Sex, singles and the ELCA (Sunday Reflections for August 30, 2009)

As the dust begins to settle from the churchwide assembly (CWA) in Minneapolis, questions are arising as to what its actions will really mean in practice. It could be that things now get rather complicated—but then again, maybe not.

What was generally left unsaid—at least in public—is that what the CWA really did was to give official recognition to a situation that already existed—for quite awhile in some cases. In various regions of the country, in urban areas generally, and in specialized ministries like chaplaincies and campus ministry, gay pastors have been serving with varying degrees of recognition. Here in the Metro Chicago Synod, in fact, the synod assembly had voted several years ago to direct the bishop and staff to basically ignore the ELCA’s policy on gay clergy.

This CWA said we are now going to publicly recognize we have differences of opinion and practice on this and we’re just going to live with that for awhile. Therefore,it’s okay for synods and congregations to make their own decisions. So it could be that not much will really change, except that people will feel free to be a little more honest with one another and breathe a little easier. In the church, where we say that the gospel sets us free, that would seem to be a good thing.

The way in which the ELCA has gone about this, however, had raised some other, perhaps unexpected, questions. The sexuality task force recommendations which were adopted at the CWA were a bit convoluted, requiring four separate resolutions. One of the main goals was, in essence, to hold gay clergy to the same standards as their straight counterparts. But this took the ELCA further down a relatively new road, that of specifying the moral expectations of its pastors.

In the past, clergy misconduct was handled on a case-by-case basis by the local bishop (or whatever the equivalent was at the time) and was largely left up to his (no “hers” back then) discretion. After the ELCA was formed, the new Council of Bishops adopted a statement of “Visions and Expectations” for clergy and required pastors to state in writing that they were in compliance with them whenever they looked for a new call.

While there were a variety of topics covered, it was clear the main interest was sex. What was new was an explicit statement that sexual relations could only take place within marriage. Gay pastors officially needed to be celibate but so did single straight clergy. Of course, all this was on an honor system. The synods did not implement any kind of clergy sex investigation unit. When gross violations became public, however, synods now had explicit grounds for removing a pastor from a congregation or from the ministerial rolls altogether.

The resolutions passed by this past assembly allow congregations to call pastors who are in "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships." By one count, that lengthy phrase is used a dozen times. The question that almost immediately comes to mind is: What about pastors, gay or straight, who are not in "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous” relationships? And that question brings up the whole tangled, multi-faceted issue of sex and single people generally.

As I wrote at the time it came out last spring, the new sexuality social statement (also adopted at this assembly) identifies many of the dimensions of this question but offers little guidance on them. Knowing that the last attempt at such a statement crashed and burned nearly twenty years ago, in part over just such questions, this task force was reluctant to be bold or creative.

The social statement says repeatedly that the church still believes marriage is the best and only sanctioned setting for sexual relations. It identifies some of the countless situations modern people find themselves in where sex occurs outside of marriage, expresses some understanding of them, but the task force couldn’t or wouldn’t take the next step of providing guidance for people is such situations.

For a whole host of reasons, the portion of the adult population that is single is now the highest on record. This is true across age groups and regions of the country, and there is no indication this will change anytime soon. Certainly a substantial number of these people are having sex. Does the church really have nothing to say to them other than “get married”?

Once again fear of the real world is leaving the church behind the cultural curve. Human relations change and will continue to do so. Polygamy is practised and accepted in the Old Testament, for example, yet over time was dropped and eventually forbidden. Life-long marriage in the ancient world meant something far different than it does now with life-expectancy more than doubled, formal education lasting twenty or more years, gender equality, effective contraception, and many other changes that would make modern life almost unrecognizable to ancient people.

The gospels include numerous stories of Jesus reaching across and breaking down cultural boundaries, often shocking both his opponents and his own disciples. They demonstrate an understanding of how often rules and standards assumed to be forever are actually very tentative and very human, often serving to aid one group at the expense of another. Unless it can rediscover this same spirit, understanding, freedom and compassion, the church will have no reason to wonder why fewer and fewer people make it a part of their lives. It will be for the simple reason that the church stopped being interested in their lives.

ELCA sexuality statement a task barely begun

Today the ELCA Churchwide Assembly tackles the proposed social statement on sexuality. Producing this document was the original and primary task of the sexuality task force. The statement has nearly been lost, however, in the dustup over the task force’s added project of making recommendations on gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex relationships.

This statement is a second attempt at a project that collapsed about fifteen years ago when a similar statement was developed and proposed. The uproar was so overwhelming that rather than try to amend or rework the document it was just dropped altogether. As one might fear would happen after the first fiasco, this statement seems to bend over backwards to offend no one. As a result, however, it says little that is new or remarkable. More importantly, it fails in its primary purpose of providing guidance on the specific issues of sexual behavior bedeviling society today.

The problem was not entirely with the task force. The job given to it by the ELCA was just too big. Books on the Christian theology and ethics of human sexuality can go on for hundreds of pages (and they are readily available). A statement on such a sweeping topic is not really necessary. In any case, sexuality is not a social issue—it’s a part of the human condition. The church would be much better served with individual statements on the various issues of sexuality that society is dealing with (as it did a few years ago in a statement on prostitution and global sex trafficking).

Instead a whole array of topics get brief and shallow treatment: marriage, homosexuality, teen sex, sexualization of children, sex in advertising, sex and the media, sex and the workplace, sexual harassment and abuse, singles and sex, seniors and sex, cohabitation, extra-marital sex, and more. An anonymous ELCA staff member wondered how the statement could talk about sex for so many pages and be so boring. It’s easy: by saying little or nothing of substance on so many topics.

It’s evident the task force wanted to say interesting things but was hamstrung by the past and the limits of time and paper. On almost every issue it begins by affirming very traditional teaching of the church’s past. Then it acknowledges in how many instances that tradition is being challenged or ignored for understandable reasons. So for instance, it affirms church tradition that sexual relations are only permitted between a husband and wife. But then it discusses multiple situations of people today commonly having sex outside of marriage, with some minimal suggestions for people in such situations. The result is a muddle of saying “No” on the one hand and “Well, maybe” on the other, which is of no practical help to anyone.

The section which got the most attention, of course, was the one on homosexuality. (Oddly, the statement never used that word in the first draft, referring instead to “same-gender persons”, a term the task force made up and is actually meaningless. The term is made clearer in the final draft, becoming “same-gender-oriented,” but still seems awkward). Inevitably it makes no definitive statements, but can only recognize that the church “does not have consensus” on the questions of same-sex relationships. In this non-answer, however, one can see where the problem lies.

In effect, human sexuality has run off the biblical map. Today we are confronted with countless issues which the Bible’s writers simply couldn’t imagine. Probably the single most important of these is easy and reliable birth control. People have sexual relations for pleasure far more often than they do for procreation—and sex isn’t even necessary for that now. Women have career options, people live far longer, and technology will continue to give new options and opportunities. What will we say, for example, about virtual sex when (not if) it arrives?

To retain the “sex only in marriage” mantra is understandable but completely inadequate, as the report itself implies. If the church wants to be taken seriously it needs to speak to people’s real lives. Today, most young people cohabitate for some length of time before marriage. Many seniors cohabitate in order to avoid the loss of Social Security and other benefits. Many middle aged and older singles (divorced, widowed, never married) simply do not want to get married for a variety of reasons. Is sex really off the table for them?

These and many more issues confront people of all ages every day. They are often difficult and complicated, but that is where well-reasoned guidelines are needed. In most cases, this document does little more than skim the surface of these questions and dilemmas. Whether this statement is adopted or not, the church still needs to roll up its sleeves and do the hard work of honestly and creatively untangling these issues one-by-one.

UPDATE: The statement was adopted this afternoon on a vote of 667-338. This is exactly the 2/3 majority required, without a vote to spare. Most of the proposed amendments were attempts to pull the statement back to more traditional church teaching and all were defeated.

Sunday Reflections for March 1, 2009: "Time for ELCA to find its theological backbone"

Not surprisingly, the ELCA sexuality task force’s recommendations for dealing with gay clergy got a cold reception last week from church conservatives. (For more background, see the Reflections column of February 15.) Two leading advocacy groups announced their intentions to work to defeat the proposals at the August churchwide assembly meeting in Minneapolis. Groups that support removing restrictions on gay clergy voiced lukewarm support.

The task force’s proposal is a convoluted attempt to find a solution which, while no one will be enthusiastic about it, most can at least tolerate. It remains to be seen if they’ve succeeded. In brief, they are recommending what has come to be called “the local option.” Basically this assumes that since the church is so divided on the question, individual congregations, synods and bishops must be allowed to make their own decisions on the matter.

At first glance, this can appear to be a reasonable compromise. But on something as fundamental as ordaining and calling pastors, such a policy could lead to many practical problems and would undermine the church’s sense of unity and common purpose. The Episcopal Church has tried this approach with mixed results. A number of parishes and even a few dioceses have left the denomination. If, as expected, the assembly in August approves removing restrictions on gay clergy in some form, the ELCA’s experience will probably be similar.

The task force’s twelve-page introduction to its resolutions shows the wrestling that obviously went on within the group as it tried to come up with a proposal. They explicitly state that their proposed resolution was supported by a majority of the task force but was not unanimous.

There is a revealing statement in the task force’s document about the larger problem they struggled with in preparing their report:

Therefore, the task force believes this church must seek a common way to live and serve in the midst of disagreements. The areas of disagreement include: 1) the understanding of the nature of sin, the means of determining what behavior is sinful, and the ways in which this church can best address the problem of sin; 2) the interpretation of the Bible, including not only the contemporary meaning of particular passages, but also how the Bible guides our lives; 3) the determination of what will be best for people who have a definite orientation toward others of the same gender; 4) whether and how social and biological sciences inform us in matters of moral judgment; 5) the best way to serve the mission of God through this church; and 6) the level of disagreement the ELCA can bear.

The task force should be commended for its candor. If true, however, this assessment is a devastating critique of the state of the ELCA. Some of the issues they have identified (especially 1 & 2) are so fundamental as to question how it can function as a church. And maybe that is exactly the point. If the ELCA is divided on such basic questions, what is holding it together, and why?
The ELCA is not a fundamentalist denomination but it does have some very conservative members. To avoid offending them, the church has often avoided challenging issues and subjects.

In my first congregation we had a seminary professor come and lead an adult class on Genesis. At the second or third session one member went ballistic over the professor saying that the Genesis creation stories shouldn’t be taken literally. He quit the class and eventually the congregation to join a Bible church.

The incident was certainly unpleasant for everyone else (the man was nearly screaming at one point) but they all continued on and appreciated the professor’s presentation. To avoid offending this one person, should the class not have been offered? While peace and harmony are certainly important they can’t come at the price of being honest about our identity, or of having any identity at all.

A major cause of the impasse on this and other issues has been a failure of church leadership. For over a half-century there has been a basic consensus within moderate ecumenical churches, like the ELCA, on how to read and interpret the Bible within the context of the modern world. The colleges and seminaries of these churches have taught the historical limitations of the Bible and given their students the tools to interpret it in the very different world that we live in today.

In their training, every pastor learns and struggles with the fact that one can’t simply say, “The Bible says x, y or z” on some topic and let it go at that. Everything the Bible says is historically conditioned and has to be interpreted and evaluated. Thus slavery, an institution taken for granted and even supported in the Bible, was later judged immoral by the church. Similarly churches rejected the ancient tradition of an all male clergy and decided there was no justifiable reason to exclude women.

Nonetheless, in their preaching and teaching, pastors often hesitate to talk about the Bible in the ways they themselves were taught. Primarily this is out of a fear of upsetting “the people in the pews” with ideas that challenge the understanding of the Bible that they probably got in Sunday school. Bishops counsel young pastors to be careful using their seminary education in their congregations. Educational materials for children and adults tip-toe carefully in talking about the Bible in any way that implies it isn’t all literally true.

As my Genesis class demonstrated, some people can get very upset by looking at the Bible in a more critical way. Fears of such incidents have led countless churches and pastors to avoid such approaches altogether. As a result, church members are unequipped to use the Bible in dealing with the difficult and complicated challenges of modern life. They often feel like bewildered bystanders to controversies like the evolution vs. creationism debate. And it should come as no surprise that within the church issues like homosexuality become hopelessly tangled conundrums.

We are now harvesting the fruit of decades of theological cowardice. In chasing after mythical goals of “Lutheran unity” and church harmony we dropped the far more important values of relevance, honesty and integrity. The challenge now is for church leaders to find the courage to say what they actually believe and teach what they know to be true.

I believe the ELCA can and will come to an honest and positive resolution to this issue. Doing so will likely antagonize some members and congregations and some may choose to leave the denomination. Obviously, this would not be the objective. It may, however, be the inevitable cost for creating a clearer sense of purpose and identity. In the end, making a difficult decision, believing it was right, and accepting its cost, will strengthen the ELCA and create a stronger commitment to its mission and ministry.