CA Baptist congregation changes view on homosexuality after pastor’s son comes out

[DonViejo]

By David Edwards
Monday, June 2, 2014 11:56 EDT

A church in California has decided to reject the Southern Baptist Convention’s official position on homosexuality after a pastor told members that his son was gay.

In a letter to Christianity with Humanity blogger John Shore last week, New Heart Community Church pastor Danny Cortez explained how a conversation about Macklemore’s pro-LGBT song ”Same Love” had prompted his son to come out to him last fall.

Shore told his son that he had change his views on homosexuality just months before.

“I couldn’t help but think that my 15 year journey was in preparation for that moment,” he wrote. “If it wasn’t for this 15 year journey and my change in theology, I may have destroyed my son through reparative therapy.”

After telling his congregation that he no longer believed homosexuality was a sin, the congregation voted on May 19 not to dismiss Cortez. Instead, the church members elected to become a “Third Way” church that withholds judgement against LGBT members.

“So now, we will accept the LGBT community even though they may be in a relationship,” he explained. “We will choose to remain the body of Christ and not cast judgement. We will work towards graceful dialogue in the midst of theological differences.”

But many members of the church refused to accept the decision, and plan to “peacefully” separate from the church on June 8.

Cortez’s letter comes just days before the the Southern Baptist Convention could vote to exclude New Heart Community Church at its scheduled in Baltimore later this week. According to the official Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the convention in 2000, “Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography.”

The convention’s Constitution states that “churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior.”

For his part, Cortez said that he hopes for reconciliation with the church.

“I pray that the church will no longer be segregated,” he explained. “I pray that those who have been marginalized would feel safe in our churches. I pray that we as the church would set aside our difference and learn what it means to be the body of Christ.”

Watch a coming out video by Pastor Cortez’s son, Drew.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/02/ca-baptist-congregation-changes-view-on-homosexuality-after-pastors-son-comes-out/

Watch Pastor Cortez explain how he came to believe homosexuality was not a sin.

###

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/02/ca-baptist-congregation-changes-view-on-homosexuality-after-pastors-son-comes-out/

Posted with permission

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Better late than never.

“I pray that those who have been marginalized would feel safe in our churches."

'I pray that those I was actively marginalizing will feel safe in my church.'
Fixed that for him.


Curious why anyone would go to him now for guidance/support? What for? He had untruth/bigotry to offer until a personal experience in his own family showed him the truth. That didn't come from his ability to teach his faith. That didn't come from his faith itself. It came from his family. Interpersonal relationships.

His faith wasn't just silent on it, the church organization speaks with authority, and they've got it wrong. Clearly, blatantly wrong.


What else do they have wrong? What do they have 'right'? Based on what?

[trotsky]

2. I'm encouraged whenever real world experience trumps religious dogma.

I think that is one huge area where we as a species need improvement.

But as you note, that's a regular Pandora's box for many of the faithful. If we were wrong about X, what else could we be wrong about? Unfortunately far too few seem to be willing to pursue that line of thinking.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. I still find it discouraging that it takes a personal experience to spark such a conversion...

Seriously, are these people empathetically stunted, or what?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. I think this is the effect Hitchens was talking about

when he said that to convince good people to do wicked things, that takes religion.

We can argue all day over whether any particular religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and whether it did it right or whether this is a Christian thing, or an Abrahamic thing, etc


but in THIS case, in THAT faith/church, it was religious doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, and people engaged in it are sinners, and if not for the happenstance that this man's child is gay, he could have labored on for quite some time continuing to teach that it was a sin.

And that is incredibly discouraging. Random fortune led this man to the truth, not his faith, not his god, not his religion. Random chance. Introspection. Reason.

This story is a prime example why I am quite thrilled that people are starting to walk away from faith. I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it until proven wrong:

Faith tells you nothing about the universe, nor your place in it.

[okasha]

12. Read more carefully.

Cortez says he changed his views a few months before his son came out to him. I would guess that of the members who voted to become a Third Way church, many had already come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a sin and took the opportunity to act on their convictions. Others probably did change their minds when they realized that someone they new and respected. That's human nature.

As to why snyone should trust this pastor--Christianity has a long history of valuing the testimony of a repentant sinner. Paul, for instance.

[trotsky]

13. True.

Christianity has a long history of valuing the testimony of a repentant sinner. Paul, for instance.

Jimmy Swaggart, for another.

On edit: In addition, I'd like to say that there is no reason to snidely tell someone to "read more carefully" here, since even the blog post that has a lot more detail doesn't make it clear that he didn't know his son was gay before he came out.

Could very well be he figured it out, then went soul-searching and dropped that hint to his son about the song as a way of getting him to confirm what he suspected (and thankfully came to accept).

[cbayer]

3. Love to see this kind of thing.

It's much harder to maintain bigotry when you find out someone you love deeply is part of the group you hate.

Good for him and I hope this will encourage other congregations to do the same.

[libodem]

4. That is what I wanted to say

But you did it for me. Thank you.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. What do we do with sources that claim the right to be arbiters of morality, when proven wrong?

I tend to never trust that source again.

What about you? Irrespective of whether religion or some other thing, like Politics.

[cbayer]

8. I have a great deal of respect for people that reexamine their positions

and are able to change them.

It's rigidity and dogma that I reject.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. What is the source of the idea that 'homosexuality is a sin' if not rigidity/dogma?

This is essentially what religions provide, mostly (but with a few exceptions) yes? 'Revealed truth' about moral positions, yes?

Religion(s) may also provide other things, but this seems to be their primary function in practice.

Do this. Don't do this. God said so.

The do/don't list varies by religion, only.

[cbayer]

10. It is rigidity and dogma and I reject it.

The do/don't do list is highly variable, individualized and can change throughout the course of one's life.

I'm not getting your point at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Why have these variable group lists at all?

I would like to see individuals manage their own morals by way of reason. Compassion. Empathy. Experience.

Rather than be handed something to believe in, part and parcel of 'faith'...

[cbayer]

14. Most people do manage their own morals by way of reason.

And everyone, religious or not, draws on various sources and experiences to manage them.

Some people draw and build on their compassion and empathy from their faith and beliefs.

What the hell difference should it make to you? Why are you so driven to have it come from elsewhere if it is expressed in a positive way? What in the world to you hope to gain?

This man's denomination "handed" him something that he decided he didn't want. He didn't have to abandon his faith or beliefs to embrace a new personal morality. In fact, he drew upon it.

[okasha]

15. That's his own version of "saved."

NT

[cbayer]

16. I know, and I just don't get it.

[okasha]

17. It's the atheist mutation of Calvinism.

What you do doesn't matter. It's what you don't believe that's important.

I don't get it, either.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. That's precisely the opposite of what I've stated, many times.

Your claim there is either a lie, or ignorant. I don't care which, just please stop doing it.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. I've explained it many times.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. No, I want people to stop hurting themselves, and others.

like when they tell people that being attracted to someone of the same gender is a 'sin'.
Or telling a terminally ill person in massive pain that suicide is a 'sin' and therefore choosing the hour of their own passing is not allowed by force of law.
Or telling people that abortion is a sin, and then working to eliminate abortion providers, require hospital admittance privs, or pretend contraceptives might have an abortifacient effect, to reduce availability.


Take all that shit off the table, and you can talk to your imaginary friend to your heart's content, and I'll never make a peep. It bothers me when I see people destroying themselves, or worst, destroying other people in the name of faith based doctrine.



You could just ask me, instead of making shit up.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I am very concerned about the propagation od bad ideas that have a fake guise of credibility.

So the scope/reach of a church is of concern.
Then there's the level of credibility the 'believer' invests in the data being conveyed.

There are no universal absolutes here, but I have observed a fair number of people that turn off that 'is this reliable/credible/moral' circuit we use all time every day, when touching on this sort of material.

It goes, with most Christians I know, to the heart of the whole Christian ideal, including but not limited to scapegoating, upon which the whole idea is built.

[cbayer]

22. One of the problems here is that you think you know what the bad

ideas and good ideas are and what is credible and not credible.

You have no more standing to do this than anyone else.

What someone believes or doesn't believe is a highly personal decision. You don't wish to be judged by others, but it sometimes seems you don't understand that others ask for only the same thing.

It has been shown many times that the christians you apparently know are not truly representative of so much of what is out there. But you continue to draw conclusions based on those apparently unfortunate interactions.

Why don't you just take people at face value and stop trying to get them to see the light…. your light.

I think what Okasha says about calvinism in regards to your approach to others rings true.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. I think it is objectively obvious that homosexuality isn't a sin.

Do you agree or disagree?

I'm judged by others by their values all the time. I accept that. But I will challenge their values. Such as, if they hold homosexuality to be a sin. That's a value I will challenge every time. Do you think I am in error in taking that position? I am happy to enumerate the objective reasons I take that position.

"It has been shown many times that the christians you apparently know are not truly representative of so much of what is out there."
I agree it is not UNIVERSAL, but I disagree with your assertion/degree of here. In fact, did you watch the video of the pastor explaining his background, in 'traditional' Christian theology, and where he relied upon that to tell people, real live human beings, that what they were doing with their sexuality was a sin?

That man is a perfect template for the Christians I know, on this subject. Do you seriously think he's an exception or aberration?


"Why don't you just take people at face value and stop trying to get them to see the light…. your light."

Because they are harming people. My friends. My family. I don't back down when I see people inflicting harm upon other humans.

This pastor counseled people that what they were, at their core, was a sin. Counseled them to deny their sexuality. In this video, he drops his walls, and discusses what he did, in his own words, what he did to people. He harmed them.

That's vile. Commendable that he has reversed course. But all that harm he did. What else is he harming people on? It took him 16 years to trip to the truth here.

That's abysmal. Horrifying. His own words, incalculable misery and suffering. His own words. He was wrong. He lied to them. He hurt them.


Suggested they go to reparative therapy. Do you know what went on at Exodus International? What they did to people? The people that killed themselves.


I don't know if I should scream at my computer, or wipe away tears listening to this shit.

[okasha]

24. There is no such thing

as an act that "objectively is (or objectively is not) a sin." The notion of what is or is not a sin is completely culture-bound. My faith has never claimed that homosexuality is a sin, but would not countance a marriage between my fellow-lesbian cousin and me because it would constitute incest under our clan system. (Fortunately, all possibility of a romance died when she pushed me off a swing into a rosebush when we were seven.)

What I'm hearing here is that an "objectively" defined "sin" is whatever you disapprove of. That's really no different than the fundamentalist's version. It's a closed loop: "It's wrong because I believe it's wrong because it's wrong."

Now, does homophobia harm people? It harms both LGBTs and homophobes. We can work through both education and legislation to put a stop to the harm it does. But what you seem to want is thought police. It's not enough for you that someone do the compassionate, empathetic thing. S/he has to do it for whatever reason you consider it good

And at the end of that line of thought lies the Inquisition.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Please, sure, self ownership leads to the inquisition.

Yeah, tell me another funny one.

Let's see, a sexuality option expressed as pair bonds in not just humans, but tens of thousands of species, planet-wide.
A pair bond that requires no coercion, no force.
Mutually consensual.


That's all I need. Homosexuality doesn't violate self-ownership, and doesn't violate non-aggression. Done. Can't be a sin. You see, there's no harm in it, to any party. (And it's perfectly natural in a predictable percentage of the population, but that isn't even necessary)


Objectively not a 'sin' by any measure. Not by what 'I disapprove of'. Keep flogging that horse, but it ain't gonna carry you anywhere.

[okasha]

26. Nope.

It leads to the Inquisition only when someone--you, for instance--decides that desirable action must be tied to correct thinking, or it doesn't count. That's where you infringe on someone else's "self ownership. "

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Oh, drop the bullshit.

The pastor in the OP, in his own words, caused "incalculable misery and suffering" for 16 years among the people who trusted him for guidance, and also were gay.

We're not talking 'correct thinking'. I don't give a shit what goes on inside his head. I care what he did to other people. Harm he led other people directly to.


It's not a matter of self ownership for me to point out that he has no moral basis from which to preach, to hurt people, to lead them to hating themselves. During that period he inculcated the very fear his son expressed to him. Did you watch the video? Did you see what he admitted to?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Here's the thing.

My entire life, I've been a stone cold atheist. Never even questioned it. Not once. It's always been bullshit to me. But that's not the greatest advantage I view myself as having.

I realize I'm different. That I had a crucial advantage over my peers.



I have never doubted my self worth, self purpose, and self identity. Not for a second. It's something quite apart from being an atheist or a believer. It influences my perspective in ways, and it probably is the mechanism that kept me an atheist my whole life, because by my nature I don't seek supernatural affirmation. I don't seek 'why', it's a meaningless question to me. I MAKE 'why'. Always have.



When I hear that pastor speak of his own son, I hear the same refrain I've always heard from people in that position. They were made to doubt themselves. To doubt their value. To think they are broken, that they don't live up to expectations. Forget living up to your parent's expectations, imagine being convinced that you are horribly short of an ideal, an ideal you cannot match or meet, and that being so puts you in a state of disapproval from something even more inimical than your parents. Something that knows what you are inside, your every move, that judges you, and that made you and can unmake you.

That is pretty much the most vicious lie I can imagine convincing anyone of, ever. What a horrible, self-destructive thing to inflict on someone. To make them tear themselves down with their own fears and doubts, by constructing an artificial standard that requires them to deny their own nature.

If someone like that pastor, for the 16 years he regurgitated hate to credulous, unarmed, unprepared victims, had gotten ahold of me before I built the defense mechanisms that I hold today, it might have destroyed me.

I 'count my blessings' every day, that people of 'faith' failed to reach me, growing up. That they left me alone, missed me, as I became everything I am capable of reaching for.


When that pastor details how he tore people down, I know, I am one of the luckiest few.

It's nice that he's apparently grown. At least on this one, singular issue. He alluded to some other areas where he still harms people, but on this issue, he's apparently grown, and bully for him on that. But it's not enough. He could spend the rest of his life trying to atone for those 16 years of doubt and fear and self hatred he sowed. You can't take that back. You can never un-do it. You can't give those people back their peace of mind. Years of self confidence. Years of self worth. The past is fixed. I wish him well for the future, but I would caution ANY human to avoid his advice like the plague. He is no authority. I wouldn't trust him alone, to build up my child today. Not after he spent nearly two decades tearing people down.

[okasha]

29. Oh, wow.

PRI.
VI.
LEGE.

Let's see.

Pastor Cortez has questioned himself, found himself wanting and changed.

You have never questioned yourself, never found yourself wanting and apparently can't even imagine a need to change.

Mind-boggling.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Reading comprehension.

I said self-worth. Not fallibility. I'm wrong all the time. I learn and relearn things all the time. Self worth, purpose, none of these are related to fallibility.


What I don't do is spend 16 years representing myself as an authority, instructing people that their nature is sin, that god holds them to be sinners, wrong, flawed, and all the terrible synonyms of sin.

16 years sowing hate and self-doubt. 16 years devaluing people. People commit suicide over this stuff. People go to reparation therapy, which is nothing of the sort, and break themselves, at HIS behest. He admits it in the video. He encouraged people to that non-therapy bullshit.

He can't walk that back. He can never repair that. Maybe he can go forward and harm no more (on this issue) but damage is done.

That's vile.

[cbayer]

31. Oh, I'd put money on the screaming at your computer

as opposed to wiping away tears.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. It does piss me off.

I don't think that pastor sees it. Oh sure, he breaks down talking about his son. Fair.

None of that for the people he mis-counseled for almost two decades. I don't think even now, he understands what he did.

[cbayer]

33. Should we stone him

or support his move in the right direction?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Oh boy, another strawman.

I SAID good for him. But I encourage other people not to use him as an authority/moral counselor going forward. 16 years is too long to be hurting people before figuring it out.

And as I said earlier, he alluded to other issues he's still hurting people on.

[cbayer]

35. Well, I would encourage people to look to him for the kind of person

I would strive to be.

Someone who can re-examine their positions and make changes, even if they involve significant consequences.

If he still hold positions that are hurting people, I have much more hope for someone like him changing than I do someone who sticks rigidly to a position no matter what, even if I agree with their position.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I'll change my position on a dime if the evidence shows I'm wrong.

Easy peasy. I have no rigid ideologies.


Except 'seeking the truth' if you want to call that an ideology.


Again, that man spent 16 years believing he was a moral authority on this issue. 16 years. Coaxed people into reparative therapy.


""...(reparative therapy) " can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." American Academy of Pediatrics, 1993."

""Many people who try this treatment tend to be desperate, very unhappy and don't know other gay people. I see people who've been very hurt by this. They spend years trying to change and are told they aren't trying hard enough."" Jack Drescher is a New York psychiatrist and chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues.

There's whole memorials full of stories like this one:

"Stuart Matis

Age: 32
Los Altos, California

Suicide
February 25, 2000

He was raised a devout Mormon. His church told him his homosexuality was wrong and he was advised to undergo reparative therapy. He committed suicide and wrote in his note that he hoped his church would learn to accept homosexuals."

[trotsky]

37. Apparently you don't get it, AC.

It's not what this pastor did, and millions of others continue to do, because of their religion and religious beliefs.

No, the big problem is that you're not positive and congratulatory enough posting about his change of heart on an anonymous message board.

Understand now?

[AtheistCrusader]

38. That, and he continues to do it for physician assited suicide, etc.

But you know, all better now right?


If I spent 16 years purporting to be a moral authority on an issue, and counseled people into self-harm, and then saw the light? I'd hang up my hat or whatever he has, and find a different line of work, because it would be clearly demonstrable that I am no moral authority at all.

I'd probably spend a lot of time tracking down the people I'd harmed too, hoping to repair some of the damage, and hoping not to find dead people, destroyed by my own advice.

[cbayer]

39. I think the gentlemen may protest too much.

Your ideologies are very rigid. You are young and that is not unexpected.

You will change over time, at least I hope you will.

And when the change comes, I predict it will be because you discover that your methods aren't working all that well.

Here is some truth for you - people's religious beliefs or lack of beliefs are highly personal and individualized. You found your path in your own way and that path is (hopefully) not a dead end. If is works for you, that's great. I hope you will come to realize that others have found a different path that works for them.

You may hold some beliefs at this time that harm others. For example, your position on guns may be shown to be extremely harmful to others. You may hold this position for 16 years and work actively to support them.

Then, one day, perhaps due to a very personal experience, you may change that position.

Should you be condemned for the position you held for 16 years that caused immeasurable harm to others? Or should your be supported and and congratulated for having finally seen the light?

Now, I understand that you are not going to accept this analogy, because you are apparently as passionate (or is that dogmatic?) about your position on guns as you are about your position on religion, but I am going to maintain that the analogy is valid.

[trotsky]

40. Wow.

You never cease to amaze.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Did I condemn him?

No. There's that strawman again. That's an awfully squishy word to be slinging. I suppose the third definition applies sort of. I did call him vile, and I do encourage any human that encounters him to divest themselves of any notion that he could be considered a reliable authority on any subject at all.


My position on guns is quite harmful to others, if others attempt to injure me or mine. Otherwise it is in keeping with the letter of the law in the Constitution, and I encourage the people as a whole to re-evaluate if that position warrants revision. I also encourage a great number of increased regulations.

So, no, I think your analogy is nonsense.


(Also, it's 'The lady (sub; gentleman) doth protest too much, methinks'.)