Democracy Lover and I are having a conversation. The rest of you are welcome to listen in. There are some points in the comments he placed on the wrong thread yesterday (snicker) to which I want to return, but I promised this first.
Sexual ethics in the church are dangerous territory. No matter what one says, the end result is few are happy with the outcome. What is worse, the easiest softball insult of all - "Hypocrite!" - can be tossed with abandon, because, to quote St. Paul, "all of have fallen short of the Glory of God" (I will say no more, but allow others to draw their own conclusions). Yet, if the Church is to be the Church and not some God-club thingy where we all go to sing pretty songs from the 19th century and feel good about being together and not much else, then the Church needs to say something about human sexuality, and do so in a way that respects the good gift of sexuality and the message of love and service that is at the core of the Christian confession.
I cannot speak for other denominations. In fact, I cannot "speak" for my own denomination. I can speak of my own denomination, the United Methodist Church, and its own evolving position of human sexuality in general and its stance on sexual minorities in particular. Along with a new set of laws and rules regarding structure and function that is produced every four years, TheBook of Disciplinie, the UMC also produces The Book of Resolutions which is a compendium of legislation on matters not pertaining to church governance. Taken together, these two publications provide a good snapshot, every four years, of the development of thought across the entire denomination on a variety of questions, including human sexuality.
First, the UMC affirms that sexuality is a good gift of a good God. This is neither controversial nor surprising. As my mother says, "If God made anything better than sex, he kept it to himself," which is another way of saying the same thing. Where people usually have a problem with the Church is its insistence on abstinence, or as the Discipline says, "celibacy in singleness" (what a tortured neo-logism I have always found that to be; do I now live in "marriedness", or perhaps "wededness"?). The reason people object to that usually comes down to an argument something like this: "Come one, get real. Single people not only are going to have sex, they are having sex right now, even as we speak. Let's be honest then move on, OK?" My response to this is two-fold. The Church is not denying the reality of premarital sexual behavior. Nor is it legislating how people are to behave. Indeed, the Judicial Counsel of the UMC has ruled that the language is such that it is not proscriptive at all, but rather advisory, even in relation to clergy behavior (this after a case was filed against a clergy woman caught sleeping with a man). In that sense, it is unlike Roman Catholic teaching at least as I understand it.
The gift of sexuality, our desire for the physical and emotional and psychological pleasure that comes from the sexual act with others is to be treated with respect. I find the UMC position on sex to be both healthy and wise. It understands that we are far too blase about how we act as sexual beings; we couple with a frequency and lack of concern that is breathtaking in its superficiality. Somehow treating this most intimate of moments as no different in kind from masturbation is seen as an act of maturity, while adivising people that, like all gifts, this too can be abused and such abuse can lead to dangerous, even deadly consequences, is somehow thought of as unrealistic. I find that absurd to the point of parody. It is one thing to recognize that people are going to have sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. It is quite another to simply give a clerical stamp of approval to these passing fancies in the name of some "reality" that is never quite defined or defended.
The other part of the response is this: the Christian life isn't supposed to be either easy or "normal" however that may be defined. Why should the church change its teaching to accomodate a reality that is antithetical to its core values? Why should the UMC say, "Yeah, fine, you're right, go couple when- and wherever you like, and with whomever you like"? There is a reason the UMC's governing document is called the Discipline after all; that is one of our principles - the Christian life is a disciplined one, not haphazard. You want easy, stay home Sunday morning and watch Meet the Press.
As far as sexual minorities are concerned, the Church has a two-fold stance. It supports the inclusion of sexual minorities in our social and civic life without discrimination. At the same time, it insists that sexual minorities are excluded from the clergy and from affirming their relationships in public in United Methodist houses of worship. Seven years ago, a clergy person here in northern Illinois was put on administrative leave for a year for doing just that (our Bishop supported the act but his hands were tied by church law; the man could have had his orders stripped, as happened in Washington State about a year later). Our church has been struggling with these two issues - gay clergy and gay marriage - for many years, and the struggle continues.
I want to add a personal comment here. As a general note, again, why should the Church automatically change its views to accomodate contemporary standards of conduct and belief? I will not deny the reality of power-politics within the Church plays a huge role in distorting the direction the Church is moving - to do so would be a lie - but there is also a serious point here. Because two of the most liberal denominations, the UCC and UUA, have moved to inclusiveness in their ordination process does not mean all liberal Protestant denominations should do so. Nor does such changes as happened within these groups negate the reality of struggle within them, and struggles that go on. They simply reached a socially acceptable end point sooner than others have. Or may not ever. Who knows? I think the process of debate and struggle is as important as the conclusions we reach, because we all learn something, not least of which is to listen to one another. In a church of 8 million people that is never easy.
Another point that is important to note, at least as far as the whole gay clergy thing is concerned, is that, let's be honest here folks, they're already there. I used to argue that the entire issue would disappear in a day if all the gay clergy stood up at Annual Conference and, in unison, declared their sexuality, then dared the denomination to throw them all out at once. For reasons of pragmatism, the debate would end then and there. Of course, such a dramatic action will never happen, but a person can dream . . .
Am I defending an indefensible position? I don't think so. I disagree with our official position, both on the ordination of sexual minorities and on gay marriage. I also understand the compromise the church has made, at least as far as gay clergy is concerned, to be something that, while not pleasing to everyone, allows people who are gay and lesbian to serve with a certain integrity if they so choose. I also have much sympathy for those who want the issue to just disappear; one can go over the same ground again and again and again, but the result is always just a big muddy mess. We are still slogging, though, because we have to. People's real lives, their calling, the recognition of their love for one another is at stake, and the church is an institution that, if nothing else, takes these things much more seriously than bumper-sticker Christianity and politics could or can imagine. I hope my side wins (who doesn't?), but I also respect the process, and love and respect those who disagree with me because, again to quote a parent (my father), "You don't know every Goddamn thing."
Virtual Tin Cup
