From Debate to Dialogue

Sexuality has never been an easy subject for the church to discuss. And sexual ethics is steadily becoming one of the most volatile issues the church has ever faced.

Just look at the Presbyterian Church, which has been consumed in recent months by debate over a proposed study document called "Keeping Body and Soul Together: Sexuality, Spirituality, and Social Justice." Released in February by the denomination's Special Committee on Human Sexuality, the 200-page document calls for a "reformation" of traditional Christian sexual ethics -- to be replaced by a "contemporary Christian ethic of common decency."

The heart of this new sexual ethic is a strong emphasis on "justice-love" as the single moral standard by which sexual relationships are judged. In lay language, this means the quality and character of the relationship is viewed as more ethically significant than the marital status or sexual orientation of the persons involved. "The fundamental debate within the church, as well as in society, should not be focused in a limited way on rules about who sleeps with whom," the report states.

Not surprisingly, the report has caused quite a stir in Presbyterian circles -- as well as other parts of the church. It was expected to dominate discussion at the denomination's general assembly meeting June 4-12, and has attracted national media attention. And while a few task force members reported favorable reaction at their last meeting in late April, it didn't take long for a grassroots movement to spring up against the report.

While the report has been praised even by traditionalists for its "prophetic criticism" of some areas of traditional teaching on sexuality -- i.e. sexism and homophobia, as well as a negativity toward the body and sexuality -- the ethic underlying the report has been criticized for separating sexual intimacy from long-term commitment and treating sexual expression as a universal human right, rather than as the fruit of a covenantal relationship. The most controversial sections are the ones affirming homosexual relations as "right and good" and endorsing premarital sex within the bounds of "right-relatedness."

"The committee is rightly saying that justice is a central issue," says Lewis Smedes, professor of integrative studies at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. "But they are wrong in saying that it is the only biblical issue."

A minority report published by the Presbyterian committee states: "The church is particularly tempted in our time to grant normative status to changing social conditions in sexual matters ... We believe the real issue is not how the church can have a greater social influence or more effective pastoral ministry, as desirable as those goals are. We believe that the real issue is not how the church can be seen as more tolerant and non-judgmental, as desirable as that might be. We believe that the essential question before the church is: What should the church teach people who profess to be disciples of Jesus Christ?"

John Carey, moderator of the Presbyterian committee, believes many in the denomination have rejected the report without reading and reflecting on it -- in what he called "unPresbyterian fashion." But some Presbyterian observers -- including a minority of committee members -- believe the intense reaction to the report was fueled at least in part by the task force's decision to add policy recommendations to a study document, including opening the ordination process to all Presbyterians regardless of sexual orientation and practice.

"People will go straight to the recommendations and the report itself will not be taken seriously for study," predicted Rev. Michael Bullard at a task force meeting in early February. "To propose immediate recommendations to people before they have studied these issues carefully is ludicrous," agreed committee member Jean Kennedy.

In any case, the debate in the Presbyterian Church has become so polarized that any chance for substantive dialogue on the issues raised in the report won't likely occur until after the dust has settled from the inevitable confrontation at the assembly meeting in Baltimore.

WHILE THE CURRENT DEBATE in the Presbyterian Church around sexual ethics is perhaps the most far-reaching to date in the Christian community, similar discussions are taking place -- either formally or informally -- in most denominations. And as with the Presbyterian report, the issue generating the most controversy is homosexuality and the place of gays and lesbians in the church today.

Most mainline denominations and the Catholic Church acknowledge in official church statements that most gays and lesbians are homosexual by "orientation" and not by choice. While advocating for the full civil rights of gays and lesbians, and affirming them as "children of God" or "individuals of sacred worth," most stop short of condoning or accepting the "practice" of homosexuality. In other words, the church generally calls on gays and lesbians to be celibate, along with non-married heterosexuals.

This distinction between "orientation" and "practice" has been a helpful one to many, including gays and lesbians who have been unable to reconcile their sexuality with what they believe God intended in creating humans male and female. But gays and lesbians who fully embrace their same-sex orientation experience the distinction between orientation and practice as little more than a euphemistic rejection cloaked in affirming language.

"In real life, those who are not called to be celibate try to integrate their sexuality with physical expressions of it," says Father Robert Nugent, a Catholic priest who has been involved in gay and lesbian ministry for the past 20 years. "Gay people feel if you can't support this expression, which is God's gift to me, then you're not supporting me as a person."

"Why should people with a homosexual orientation not live out that orientation and express their full being, just as heterosexuals are able to do so?" asks Rev. Kit Cherry, a field director of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination founded in 1968 as a welcoming place for gays and lesbians.

That is one of the most difficult theological and pastoral questions facing the communities of faith today -- and for the forseeable future. And the way it is answered is certain to have profound implications for the church.

For some theologians and laypersons who take a more traditional stance toward homosexuality -- and sexual ethics in general -- than the authors of the Presbyterian report, the issues seem clear. "The scriptures are much clearer on this issue than many people claim," Ron Sider, of Evangelicals for Social Action, told Sojourners. "It is contrary to biblical teaching to endorse the practice of homosexuality."

Others anguish over the issue but still cannot fully affirm gay sexuality. "It is clear, to me at least, that God in creation intended and intends our sexual lives to be lived out heterosexually," Lewis Smedes told Sojourners. "What many gay people want to hear is that being gay is simply another version of sexuality.

"I'm in the position -- and I cannot logically escape it -- that homosexuality is a tragedy more than a moral failure. This stance is very unsatisfying to my gay friends. I can't undo that. If I discovered one of my own children were gay, I would consider that cause for sadness and regret. But I would not love them less. In fact, I would probably love them more. And I would be contentious in demanding that their condition not rob them of any justice.

"When gays live together in a seriously committed relationship, I thank God that they have that kind of relationship. It may be the best possible under the circumstances. I cannot find it in myself to condemn it. But if the church publicly blesses it, it blesses a partnership that isn't a marriage."

Many Christian social activists are struggling with this issue as well. "I have to declare myself an agnostic regarding the question of whether homosexuality was part of God's plan in creation," confessed Ken Sehested, of the Baptist Peace Fellowship. "I would give anything to be able to give a clear, unequivocal answer. But I simply don't know. What I do know, and know very clearly, is that I've become acquainted with gay men and lesbian women who both profess and live gospel values as much or more so than I do, and who continue to teach me about God's presence.

"There may be genuine theological disagreement -- disagreement that is not rooted in homophobia -- but at the very least, the church must put the weight of its influence behind civil rights for gays and lesbians."

With so many in the church clearly wrestling with their own convictions about homosexuality, a few mainline Protestant denominations are in the process of reviewing their policies toward gays and lesbians in the church.

The stakes are high. As the special task forces continue to sort through the different biblical scholarship as well as recent sociological and physiological evidence pertaining to homosexuality, some churches have threatened to leave their respective denominations if gay sexuality is ever affirmed in their church. Meanwhile, more and more gays and lesbians in the church are becoming increasingly weary of this discussion altogether.

"My tolerance for debating whether I am sinful or sick by virtue of being homosexual has, after 16 years before the mast, reached nil," wrote Episcopalian John Fortunato in a recent issue of Christianity and Crisis, after resigning from his eighth church committee on sexuality in the past 14 years. "If the church needs to continue its 'tempest in a tabernacle' about sexuality for another 150 years, so be it. But I have no energy for it."

"Most of my closest gay and lesbian friends are either on the edges of the church, hanging on by their fingernails, or are saying to hell with it and walking away," Fortunato told Sojourners in a phone interview.

AFTER THREE YEARS of study and reflection -- including a series of hearings held around the country -- a United Methodist Church task force on homosexuality recently recommended that the denomination abandon its long-standing position declaring homosexual practice to be "incompatible with Christian teaching." Instead, the committee proposes that the denomination adopt new language acknowledging that United Methodists are "unable to arrive at a common mind" on the issue.

The reaction from those on both sides of the debate illustrates the spectrum of opinion on homosexuality not only among United Methodists but in the wider church as well. While the evangelical wing of the denomination has urged the United Methodist General Conference to reject the proposed language as "divisive" and "unbiblical," Affirmation -- the gay and lesbian caucus in the Methodist church -- criticized the homosexuality study committee for not going far enough. "Nothing less than an unqualified affirmation and invitation to full participation in all aspects of church life [for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals] is acceptable," stated an Affirmation press release in response to the suggested change.

Both sides promote a ministry that reflects their respective positions. Members of a network of Reconciling Congregations have proclaimed themselves open to including gays and lesbians at all levels of ministry; and Transforming Congregations is an "ex-gay ministry" started by a group of evangelical United Methodist pastors that "assist in the healing of homosexuals."

Usually there is little contact between the two sides. But that changed in one location after the California-Nevada Annual Conference declared in 1987 that it was a Reconciling Conference. When supporters of the Transforming network protested, Bishop Melvin G. Talbert appealed for "openness" on both sides -- "let us find ways to embrace both approaches as we seek to be faithful followers of Christ."

Soon after the bishop's statement, members of both groups met to try to listen to each other. "We do not see eye to eye on the issue of homosexuality, but we unanimously agreed the greatest commandment is to love," read a joint statement after the meeting. "We will be honest with one another, we will pray for one another, and we will treat one another with dignity and respect no matter how much we disagree."

The controversy over the suggested change in language centers around the group of people who suggested it -- the theologians, psychologists, sociologists, and ethicists in the denomination who were assigned to conduct the homosexuality study. Like special task forces commissioned by other denominations to do similar studies, the United Methodist committee has been criticized for being out of step with those in the pews.

Those with the criticism point out that a denominational study last year reported that 80 percent of United Methodists support the church's current language on homosexuality -- likely to be debated, along with the proposed change, at the general conference next May in Louisville, Kentucky. Likewise, a survey conducted by the Presbyterian Church last year reported that 90 percent of its members opposed the ordination of openly practicing gays and lesbians -- one of the recommendations from that denomination's commission on sexuality -- and more than half strongly disagreed with the current policy of ordaining celibate gays and lesbians.

"We must recognize the growing realization in the church for the need to formulate policy from the bottom up, not from the top down," says Rev. David Searfoss, who was one of six members of the Presbyterian task force who drafted a "minority report" taking issue with "Keeping Body and Soul Together."

The denominational task forces have made an effort to listen to what their members at the grassroots have to say by holding local hearings. And they have heard compelling testimony -- mostly from gays and lesbians (and, in some cases, parents of gays and lesbians) who spoke of the pain that comes from being rejected by the church, but also from those who say they have been "healed" of their homosexuality. However, these hearings should not be viewed as an accurate barometer of the spectrum of opinion in the churches. They draw mostly upon those on both ends of the debate, with the greatest investment in the outcome, and appear to do little to foster real dialogue at the local church level.

THE ORDINATION of non-celibate gays and lesbians appears to be where the political battle lines have been drawn in the homosexuality debate among mainline Protestant churches.

The most hotly contested resolution at the Episcopal General Convention in Phoenix this July will likely be the one suggesting local bishops should have the discretion to ordain gays and lesbians as priests. That recommendation comes from the denomination's Standing Commission on Human Affairs, after three years of study and deliberation on homosexuality.

Bishop George Hunt of Rhode Island, who served as chair of the commission, acknowledged in a phone interview with Sojourners that those at the grassroots are probably not ready for radical change in the church's position on gay ordinations. "If our mail is any indication, most people would object to the ordination of openly gay and lesbian persons as well as blessings of same-gender relationships," said Hunt. (The Hunt commission is also recommending that the standing liturgical commission of the church study the possibility of such blessings.)

A political storm followed the ordination of J. Robert Williams -- an openly practicing gay man -- in Hoboken, New Jersey on December 16, 1989. Billed by the diocese of New Jersey as the "second openly homosexual person to be ordained in the Episcopal Church," the Williams ordination was seen by many as a public challenge by New Jersey Bishop John Spong to the denomination's intended policy against ordaining practicing gays and lesbians.

As a result, the House of Bishops voted at their next annual meeting in September 1990 to formally censure their colleague Spong and to "disassociate" themselves from the Williams ordination.

Meanwhile, the Williams ordination was seen by many lesbians and gays in the Episcopal Church as a blow to their cause. Many privately (and a few openly) criticized Bishop Spong -- who has been making the media talk show rounds lately with his provocative book Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism -- for turning the ordination into a media event. The Episcopal gay and lesbian caucus Integrity even issued its own press release pointing out that 60 such ordinations had actually taken place prior to Williams' in the Episcopal Church. In the words of one gay observer, Spong "politicized what otherwise would have been a run-of-the-mill affair."

Likely to be pitted against the Hunt commission's proposal, the Frey proposal (submitted by Bishop William Frey, dean of Trinity Episcopal School in Pennsylvania) would require clergy to "abstain from sexual relations outside of Holy Matrimony." According to Frey, any future ordinations of non-celibate homosexuals -- or single non-celibate heterosexuals, for that matter -- would be considered "acts of ecclesiastical disobedience."

THE LUTHERAN magazine called the gay ordination debate that denomination's top news story last year. Things heated up when two San Francisco congregations challenged denominational policy by ordaining as pastors a gay man and two lesbian women -- all non-celibate -- in January 1990. The "irregular ordinations" prompted the Sierra Pacific Synod (which includes San Francisco) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) to bring disciplinary charges against the two congregations. And after a three-day trial last July, the two congregations were suspended from ELCA until December 31, 1995.

It was an emotional and often painful three days, according to those who were at the trial. If any lesson emerged, it was that the denomination should undertake a comprehensive study of homosexuality. Both the synod bishop bringing the charges and ELCA Bishop Herbert W. Chilstrom made statements to that effect at the time of the trial. However, the Lutheran bishops recently voted to postpone any study of homosexuality and gay ordinations until at least 1993 -- the same year a denominational task force is expected to release a broader study on human sexuality and the church.

Joseph Wagner, executive director of ELCA's Division for Ministry, told Sojourners the larger study would provide important context and direction for any study of gay ordinations. "I can understand the urgency some people feel around this issue," Wagner said. "But this kind of position is better arrived at slowly and carefully."

The postponement was disappointing to Lutheran gays and lesbians who see a contradiction in the decision to put off discussion while the church is rushing to judgment by reprimanding those who openly confront current church policy. One thing is clear: The issue is not about to go away.

In late March, Bill Kunisch, a Lutheran seminarian, had the endorsement from his home synod in Michigan taken away after he declined to answer questions regarding his sexual orientation and practice at a synod hearing. Three months earlier, he had preached a sermon at his home church in Pidgeon, Michigan, in which he questioned the Lutheran policy on ordination of practicing homosexuals. Kunisch told Sojourners he believes ELCA is setting a dangerous precedent of calling into question those who simply disagree with church policy. But ELCA's Wagner maintains that the issue is disobedience, not disagreement.

"Certainly a person who is a candidate for ordination can disagree with a policy of the church; there are parts of our church policy that I don't agree with," Wagner told Sojourners. "The question is whether they are personally willing to abide by the standards of the church. At no point has anyone ever been punished simply for raising questions or challenging a church position, and I would oppose that. But the church's standards do need to be adhered to."

In a few corners of the church, a conspiracy of silence still holds over the topic. In the Christian Reformed Church, the silence is due at least in part to the fact that the communion is still grappling with whether women should be able to hold office. As a result, little attention has been given to the explosive issue of homosexuality; though one Reformed Church observer says it is likely to be the focus of the denomination's next big debate.

"There is a tremendous amount of pain and loneliness and alienation that gay people suffer because the church is not making itself available even to discuss the issue," James A. Lucas, a Christian Reformed pastor in Grand Rapids, told Sojourners. "The church should be the first place where gays who feel they are marginalized should be able to go. But in fact it is the last place. So they end up going elsewhere."

Some in the U.S. Catholic community have called for pastoral letters on homosexuality and sexual ethics -- just as the church has done on issues such as economic justice and nuclear weapons -- with broad participation at the grassroots. And gay and lesbian supporters plead for more openness in the church for a difference of opinion on homosexuality. "Why is it that you can believe in either nuclear deterrence or pacifism and be a good Catholic, but you can't argue for homosexual relationships and be a good Catholic?" asks Father Robert Nugent.

IF THE CHURCH IS going to have any kind of fruitful dialogue on issues relating to sexual ethics, the structure and tone will need to change, according to many participants in the discussion.

"Though many people are pleading for a dialogue, the main voices don't appear to be open to listening to each other," says Philip Turner, professor of ethics at General Theological Seminary in New York City. "It's contending parties -- not dialogue -- whose positions are articulated largely without reference to the concerns of the other party.

"More conservative forces have not taken seriously what is involved pastorally with respect to asking those not married to abstain from sexual relations and the egregious treatment of single people and gay people. On the other hand, advocates of a new ethic haven't addressed two questions: What are the moral implications of, in principle, driving a wedge between lovemaking and procreation? And what do commitment and faithfulness mean? When pressed, there is not an adequate response to these. The revisionists have not made their case in my mind.

"Both sides are creating an environment of terror. Anyone making moderate overtures is jumped on. I know colleagues who don't want to write on this subject out of fear of being vilified. If you argue against the position of revising the stand on gays, you are called homophobic; there is a huge price to be paid. And the vast middle is afraid to enter the debate because they fear being called intolerant."

Like those on the Presbyterian committee that voted against the inclusion of policy recommendations in that denomination's report, Turner believes that resolutions on sexual ethics are leading to an overpoliticization of a community or denomination's discernment processor "theology by referendum," as he calls it.

Many of those interviewed for this article stressed the importance of keeping the dialogue on a personal level, by getting to know gays and lesbians rather than dealing with the issue simply in the abstract. "We do better talking about sexual ethics as long as we keep it theoretical and sterile," says Sally Brown Geis, a sociologist on the faculty of Iliff Seminary in Denver and a member of the United Methodist study committee. "But we're not intellectualizing about some theory; we're talking about people's lives."

Though the new structures for dialogue have not emerged -- at least at the national denominational level -- there is much agreement about the need to provide local congregations and communities with the resources to begin. "Everyone knows there is disagreement [on these issues] in the church. The point is developing ways of listening to each other," says Mary E. Hunt of the Silver Spring, Maryland-based Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual (WATER).

"[Gays and lesbians] are members of our family, not outsiders; and we need to hear one another," said Beverly Davison, president of the 1.6 million-member American Baptist Church, in a phone interview with Sojourners.

Until the church is of a "common mind" on these questions -- if it ever will be -- the dialogue will no doubt be long and often painful. But as one observer noted, we have much to learn from each other in the meantime.

Brian Jaudon was news editor of Sojourners when this article appeared. Julie Polter assisted with research.