Outrage

I attend a Lutheran congregation in north Minneapolis, one that belongs to the church body I work for. It's large but not huge. The senior pastor has made himself visible in the media for a number of years as a critic of the liberal church, and of modern trends such as universalism, women's ordination, higher criticism of the Bible, and the normalization of homosexuality. He is a single man.

Last night, while watching local news on television, I discovered that he'd been “outed” as a homosexual.

He was not discovered in a “gay” bar. He was not discovered having sex with another man in a public rest room.

According to the news accounts I've seen (emanating from liberal sources) he was discovered attending a support and accountability group in a Roman Catholic church. He was speaking honestly, to men he trusted, about his struggles, slips, and temptations.

In other words, he was doing precisely what people on our side of the argument say a man in his situation ought to do. He is the very opposite of a hypocrite.

On the basis of the accounts I've read, the “journalist” who produced the story infiltrated this accountability group, lied about his purposes, and then broke the promise of confidentiality he made to get in.

The television story pretended to be a high-minded think piece about whether it's ever appropriate to “out” someone against their wishes.

I don't believe that was the real purpose of the story. I believe it was to splash my pastor's picture all over TV screens in our state, with a metaphorical scarlet letter on his chest.

My pastor has my full support, and my prayers. God bless him, and all godly men in his situation.

Comments

[Mairnéalach]

Most people (Christians included... most notably teenage Christians, I have found) conveniently forget: Jesus actually commanded his followers to obey the hypocritical Pharisees' instructions. Because those hypocrites actually knew what they were talking about... they just failed to practice it themselves. As a non-hypocrite, it sounds like people could in good conscience not only practice what your pastor preached, but also practice what he practiced as well.

[Margaret]

May God bless this pastor who hungers and thirsts after righteousness. He's plunged right into the heart of the Beatitudes with nothing under his feet but God's promises, and great is his reward.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

As a journalist, I am ashamed of my profession.

Oh, that's right: I should be.

[Matt]

I don't think this was ethical journalism, no matter how hostile Tom Brock has been to the gay community. It's sad, though, that most of these angry homophobes do appear to be bisexual or closet homosexuals. They're obviously tortured by their orientation and turn their confusion and self-hatred onto the gay community. I hope this man heals, but this is probably a life-long wound for him.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Matt, it could be that the pastor's stand on allowing the normalization of same-sex attraction, even glorifying it flows from a knowledge that such normalization is harmful to those who struggle with the problem. Perhaps it is out of love for himself and others who experience the same pain that he chooses to oppose the policies that will only make the wound permanent in many peoples souls and keep them from salvation. He realizes that one's sexual passions do not define who a person is and are not to be encouraged in anyone.

Opposition to sin and the effects of sin does not mean one is 'hostile' to the persons caught in sin and perversion.

Your post reveals that you tend to accept the liberal assumption that homosexuality is just another normal choice among many to statisfy one's sexual urges. A perilous assumption to accept. It is at odds with both the Bibilcal teaching on the matter and our the way in which God created us.

In any rational society, the 'reporter's' story would never have been approved by his editor and he would have been subjected to disciplin and possible dismissal. The reported violated the man, the organization, his profession, his employer and the rest of us.

He was not seeking the truth, but seeking to destroy an his act was one of malicious intent. The story nothing but what I call a factual lie. That is, using facts a story is concocted to fit into the precepts of a false ideology.

I pray for the pastor and his church.

[Fearsome Tycoon]

On the basis of the accounts I've read, the “journalist” who produced the story infiltrated this accountability group, lied about his purposes, and then broke the promise of confidentiality he made to get in.

In the real world, we call that "hypocrisy."

[Margaret]

Or perhaps "treachery."

[David Gray]

>I don't think this was ethical journalism, no matter how hostile Tom Brock has been to the gay community.

Why refer to a collection of rebels against God who revel in their sexual perversion a "community"? I suppose the Mafia is a "community" as well but there are reasons why don't use the word to refer to them, or the KKK, in that fashion. Those reasons apply here as well.

[John FB]

If Mr. Brock is simply trying to live according to his values, that doesn't make him a hypocrite. None of us live the values we profess 100% of the time, anyhow (unless we profess no values at all).

Perhaps if Mr. Brock were a bit less dramatic in his approach towards other same-sex attracted individuals (and that's what he is, after all), there would have been less of an interest towards tearing him down. However, when he essentially blamed a MN tornado on the ELCA's tolerance of gays, I could see how some might have considered that scapegoating. What's the point of saying such a thing unless you are attempting to generate hatred towards an entire group of people?

[Ian]

I am sorry that your pastor's confidentiality was betrayed, but at least it was revealed that he is a good man who puts God before himself. He is in my prayers, as are all of my brothers and sisters who want to serve God in spite of a culture that is hostile to them.

[Maggie]

"What's the point of saying such a thing unless you are attempting to generate hatred towards an entire group of people?"

Oh, I don't know, maybe for the sake of calling sin what it is - Sin. And pointing out what Scripture is pretty darn clear over: sometimes God, in his Mercy and Grace and in His righteous hatred of those cancers that destroy our souls, brings judgement on us because of it. Kyrie Eleison.

[John FB]

Maggie writes: "God, in his Mercy and Grace and in His righteous hatred of those cancers that destroy our souls, brings judgement on us because of it."

So are you suggesting that all natural disasters are a reflection of Divine anger, or just some?

If all, why bother aiding the victims of Hurricane Katrina or the earthquake in Haiti? After all, they're being justly punished for their sins, right? If just some of them are, how do you tell which ones? I can't discern a pattern in the destruction: tornados and other tragedies destroy the rigidly conservative churches as well as the most liberal.

If these are signs, Maggie, I'm not really able to determine the message. Wouldn't God make it more evident if they were forms of punishment?

[David]

Q: If all, why bother aiding the victims of Hurricane Katrina or the earthquake in Haiti?

A: Christianity

[Lars Walker]

Personally, I'm on record in this space as saying I think the Minneapolis tornado was a sign from God. When was the last time Minneapolis had a tornado downtown? How about never? I don't think natural disasters are always signs, but when a major church body spits in God's face and defies His Word, they shouldn't be surprised to get some special attention.

[John FB]

Lars writes: "I think the Minneapolis tornado was a sign from God."

Fair enough. I'm sure your feelings are shared by many.

Here's my question: why is it that God seems to manifest his anger through natural disasters only when He's upset about gays?

Adultery is forbidden in Scripture (it's even mentioned in the Ten Commandments), and also, "God hates divorce" (malachi 2:16). Yet, I've never heard anyone suggest that a trailer park was tossed by a tornado into a creek because God was irritated about the high number of divorces or the fornication being committed by heterosexuals.

Why is that? Is it that these offenses are simply so common that God (or we) are simply immune to it by now?

[Kamilla]

" Yet, I've never heard anyone suggest that a trailer park was tossed by a tornado into a creek because God was irritated about the high number of divorces or the fornication being committed by heterosexuals."

And herewith John FB shows his snobbery.

Kamilla

[David Gray]

>Here's my question: why is it that God seems to manifest his anger through natural disasters only when He's upset about gays?

Who said that?

Your postings are frivolous, consider you will have to answer for foolish words that emanate from you.

[Clifford Simon]

"Here's my question: why is it that God seems to manifest his anger through natural disasters only when He's upset about gays?"

Well, that's easy! Here are a couple of non-gay disaster theories from the usual suspects:

>>"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad."<<
- Jerry Falwell, referring to 9/11

>>"They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another"<<
- Pat Robertson

For myself, I am skeptical that the faculties of reason and faith can discern the particular reasons behind particular events of God's discipline. Scripture call upon our faculties to discern the general reasons behind general events of God's discipline, to lead us to particular repentance. But I admit that the particulars game is a game that can be played (and that it must sometimes result in calling bad plays, but that's part of the game)... and I'd love to know, in fact, what disaster hit California in 1970 as discipline for no-fault divorce.

[joe]

Sad and telling story. Having same-sex attractions is not the same as being gay. Even framing the story that way, remotely, gives the ground to the gay community. So while secularists consider this an "outing," it is nothing of the sort. Are we all required to spill our fantasies and thought-life to the world?

I know several men who have struggled with SSA who are successfully, happily married. I think there are far more than we know of, simply because it is embarrassing in our society to be up front about such things. News flash: your desires do not determine your identity. Period. If they do, we should either embrace or burn all pedophiles, right? Secular thinking on sex is nothing short of enslavement. Telling people they have to be gay is a crime, and is one reason the social movement towards embracing gay marriage is such a tragedy.

[Matt]

>>So are you suggesting that all natural disasters are a reflection of Divine anger, or just some?<<

One could equally argue that the predictable outing of rabid homophobes is a reflection of Divine anger. As a result, the popular public perception is now that anyone who viciously condemns gays is almost certainly a closet homosexual, and it's only a matter of time before he's outed.

(Note: I don't believe God who "makes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust" orders any of the unpleasant events in a fit of pique.)

[Clifford Simon]

Everyone is tempted to wish Divine anger selectively, on the sins real or imagined of someone else. True divine discipline is applied upon all.

[Clifford Simon]

"My son, despiseth not the chastening of the lord; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delights."

[Maggie]

@ Clifford -

Exactly. The righteous discipline and judgement of God may fall just as easily on me and mine as it may on others.

It gets dangerous when we say, however, that God does not or cannot judge through some kind of natural disaster - since it seems clear in Scripture that He can and has.

[David Gray]

>True divine discipline is applied upon all.

Tell that to Ananias and Sapphira...

[John FB]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't contributors to this forum suggested that Pope Benedict was correct in denying not only sexually active gay men from the priesthood but celibate gay men as well (or those that experience "same-sex attraction")? Something about their "intrinsically disordered pathology"?

If so, should Tom Brock be stripped of his pastoral position for the same reason?

[Art Deco]

Context is important. The Catholic Church in the English-speaking world has been a collecting pool of homosexually inclined men. The causes of this are a matter of dispute to the extent they have been divined and the duration of time this has been a problem is also obscure, though one might hazard a guess the point of origin was sometime around 1930. If you have a proportionatly small population with an esoteric problem not present systemically. If you have a proportionately large and identifiable subculture it injures the self-understanding of the clergy and the understanding of them held by their parishioners, it damages the culture of the seminaries, it injures recruitment, &c. You need to screen these characters out en bloc. Ditto the traditional Anglican communions. The Lutheran denominations may or may not have a problem of this character.

[David Gray]

>If so, should Tom Brock be stripped of his pastoral position for the same reason?

There is no evidence that he is a celibate "gay" man. A "gay" man is one who views his attractions as not being sinful and worthy of hell. A man who struggles with homosexual temptations, recognizing their damnable essence, is a much different matter.

[Clifford Simon]

So, when is a Lutheran church not in submission to the Pope's teaching remarkable? Always, or only when it involves gay pastors?

[Clifford Simon]

The Pope denies married men to the priesthood. So the Pope is more heterophobic than Lutherans?

[Clifford Simon]

Final comment: If the Catholics-are-homophobic charge (which is the animus behind John FB's last comment) were true, then how odd that Tom Brock is happier there than in the Lutheran support group.