Pastor on Trial: Congregation standing behind embattled gay minister at the oldest Lutheran church in Atlanta
Posted on January 21st, 2007 by Diogenes into the Uncategorized categoryA minister who disclosed that he was gay before Atlanta's oldest Lutheran church hired him as its pastor could now be defrocked for announcing that he has a partner.
The Rev. Bradley Schmeling was chosen in 2000 to lead St. John's, though some expressed concern that his sexuality could threaten its standing with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. But last year, when Schmeling announced that he had found a lifelong companion, the 350-member congregation threw a party for him and his partner.
Bishop Ronald Warren of the denomination's Southeastern Synod, however, asked Schmeling, 44, to resign. When Schmeling refused, Warren started disciplinary proceedings against him for violating church rules barring sex outside of marriage.
So if it is a case against fornication, then what is going to be their position if they are forced by the legislature to marry homosexuals in their church, or face anti-discrimination laws?
RSS feed for posts
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:59 am
I think the government should stop regulating the religious practice of marriage and replace it with a state/federally recognized institution of civil union. The state could then regulate civil unions however they wished without stepping on the toes of religious institutions. Religious groups could then observe and practice marriage without interference from the government, and define it however they wish.
This accomplishes three things. It allows the separation of church and state in the religious institution of marriage. It provides for the legal framework necessary for people to engage in a legally binding relationship that provides the rights, benefits, and obligations of traditional marriage licenses. It allows for the definition of civil unions to be as broad as society requires.
I think that anyone who wishes to enter into a life-long “oath” of mutual support should be able to do so and have the same rights as married couples. And in doing so they should have the same rights: health care, hospital visitation, joint-ownership of property, inheritance, tax benefits, child care, etc.
David and Jonathan swore an oath to each other that to them was just as binding as the marriage covenant. Even though Jonathan’s lame son was technically heir to the throne, rather than kill him, he made a place for him in his family and he ate at the royal table. That oath transcended death and provided for the family of Jonathan.
Rather than have the state redefine marriage, let’s just call it what it is, a legal contract, and stop trying to impose the morals of a few upon the whole.