, was titled "Albany Confession 2008 Final 2(7(08.rtf"

The copy I just received, which is the one that is supposed to be the final version that was read on Feb 2, is titled ""Albany Confession 2008 Final 2 12 08.rtf". It also contains a typo, oddly enough in the section in question.

Who am I to know? But, at least, the original version is the one that is back in play - for now - I think.

Take it from me- who's had to act as editor: typo's are a dead give-a-way that something's up- or was up- or has been ignored. That said the author could have gotten his versions confused and sent out the wrong doc: these things do and have happened. I've done it myself- more than once! And anyone who reads my posts will note how I edit virtually all of them for spelling etc. Mistakes are made. What's important is that - for now at least- this huge faux pas has been corrected- even thought the dates of the docs are confusing.

All the flack here? It just show that words really do matter. And I'm tickled that the affirming version is now back in play.

Way to go Andy!

[Vanessa White]

I am so glad for the "error", if that is indeed, what it was. However, I am cautiously optimistic that the newest format, the inclusive language, will remain that way. I feel so guarded at times when these things happen, even though I know they happen and can be honest mistakes at times. If is was not an error, but a way to cover an error in judgment, perhaps, my hope is that is will give pause to those who had less inclusive ideas about the language to know that it affects many people, and that there are those that ARE paying attention.

Thanks for the update, Andrew. :love:

[tymejumper]

The use of the phrase "different lifestyles" makes me wonder if these allies truly understand that sexual orientation is not a choice. To have such wording in an official church document would be off-putting at best and downright offensive at worst. A person might wonder why the wording was changed from "sexual orientation and gender identity" to "different lifestyles". Was it changed to placate some of the more conservative members of the Presbytery? This wording would have a chilling effect toward the glbt community.



I would love to know whoes idea it was to change things. I have just had my love for my soulmate moved down in par to living a selected lifestyle, such as 'adventurous' life, the 'good' life the 'religious' life or the 'white supremisist' life. The problem here we have a lot of ignorance going on. They obviously need a bit of education starting with the fact that a 'lifestyle' is a choice one engages in upon reaching adulthood, and not one that you are born into. You can be born rich, but not live the rich lifestyle until you are an adult and you have the means to follow the rich lifestyle.

It is a pattern of behavior that is chosen and fits into a certain criterion. Gay and lesbian love does not fit into a specific and certain criterion, because if it did, all of our stories would be the same and have the same identifiers in them. They do not, so therefore we can't be classified.

How very sad they are seeking to minimize love on this basis, to keep the peace in the church and by closing their doors to gay individuals.

[mdhesswriter]

These two positions concerning the nature of wording lie behind the use of Aristotelian logic. This is logic of (linguistic) terms, which express (mental) concepts, which represent (real) essences, or the nature of things. Many modern religionests are suspicious and skeptical of the venerable and commonsense notion of things having real essences or natures and of our ability to know them. Aristotelian logic assumes the existence of essences and are ability to know them, for its basic units are terms, which express concepts, which express essences. But modern symbolic laungage does not assume what religionests call metaphysical realism (that essences are real), but implicitly assumes instead metaphysical nominalism (that essences are names, human labels), since its basic units are not terms but propositions. Then it relates these propositions in argumentative structures just as a computer can do: if p, then q; p; therefore q.

The human mind is indeed a computer--we do compute, after all--but it is much more than that. We can also "see", or understand. Behind the use of Aristotelian logic is our hope that all our arguing will begin and end with seeing and insight. Thus, we usually begin by defining terms and end by trying to bring the listener to the point of seeing objective reality as it is.

I do not believe reason should usurp the primacy of faith, hope and love. I agree with classical Christian orthodoxy as expressed in medieval formulas like (fides quaerens intellectum), faith seeking understanding and (credo ut intelligam), I believe in order that I may understand. That is to say that when faith comes first, understanding follows, and aided by faith's tutelage. But I also agree with the classical position's contention that many of the things God has revealed to us to be believed, such as His own existence and some of His attributes, can be proved by human reason.

However, we must not naively identify objective rationality with subjective rationality. Truth is objective, but people usually are not. We are obviously living in a fallen world, not a perfect world, where people's exercise of reason is expressed in various forms of irrationality. An argument that is in itself perfectly rational and valid will often fall on ears deafened by prejudice, passion, ignorance, misunderstanding, imcomprehension or ideology.

The last of these is especially dangerous today. People seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, like "straight" or "homosexual", or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or with vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness.

We need not and should not employ any of these substitutes for reason in order to maake contact with or be relevant to those who are doing so. We make contact and relevance not by changing rationality into irrationality but changing irrationality into rationality. That is what education is. That is the goal of this post.

[Zerbie]

These two positions concerning the nature of wording lie behind the use of Aristotelian logic.

This was an intro to a topic I've had no exposure to. I am now so curious as to your educational and professional background!


. An argument that is in itself perfectly rational and valid will often fall on ears deafened by prejudice, passion, ignorance, misunderstanding, imcomprehension or ideology.

The last of these is especially dangerous today.

Definitely. Have you any theories as to how or why rigid ideology seems to have such a dominant position in our society today? It's my impression that this phenomenon is relatively new, perhaps the past decade or two? I'm young enough that I have no good basis for comparing the present to a generation ago, except by the vaguest of early memories.



People seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, like "straight" or "homosexual", or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with,

Hmmm, well I freely admit to that one. I do consider very strongly in my choices what group of people my choice will associate me with. If I see a lot of angry, negative, violent people on one "side" of an issue, and gentle, caring, positive people on the other, guess how that sways me?

or with vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness.

To play devil's advocate, how are we supposed to perceive a reality that lies outside our consciousness?

I think I could agree with you about the importance of what you're holding up here, but the statement is abstract enough that I don't know if I've understood you. I would like to relate it to an example to get a better idea of what you mean, and how a reality outside our consciousness can influence our belief. Maybe this kind of conversation has its basis in philosophy or logic classes, neither of which I have ever had.



We need not and should not employ any of these substitutes for reason in order to maake contact with or be relevant to those who are doing so.

Ah, gotcha. Understood.

However, I DO take into account the kind of company I keep in any situation, and I do not think that's a consideration that should ever be dispensed with. I wonder if you and I actually agree, but I'm perceiving your point differently than you meant it to read. ?

We make contact and relevance not by changing rationality into irrationality but changing irrationality into rationality. That is what education is. That is the goal of this post.

I SO want to know if you are from academia, and what field? Would you mind sharing?

[Daniel]

The last of these is especially dangerous today. People seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, like "straight" or "homosexual", or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or with vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness.

Oh....I'm playing here somewhat, but the Buddhist in me wants to point out that, from a certain perspective, one might say that everything is consciousness: that ideas and consciousness are inseparable. That said, what I hear you saying is that we are not trained to be self-aware, either of our thoughts, impulses and motivations. We drift along, being pulled and repelled by the tide around us, which, in its shallowest form, is the stuff of Entertainment Tonight.

And like Zerbie, I'm curious: retired professor, right? Or autodidact extraordinaire?

[BrianB]

I SO want to know if you are from academia, and what field? Would you mind sharing?

Having been engaged to a philosophy professor at one time; I believe this person is also a philosophy professor. The deductive logic is a dead give-away.:reading: Please correct me if I'm wrong.:)

[Zerbie]

Having been engaged to a philosophy professor at one time; I believe this person is also a philosophy professor. The deductive logic is a dead give-away.:reading: Please correct me if I'm wrong.:)

:lol:

That's my (premature?) guess, based on the one post above. :p But, I don't think I've ever even MET a philosophy prof, so it's a real blind guess from my end.

[mdhesswriter]

I was once a seminary professor of theolgy. Because I was gay I was ousted by the Catholic Church.

[mdhesswriter]

Sometimes my memory gets me in trouble. I had to search my library to see if I might have remembered something I had read previously. I could not find this intro, but with a photographic memory it is very well possible that I may have borrowed something from it as it seems that I remember doing a reseach project based on this subject matter about three years ago.

[Zerbie]

Sometimes my memory gets me in trouble. I had to search my library to see if I might have remembered something I had read previously. I could not find this intro, but with a photographic memory it is very well possible that I may have borrowed something from it as it seems that I remember doing a reseach project based on this subject matter about three years ago.

Thanks.

You mentioned a lot of topics - which one is the one you remember doing research on??

[Daniel]

I was once a seminary professor of theolgy. Because I was gay I was ousted by the Catholic Church.

Their loss. ;)