POSITION PAPER FOR REMOVAL OF THE STATEMENTS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY FROM THE UNITED METHODIST BOOK OF DISCIPLINE
Prepared by Reconciling United Methodists of Eastern Pennsylvania
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reconciling United Methodists consider neither homosexuals, homosexuality in general, nor
homosexual acts between consenting adults in a committed relationship to be
sinful. We do not believe that any biblical passages refute this.
Reconciling United Methodists have found the statement in The
Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church that "homosexuality is
incompatible with Christian teaching" and statements subsequent to that
statement regarding homosexuality to be themselves incompatible with Christian
teaching. These statements pass judgment on homosexuals in direct conflict with
Jesus' commands that we not judge others. Further, these statements are
themselves hypocritical in that they single out homosexuality as sinful and
then treat it more severely than other acts considered sinful. Scripture
records that Jesus was seriously displeased with hypocrisy, and the statements
in the Discipline are simply hypocritical.
Reconciling United Methodists therefore advocate removing the offensive statements about
homosexuality from our Discipline. We propose allowing any
congregation to decide for themselves how to faithfully deal with this issue,
but Reconciling United Methodist individuals and congregations ought not be
required to be held accountable to these untenable directives any longer.
This paper fully explains our position, incorporating relevant Christian, Methodist, biblical,
societal, and scientific values. We recommend its prayerful consideration to all who care
about this issue and hope it serves to begin an open discussion with your Reconciling sisters and
brothers.
PART I
Context for Pertinent Biblical References
According to Mark’s Gospel, Jesus says, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits adultery” (10:11-12). These words are echoed in Matthew
5:27 and Luke 16:18. These well-documented words of Jesus seem a clear,
straightforward proscription against divorce. This passage even more strongly
condemns remarriage to another, calling it adultery, which unequivocally places it in the
category of sin. So imagine if we in The United Methodist Church were to ban from ordination all
who have been divorced and, especially, remarried; if we were to make it a
chargeable offense, with the penalty of rescinding ordination, for clergy to
divorce, and especially remarry; if we were to make it a chargeable offense,
with the penalty of rescinding ordination, for any clergy person to officiate at
the blessing of a relationship or the marriage or a person who has been
divorced; if we were to forbid the use of our buildings for such blessings or
marriage ceremonies. Imagine how few United Methodists would be unaffected, how
few clergy would be unchargeable, how few churches would remain in alignment
with the Discipline. Would there be any?
Again, according to Mark’s Gospel, Jesus says, “How hard it will be for those who have
wealth to enter the kingdom of God. … It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God”
(10:23-25; see also Matt. 19:24 and Luke 18:25). The first letter of John asks
how God’s love can abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees another
in need and does not help (3:17). Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy all
contain commands to loan without charging interest to one’s compatriot,
especially on loans to the poor, giving teeth to the moral requirement to care
for the widow, the alien, and the undocumented worker that runs through the Law
and the Prophets (Ex. 22:25, Lev. 25:36-37, Deut. 23:19-20). In fact, the
letter of James declares this to be religion that is pure and undefiled before God, “to care
for orphans and widows in their distress” (1:27). These examples barely scratch the surface
of the Bible’s concern for economic justice, for a view of the world and its goods (“the earth and
its fullness”) as belonging to God and to be shared so that all have enough. So imagine if we in
The United Methodist Church were to ban from ordination all who have ever
received interest or deposited money in banks that loaned their money for
interest; if we were to make it a chargeable offense, with the penalty of
rescinding ordination, for any clergy person who sees a person in need and does
not respond; if we were to make it a chargeable offense, with the penalty of
rescinding ordination, to officiate at the blessing of a relationship or
marriage ceremony for anyone who is rich in the biblical sense, which is anyone
who has more than enough to survive; if we were to forbid the use of our
buildings for such blessings or marriage ceremonies. Imagine how few American
United Methodists would be unaffected, how few clergy would be unchargeable, how
few churches would remain in alignment with the
Discipline. Would there be any?
John’s Gospel gives us the scene between Jesus and a woman caught in adultery. Shaming
those who would judge and stone her, Jesus turns finally to her with the words,
“Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). While we can all agree that the sentiment, if
not the words, is addressed to us, imagine if we in The United Methodist Church
were to ban from ordination all who sin; if we were to make it a chargeable
offense, with the penalty of rescinding ordination, for any clergy person to sin
or to bless any who sin; if we were to forbid the use of our buildings for any
event that blesses those who sin. Imagine how few United Methodists would be
unaffected, how few clergy would be unchargeable, how few churches would remain
in alignment with the Discipline. Would there be any?
These hypotheticals are beginning to shade into the ridiculous, since we can agree
that all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), but that very ridiculousness is the
point. We would no more build a church on judgment and exclusion, on morally measuring
with a fine-toothed comb those who desire to be a part of us, than we believe
God would. That is, except when it comes to sexuality and, specifically, sexual
relationships between persons of the same gender. We routinely ignore, dismiss,
reinterpret, water down, and otherwise hold as less-than-binding clear,
unequivocal, and numerous directives, such as not worrying about tomorrow
(Matthew 6:34), giving to any who ask without asking anything in return (Luke
6:30), returning no one evil for evil (Rom. 12:17), or having women be silent
and be saved by having children (1 Tim. 2:12,15). Some of these, like the last,
we ignore for good reason; others we dismiss because they are inconvenient,
because they so radically challenge, stretch, or find us or our society
wanting. In either case, however, we routinely do not
hold these scriptures so tightly that we feel their stinging judgment, nor do we
hold them as yardsticks to measure and judge those in our church whose continued
violation of such directives requires they be singled out for denial of
ordination, church blessings, and use of church buildings. Why, when it comes to
sexual relationships between persons of the same gender, do we approach the
scriptures differently? Why, in relation to same-gender sexual activity, do we
hold the scriptures more tightly, enforce them more stringently, wield them more
judgmentally? Why do we lift up scriptural passages we take to refer to
same-gender relationships as somehow more binding than the rest? Why these
particular passages?
It is not because these passages are somehow more central to the scriptural witness. Between
six and eight biblical passages have been taken to refer to same-gender sexual relationships,
a clearly unimpressive number compared with the well over 2000 passages dealing
with justice, compassion, and the ordering of our life together so that the
poor and vulnerable are provided for. By sheer number of passages as well as
the amount of consideration given, same-gender relationships are overwhelmingly
unimportant in the biblical witness, especially compared with the weight and number of passages
we water down or ignore.
Neither is it because the passages relating to same-gender relationships are somehow more specific
or clear. “Judge not, so you may not be judged” (Matt. 7:1) seems perfectly clear, as does
“Give to everyone who begs of you” (Luke 6:30), not to mention the also clear directive clearly
ignored in a land beset by obesity,“Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry”
(Luke 6:25). Such clarity and simplicity stand in contrast to the passages
frequently lifted up as condemning same-gender sexual relationships. While it is
suggested that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, which condemn as an abomination to God the
lyings of a man with a man as with a woman, are perfectly clear, such is not the
case.“Abomination” is a term applying to ritual preparedness and meaning more
“unclean” than morally reprehensible, which is why other seemingly innocuous
activities are also called abominations to God, such as eating shellfish,
heron, or seagulls (Lev. 11). Even more importantly, we cannot with ease
extract a sexual ethic that honors God from a time and place where women were
considered property and where the guilt and punishment for rape extends not
only to the rapist but to the victim as well (Deut. 22:23-29). Other passages
in the Hebrew scriptures are even less relevant, such as the story of Sodom
told in Genesis 19. In this passage Lot is ordered to surrender two visiting
male angels to a crowd of men who want to “know” them; he instead offers his
virgin daughters to the crowd. Even if “know” in this story has sexual
overtones, which some scholars deny, this story is no more a condemnation of a
consenting same-gender sexual relationship than the story of King David’s
affair with Bathsheba is a condemnation of male-female sexual relationships.
The Sodom story (and its counterpart, the story of Gibeah in Judges 19) is
about suspicion, rejection, and brutality, perhaps even sexual brutality,
toward strangers, in other words, about failure to extend hospitality to those
who are not part of the in-group (which is exactly how the story is used by the
other scriptural passages that refer to it; Jer. 23:14, Ezek. 16: 49-50, Luke
10:10-12, and Matt. 10:14-15). So, too, the reading by some of the creation
stories in Genesis 1 and 2 as the establishment of male-female sexual
relationships and the family in the heart of God’s will for creation is equally
tangential. First, to use a passage, like Genesis 2:24 (“For this reason a man
leaves his father and mother and embraces his wife, and they become one
flesh”), meant to explain what is the case (that most men leave their kinship
group to join their wives in establishing a new family) to argue what morally
should be the case is to not only to misuse the passage, but also to seek authority where
none exists; this passage no more rules out same-gender sexual relationships than it rules out
extramarital sexual relationships by the husband (as, for instance, Abraham and
Hagar[1]). Further, the reading and use of a verse meant to include
all humanity within God’s image (“male and female God created them”; Gen. 1:27)
to exclude some people and some relations totally misunderstands, even twists,
the verse. Finally, since these two Genesis verses are sometimes used to claim
that the mother-father headed family, which is undermined by same-gender sexual
relationships, is at the heart of God’s plan and will for creation, we should
mention that such a claim runs counter to Christian tradition, much of which,
beginning with the Disciples and Paul, placed a high premium on singleness and
celibacy, not family. This assertion runs counter to the gospels’ claim that
Jesus cared little for family bonds, in fact saw himself as subverting them
(Matt. 10:34-38 and Luke 12:51-52, among others); the claim that civilization,
based on the family, and the future of children, cared for by the family, are
threatened is simply ludicrous. It misses the biblical point that such care is
the responsibility of the whole community and should not be dependent on
kinship, but on the loving will of God and the humanity of the other.
The New Testament passages relating to same-gender sexual relationships are no more
clear or relevant. First and foremost, we must acknowledge and consider the
fact that Jesus himself never mentioned homosexual acts or behaviors despite
the fact that he lived in a time of openly widespread homosexual activity in
the classical Greco-Roman world. He could not possibly have not known about it.
Where it is mentioned, two words (malakos and arsenokotai)
appearing in lists of those who are evil or who will not inherit the kingdom of
God, sometimes translated as “homosexuals” or “sodomites,” in 1 Corinthians 6:9
and 1 Timothy 10, have nothing to do with loving, committed relationships
between persons of the same gender. Both have associations with male
prostitutes and have overtones of boys who sexually service men. Not only are
these passages irrelevant, but unclear—what exactly is being condemned?
Prostitution? Promiscuity? Pederasty? The only other New Testament passage
relating to same-gender sexual relationships is Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3,
where he states that God gives Gentiles up to their unnatural passions because
of sin, so that their men exchange natural intercourse with their wives for
unnatural intercourse with other men and women exchange natural relations for
unnatural. While this passage clearly has a problem with heterosexual married
couples engaging in extramarital same-gender sexual relationships, what is not
clear is that it has relevance to our discussion about committed, loving
relationships between persons of the same-gender. What is also clear is Paul’s
level of concern about such “unnatural” relationships, since he also lists in
Chapter 1 other consequences to which God gave them up because of sin—envy,
deceit, rebelliousness toward parents—none of which we applaud but none of which
we respond to with the fear, exaggeration, and vitriol with which the church
responds to same-gender relationships. Finally, most clear and important of
all, is that this first chapter of Romans is part of Paul’s larger argument,
the conclusion of which is that allsin and fall short of the glory of God so all are
justified by grace (Romans 3:23-25). Paul actually uses the prejudices of his audience,
their moral self-righteousness, to turn the tables on them. The point of the extended
passage is to puncture their right to judge others, because they too sin, or
exclude others - because they too need grace. This passage is only relevant to
the discussion of same-gender sexual relationships as a plea to lay aside
judgment and moral hierarchies and to include those engaged in such
relationships in the same grace that is extended to all.
Analysis of Traditional Biblical Interpretations
Because these passages are neither more central or important to the scriptural witness
as a whole nor more clear and relevant to life today than passages we routinely
ignore, reinterpret, or find nonbinding, we are left with the same question:
why do we not treat these few and questionable passages relating to same-gender
relationships in the same way we treat so many others? Why are we so willing to
hold loosely so much of scripture, yet so unwilling to do so when it comes to
these passages? As Yale historian John Boswell has written, If religious
strictures are used to justify oppression by people who regularly
disregard precepts of equal gravity from the same moral code, or if
prohibitions which restrain a disliked minority are upheld in their most
literal sense as absolutely inviolable while comparable precepts affecting the
majority are relaxed or reinterpreted, one must suspect something other than
religious belief as the motivating cause of the oppression."[Christianity, Social
Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Kindle digital location 226]
What is that something else, something other than religious belief, that has
motivated The United Methodist Church in the development and maintenance of
disciplinary policies that discriminate against persons involved in committed,
loving same-gender relationships and the churches called to affirm them?
Since the first statement in the Discipline related to same-gender relationships and declaring
same-gender sexual practice incompatible with Christian teaching was included in 1972,
we could trace that “something other than religious belief” to the sweeping changes the
world and the US had undergone in the space of 30 years. The Civil Rights
Movement had confronted Jim Crow laws, legal segregation, and legal
discrimination and made initial momentous strides; birth control and women’s
liberation had begun changing the face of both the household and the workplace,
as women postponed childbirth and entered the workforce in increasing numbers,
while feminist thought began disclosing the structures of male privilege, not
just in the contemporary United States, but throughout history; independence
movements across the globe had broken the grip of most colonial powers;
liberation movements began unveiling the more insidious face of colonialism,
economic bondage; Viet Nam had left a feeling of weakness and humiliation in the
powerful United States. All of these meant a shaking and changing of the world
as it had been, of power as it had been distributed, and of the assumptions in
philosophy, theology, and policy that arose out of that former world. Today we
view this tumultuousness time as an era of necessary changes, but these changes
felt uncomfortable, even threatening, especially to those who were privileged by
the way things had been and comfortable in the way things were. Added to that
was the increasing immigration and burgeoning multiculturalism in the US that
meant more and more people were being confronted by foreign peoples, faiths, and
customs. Within the church, women’s ordination, birth control, women’s right to
choose, changes in divorce policy, and polarization around the Viet Nam War and
cultural experimentation shook traditional faith to its foundation. We could
trace that“something other than religious belief” to such sweeping changes and
the sense of dislocation they gave rise to in a world that had once made sense
and felt like home, and thus to the need to draw the line somewhere.
Whatever the cause, the result has been clear: we have been hypocritical as a church,
criticizing the speck in the eye of someone else while ignoring the plank in
our own, judging as unbiblical and sinful the behavior and desire of someone
else while excusing our own behaviors and desires that far more often and far
more egregiously do not live up to the will of God as unfolded in scripture.
We would do well to recall the story in John 8 of a woman caught in
adultery and brought to the Temple by Pharisees and scribes, who pointed out to
Jesus that the scriptures teach that such a woman should be stoned. His
response—“let the one without sin cast the first stone”—makes clear that a moral
problem far greater than her sin is the readiness to judge others, to punish or
exclude them, and to overlook the sin in one’s own life, which includes that
very readiness to judge. We don’t need to caricature those in the story, the
Pharisees and scribes, by painting them as self-righteous and corrupt. We only
need to recognize that they saw themselves as right — as supported by scripture
— and took it upon themselves to judge. They were no different than we as a
church, who have taken it upon ourselves to focus on the behavior of a minority,
to call it sin, to find scriptural support, and to judge, punishing, through
policies that exclude from full acceptance and participation in the church,
those who engage in such behaviors and those who would support them. We
continue to cast the first stone, either dismissing the words of Jesus, or
choosing hypocrisy, seeing the sin of another as more weighty than our own. In
either case, we fail both to love our neighbor and to honor the God whose rain
falls on righteous and unrighteous alike.
PART II.
The Cost of The United Methodist Discipline's Position on Homosexuality
The changes in the Discipline regarding homosexuality were installed in the era of
the righteous hysteria of the Anita Bryant crusade against homosexuality (you may recall
her Garden of Eden paraphrase condemnation line, “God didn’t create Adam and Steve”) in the
Miami-Dade Metro area. Inserting this language into The United Methodist Discipline at that time
struck a painful and divisive wedge into The United Methodist Church, causing an
altercation that has continued unabated for 40 years. Nothing good has come of
this language and the church has paid a tremendous cost. Unfortunately, these
costs are not confined only to a dis-United Methodist Church. The American
United Methodist Church does not exist in a vacuum, but within a complex and
pluralistic America, where The United Methodist Church plays a small and
decreasing role.
We must consider what the current position of the Discipline has cost The United
Methodist Church. First, it has cost us the gifts and graces of those not
ordained by The United Methodist Church because of this issue, the gifts and
graces of those put on trial and forcibly removed from ordination, and the gifts
and graces of heterosexual ordained ministers who defied the Discipline
as called to do so by their faith. Worse still, there is the cost of those who
remain in the clergy and hide, or live a lie, so that they can keep their
ordinations. These pastors have no choice if they truly believe they are called
to ordained ministry in United Methodism. And perhaps worst of all, it has cost
us those heterosexual clergy who remove themselves from The United Methodist
Church clergy or path of ordination because they see the church’s position on
homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teaching. Much more frequently,
lifetime United Methodist church members, raised in the great Methodist
traditions and imbued with the Spirit of Christ, are leaving our church, or
their children are leaving, because they see a mockery in the church slogan
“open hearts, open minds, open doors” when the language in the Discipline
creates the polar opposite effect. The United Methodist Church is a denomination
in serious decline in the United States, and this policy is one major reason why.
The denominations closest in tradition and history to United Methodism, namely, the
Episcopal Church (our mother church), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(founders of Protestantism), the United Church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church (USA),
all have rejected their previous anti-homosexual positions, publicly acknowledging that they were
wrong. This leaves The United Methodists with the Roman Catholics, the Mormons,
and some Baptist organizations, even while some Baptists have now broken ranks.
Roman Catholic Argentina is leaving both Catholicism and the United States
behind in its secular legislation in support of homosexuals and same-sex unions.
How can we simply dismiss what our closest sister Christian denominations, the
Episcopals and the Lutherans, are now stating, that our
position is incompatible with their understanding of Christianity? As many of you know, the
Methodists are currently in communion with those two denominations in actual
merger conversations, and our negative stance on inclusiveness is an
embarrassment and a will surely become a setback in these conversations.
As Christians, we must scrutinize the role we play in society. The current language
in the Discipline belongs squarely in place with the longstanding degradation of homosexuals
in our society, which has long considered homosexuals mentally ill and even criminal, unfit
to be a part of good society, objects of hatred and derision. The vehemence of this
repression has constantly led to beatings, killings, bullying, isolation, forced
torturous so-called "treatments," and other degradations of our fellow human
beings. The result of all this oppression has been that for the last century
here in the United States, homosexuality has been driven underground, with
disastrous results. Homosexuals, who really could not change who they were, were
forced into hiding their true identity at all costs for fear of very real
rejection and condemnation if their true nature were discovered.
What have been the costs of all of this oppression within our society?
One important and rarely mentioned cost is the effect on heterosexual marriage.
Untold thousands of homosexual Americans have been and continue to be pressured
into heterosexual marriages, where they can not fit, leading to incalculable
betrayals, heartache, divorces, children with broken homes, and financial ruin.
This has happened innumerable times in The United Methodist Church, and it
continues today, even among United Methodist clergy. The vehemence of this
extraordinary judgmentalism in the Methodist church is perhaps best illustrated
by what one heterosexual United Methodist ordained minister wrote on the
subject: "I knew that the Methodist stance on homosexuality was wrong, but I was
afraid. My unease with the subject was grounded in the possibility that I might
myself be seen as a little toosensitive to homosexuals. When my own
Methodist minister had started speaking out against prejudice against
homosexuals in the 1970s, not a few members of that congregation began
questioning his sexual orientation. Just having remained single into my thirties alone had
made me sensitive about possibly being seen as different that way. As must be obvious to all,
ministers with careers can hardly afford the consequences of such gratuitously bequeathed
suggestions” (personal communication). How many persons have had these exact
thoughts? Has it kept people from speaking out on the subject? That kind of
stress-inducing pressure is damaging when it stops free speech. This pervasive
judgmental and hateful attitude toward homosexuals for more than a hundred years
has forced homosexuals to live a lie in this country, that is, present
themselves as heterosexual. Until very recently this was an absolute necessity
just for persons to keep their jobs, to survive their military service, to
belong to any social or religious organizations, to stay in their own homes or
apartments, to be accepted by their society, by their friends, by their
families, or to stay out of jail or mental institutions.
In 2013, the still very repressive atmosphere in the United States continues to
contribute directly to the millions of cases of clinical depression and feelings
of lack of self-worth. The lack of any sanctioned homosexual unions akin to
marriage may leave promiscuity a viable option for some. Moreover, the
repression of homosexuality may lead to alcohol and drug addictions, as well as
other pathologies associated with self-hatred. This repression fosters
gay-bashing in word and deed, often by those who call themselves Christian, as
well as by many who resort to this criminal behavior to mask their own
homosexual tendencies. It also has a history of driving sexuality into a
clandestine underground, which still isolates particularly those lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons still hiding who they are from society.
This isolation leads to the kind of political and religious hypocrisy seen in
those who present themselves as heterosexuals, like the gay-bashing Senator
Larry Craig and the televangelist Ted Haggard. Perhaps worst of all, though, the
condemnation of homosexuality still leads to murders of known homosexuals and to
suicides of homosexuals, often of our most vulnerable teenagers, who cannot cope
with the wrath their church and society visit on them. These pathologies are
evident in homosexuals, not because of who they are, but because of the
brutalities they bear from society and the church.
The United Methodist Church plays a part of this condemnation and repression because
of the language in the Discipline. Do United Methodists really want to offer this high level
of condemnation and judgment of others as followers of Jesus Christ? Anyone who really does think so
needs to ask whether their position of moral authority is consistent with
Christian teaching, specifically Jesus’ teachings. If one knows the Bible,
one already knows the answer.
Tenets of United Methodism, the Quadrilateral, and "Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds"
Let us continue by looking at the language of the Discipline
through the lens of John Wesley’s Quadrilateral, the very foundation of
theological work in United Methodism. For scripture, we have those previously
discussed six to eight passages in the Bible that are purported to denounce
many homosexual acts. We have just described our tradition on homosexuality,
which represses, condemns, and rejects homosexuals in a very ugly way that
negatively affects us all as a people.
Now let us look at the other two pillars of the Quadrilateral, experience and
reason. Too often, biblical "interpretations" in support of all manner of passing judgment
on others have led directly to brutality, exclusivity, subjugation, oppression,
repression, or condemnation of human beings because of who they are, and we have
recognized in hindsight that these "interpretations" were actually corrupt
abuses of scripture. The Bible has been used to excuse or cover monumental acts of oppression.
As Christians, we look back with horror and shame at the way in which fellow Christians in
Germany not only failed to stand up against Hitler, but looked the other way when Nazi
“purity” policies led to the killing of well over 11 million persons for simply
being who they were; let us not forget, some of these victims were homosexuals.
In the United States, Victorian Christians looked the other way as Native
Americans were brutally exterminated or, if not, then led in chains from their
homes to reservations where they could be held subjugate and invisible. American
Christians quoted endlessly from the Bible, successfully defending their
particularly cruel version of American slavery and genocide for many
generations, fostering a particularly virulent brand of racism that persists to
this day in some quarters in America.
Too many Christians look the other way at the vulnerability and degradation of homosexuals
in this country today. Too many Christians stand completely on the wrong side or simply bury
their heads in the sand, and this very un-Christian behavior is nothing new. But let us be clear.
For Reconciling Methodists, who understand our God as a God of love, a God of justice, a God
who commands us to "Love thy neighbor as thyself", a God of compassion, we can only conclude that
this God just has to be sick to death of the innumerable times we fail to learn
from God's commands OR from history, and continue to find new ways to pass
judgment on others, and always with disastrous results.
Let us now look at a related critical issue. What has been our experience with
forced sexual denial? The "evangelical" mantra of loving the sinner but hating
the sin always resolves in the unbelievable conclusion that if one can’t help
being homosexual, one should be celibate. Pope John Paul II said this in San
Francisco in 1987 (http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Celibacy.html). This new
call for clerical celibacy in a Protestant denomination is particularly ironic
because we are all Protestants precisely because Martin Luther proclaimed that a
person who was not celibate was not unqualified to be ordained to minister to
the church. Luther was quite right about that. Today, we must face up to this
issue again as we witness the exposure of the true nature of the vows of
celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, what has now been finally
forced out into the public glare concerning countless cases of sexual entrapment
of children by Catholic clergy may be the tip of that iceberg, as the curtain
remains tightly closed concerning the bulk of sexual activity in the Catholic
clergy (both homosexual and heterosexual).
"Enforced" vows of celibacy, of course, are just another
example of the result of attempting to force persons to behave in ways that go
completely against their nature. Certainly some persons can be celibate; many
can and many are; one can rationally deduce that, even within holy matrimony,
celibacy can be a fact of life for both partners. But to think and act
rationally about celibacy we must accept the fact that levels of sexual urges
differ greatly among individuals. Experience and science tell us without
question that celibacy is, and must be, a matter of one’s personal needs, rather
than a matter of choice, and definitely not something for some people (who may
not be celibate themselves) to require of other persons. Nevertheless, in 2012
some United Methodists still find themselves attempting to force a sort of
Catholic celibacy in two ways, first, in requiring United Methodist homosexual
clergy to be or become celibate, and second, in the ex-gay programming business,
where non-bisexuals are left with no choice but celibacy if they are to
disengage from homosexual behavior. Some ex-gays claim to have been exclusively
homosexual and changed to exclusive heterosexuals through these ex-gay
transformations. We have no reason to doubt that these persons are telling the
truth, at least as they honestly see it. Further, we feel strongly that if
someone is so broken or damaged by society’s brutal repression that they themselves
genuinely want and express the need to participate in something like an ex-gay program,
then these persons should have that option. Much more important is the question we must
ask the church at large - what kind of a society have we created that makes some people
hate themselves so much as to need to undergo an unbelievable transformation
like a change in sexual orientation. For those who have not grasped the gravity
of that change, what would it take for you yourselves to willingly undergo that
kind of a treatment?
We must also bear in mind that true celibacy requires giving up a lot more than just
sex – the celibate is required to give up his or her soul mate or life companion, or any
possibility of finding one, if he or she is truly to be celibate, and that means giving up one of
life’s most rewarding gifts and life’s greatest enduring joys. For those who
advocate this path, can you imagine being told by someone who claims some sort
of moral authority over you that you had to give up your spouse who is also your
soul mate? Would you believe them when they tell you they are speaking for God?
It is particularly ironic that The United Methodist Church, while supporting just
that kind of a sexual transformation in homosexuals who do not want to change
their sexual orientation, does not hold the same criteria over transsexuals,
those who actually change their sex. For the record, Reconciling United
Methodists are glad that the church holds this position. Here at least, we are
not forced to pass judgment where we have no business doing so.
What is our experience of committed, one-on-one relationships, respectful, mutual, loving,
tender, soul mates, partners in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, till death do them part,
but with both partners of the same sex, sometimes successfully and lovingly
raising children within these relationships? These relationships possess exactly
the same attributes and challenges any heterosexual person could hope for in a
heterosexual marriage. How can these relationships filled with real love and
joy not also be sacred and approved by God? Such relationships are reality,
whether we like them or not, and they are solid and healing relationships for
the parties involved; who are we to judge them? What business is it of ours how
God will judge them? Some persons have incredible gifts and calling for the
ministry and are also homosexual. These persons are a reality and are attested
by the church. Who are we, all sinners just the same as them, to judge them? Or
do we somehow think we are better than they? If so, what is our biblical
justification for taking a position of moral authority over these fellow human
beings? If we are going to be true to Jesus’ calling, we have to admit that we
are not any better than homosexuals at all, and we are not authorized to judge them.
This brings us to one exercise in Reason, the fourth element in the Quadrilateral. Reason tells
us that any interpretation of scripture that results in acts of judgment on other persons
is inconsistent with Christian teaching, or more explicitly, directly defies
Jesus’ command to us on how to live as His followers. Jesus said, with absolute
clarity, “Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37). Jesus did not
state exceptions to this rule; he made an entirely universal statement.
Clearly, it is not our business to be condemning any fellow human beings. This
text is not some obscure passage in the Hebrew Scriptures but is front and
center in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ paramount teaching on how to live
life as His followers. Jesus asks each of us to take his teachings seriously
for living the Christian life; if we are truly saved, we will do our best to
obey his commands. He knows we cannot be perfect and tells us so, but that is
most assuredly not a reason not to try and to do what we can.
The language in the Discipline passes judgment in every sense of the word on homosexuality.
Because of the language in the Discipline, we ignore Jesus’
command about not passing judgment. Instead, we actually put persons on trial,
we pass judgment on persons for being homosexual, and we pass judgment on
heterosexual persons for blessing and affirming homosexuals. In addition, we
actually punish them for their so-called transgressions, not transgressions of
the Bible, but transgressions of the Discipline.
Not only is the language in the Discipline inconsistent with Christ's teaching, but it is also
counter to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. It also makes a mockery of our beloved United
Methodist slogan, “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” These Discipline
statements on homosexuals are anything but open.
All of this is heinous to United Methodists who believe that homosexuality is not
sinful at all, any more than heterosexuality. We Reconciling United Methodists
want to really open our doors. Our hearts and minds already are open, and we are
very blessed by that. We are advocating that The United Methodist Church allows
us to open our doors as well. We do not want to tell others what to believe or
what to do in their congregations. For now, Reconciling congregations' doors
must theoretically still remain closed against our will and against our beliefs,
until the language from the Discipline is removed, if we are to
remain United Methodists. Even persons who think that homosexuality is
inherently sinful must still concede that homosexuality, even if it is a sin, is
only one sin among countless sins, and that no one is more guilty of sin than
any other person, and that all persons, including clergy, are children of God,
all persons are loved by God, and all persons are created in the image of God.
Further, those who have supported the language in the Discipline
must admit that if they are followers of Jesus, they are in no position to sit
and pass judgment on others; certainly we Reconciling United Methodists are in
no position to judge them. To be true to Christ, we must find our common bonds
and treat all persons in the way that Christ taught us. We have never been
given, and never will be given, God’s authority to judge or condemn anyone
else’s sins when we are equally guilty of sins ourselves. If homosexuality is to
be considered a sin by anyone, then it is to be treated like any other sin or
abomination, such as divorce (Mark 10:8), remarriage (Mark 10:11-12),
collecting and holding wealth (Ex. 22:25-27, Ezek. 18:13), or for that matter, wearing
cotton-polyester blends (Lev. 19:19), feasting on shrimp (Lev. 11:10), or
playing football (Lev. 11:8).
Let’s face it: if we really believe in Christian teaching, or more to the point, if we believe
in Jesus Christ and his teachings, if we fear God’s judgment, then we need to do better
than this. We must remove judgmental language from our church laws and ask for
forgiveness for having included it in the first place. We recognize that we need
to get the plank out of our own eye before we start pointing out the splinters
in others'. And, as Jesus knew when he said it, there will always be planks in
the eyes of us all - homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals alike. But again,
that is no reason not to try. It is time to remove the language about
homosexuality out of the Discipline.
PART III.
The Scientific Perspective
Most nonreligious studies on the subject of homosexuality have centered on answering
the following questions:
* What are the demographics of homosexuality in the general population?
*What causes homosexuality?
The only honest answer to both questions today is: We don't know. No reliable data
exist. Almost all inquiry into the first question emanates from the work of Alfred Kinsey,
and inquiry into the second question emanates from the work of Sigmund Freud.
Kinsey, reared in a strict Methodist home, publishedSexual
Behavior in the Human Male in 1948. His work on homosexuality stirred up a
firestorm when it first appeared in a nation heretofore completely silenced on
the subject. With regard to homosexuality, his formulation of the 7-point
spectrum of sexual behavior is now the axiomatic and fully accepted basis on
which all serious current studies are built, with a scale of "0" at one end of
the spectrum, meaning 100% heterosexual orientation, nondeviating, "6," meaning
100% homosexual, nondeviating, and "1" through "5" representing various degrees
of what he termed bisexuality, or capability for both homosexual and
heterosexual behavior.
The most interesting challenges to Kinsey's work were directed toward his placement of 6%
of the population figure in category 6, i.e., 100% homosexual. This figure is often questioned by
the fact that Kinsey relied heavily on the prison population to gather much of his data, going on
the assumption that the prison population exhibits, or exhibited, higher
incidences of homosexual behavior than is, or was true in the population at
large. It should also be considered, ironically, that in the mid-1940s when the
research was done, when even discussion of homosexuality was completely taboo,
the prison population was probably the only place where any sort of honesty or
credibility could be attained.
Today, pro-gay groups tend to use the figure of 10% as exclusively homosexual. This
figure has not been substantiated and arguably is impossible to substantiate due
to the still prevalent taboo and secrecy around the subject, but this figure is
probably high. Anti-gay groups tend to use figures of 3.5%, a figure also
impossible to substantiate and probably low. The problem remains that reliable
data absolutely cannot be achieved in a population where it is possible and even
deemed preferable to deny homosexual tendencies when in fact one actually has
them, and where there is no known scientifically accurate litmus test for
homosexuality, which could yield scientifically reliable numbers. Consider
this: if the figure were actually 3.5%, not to include bisexuals in any way,
then that means that the purely homosexual population in the United States is
more than 11 million people, a number that would make the group the seventh
largest state, right next to Pennsylvania. Or its the same number of people who
were killed by the Nazis in World War II. Or consider this: today we claim that there are 6.5
million American United Methodists, probably also an inflated figure, so the low estimate LGBT
community is now MUCH larger than the high estimate United Methodist community.
In looking at the second question, many hundreds of studies, following Freud,
attempt to discern a cause of homosexuality within the simplistic "nurture
versus nature" argument. The study of genetics is still in its infancy, in terms
of our understanding of how genes affect the lives and especially the behaviors
of individual persons. The effects of environmental, parental, cultural, and
socioeconomic influences are less obliquely discernable and describable, but
deviances from suggested normative nurture influences driving individuals toward
homosexuality are more than significant. Obviously, the cause, or more probably,
causes, of homosexuality are quite complex and definitely are not close to being
scientifically "proven" or accurately described and accepted, either by the
scientific community or the populace at large. In the end, they are just
theories. Two points must be made here. First, pro-gay groups tend to want to
push the premise that homosexuality is genetically based because they feel that
homosexuals cannot then be "blamed" by those who would blame them, as there is
no control over one's genetic makeup. Basically, this reasoning is a reaction to
persons who do blame homosexuals for being who they are. But that is a weak
premise for many reasons. Similarly, antigay groups want to push the premise
that homosexuality is caused by the environment. They want to conclude that
homosexuality is a "learned" behavior and therefore can be "unlearned." This
argument is also simplistic, as well as impossible, as some kinds of learning,
once learned, cannot be unlearned.
A simple but easy to understand example of the impossibility of "unlearning" something
"learned" is this. If you are a native speaker of English, a totally cultural and learned
linguistic phenomenon, and you were told as a full adult that you had to now
"unlearn" English, meaning NOT that you had to learn another language, but that
you had to get yourself in such a state of being that you utterly cannot
understand what even a single word or phrase in English means, do you think you
could do that? If you really think you could, you should be easily enough convinced to prove it.
We must acknowledge that we aren't even close to a definitive answer to the
question of what causes homosexuality. Without known cause, one cannot
scientifically derive "cures" or preventions.
So given this current state of affairs from a scientific point of view, what do the
scientists say about homosexuality? For this, we must turn to the medical
professions, as they are the scientists who apply medical science to human
diseases, conditions, bodily functions, and behavior.
Here, the policies are unequivocal and are based on medical science's most nearly unbiased
collective knowledge of human conditions. The American Medical Association, the American
Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National
Association of Social Workers, some of the nation's most respected institutions
representing the medical professions, all now state and have held the position
for at least two decades that
* homosexuality is not a disease or a mental disorder,
* discrimination against the LGBT community can have or does have harmful effects on those
discriminated against
* there is no scientific or medical basis whatever for LGBT persons to be discriminated against
in any way.
* attempts at remedial or so-called "reparative" therapies for LGBT persons have no basis in science
and can do much harm, especially if the so called therapies are administered against the will or the
nature of the treated individual.
A third question, "Can a person change from homosexual to heterosexual behavior?" is ruled out by
the medical professions as first it sees no basis for such changes, and second
it sees such application of "reparative" therapies as wrongheaded and potentially very harmful.
Please review the following policy statements from the American Psychiatric Association, the American
Medical Association, and the National Association of Social Workers:
1.) From "The American Psychiatric Association position paper on Reparative or Conversion
Therapies", March 2000 (www.apa.org/):
The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and
self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality
may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone
"reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals
are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction.
The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying
interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are
alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization
discussed. Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any
psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy which is
based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or
based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual
orientation.
2.) American Medical Association Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation, 1995
H-65.992 “Continued Support of Human Rights and Freedom”. Our AMA continues (1) to
support the dignity of the individual, human rights and the sanctity of human life, and (2) to
oppose any discrimination based on an individual's sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin or age and
any other such reprehensible policies. (Sub. Res. 107, A-85; Modified by CLRPD
Rep. 2, I-95; Reaffirmation A-00; Reaffirmation A-05; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07)
H-65.983 “Nondiscrimination Policy.” The AMA affirms that it has not been its policy now
or in the past to discriminate with regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. (Res. 1, A-93;
Reaffirmed: CCB Rep. 6, A-03; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07)
H-65.990 “Civil Rights Restoration.” The AMA reaffirms its long-standing policy that there is
no basis for the denial to any human being of equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities
commensurate with his or her individual capabilities and ethical character because of an
individual's sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or transgender
status, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin, or age. (BOT Rep. LL, I-86;
Amended by Sunset Report, I-96; Modified: Res. 410, A-03)
3.) National Association of Social Workers, "Reparative" and "Conversion" Therapies
for Lesbians and Gay Men. Position Statement, January 2000
When generally recognized standards do not exist with respect to an emerging area of practice,
social workers should exercise careful judgment and take responsible steps (including
appropriate education, research, training, consultation, and supervision) to
ensure the competence of their work and to protect the clients from harm (NASW, 1996).
The social worker should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any
form of discrimination on the basis of . . . sexual orientation . . . (NASW,
1996)
What are "reparative" or "conversion" therapies?
Reparative or conversion therapies claim, through the use of psychotherapy or other interventions,
to eliminate a person’s sexual desire for a member of his or her own gender. The
National Association of Social Workers’ National Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Issues (NCLGB) recognizes the emergence of these misleading therapies.
Reparative and conversion therapies, sometimes called "transformational
ministries," have received wider attention against the backdrop of a growing
conservative religious political climate (NASW, 1992), and through recent media
campaigns supported by the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council.
By advancing their efforts through such propaganda, proponents of reparative and
conversion therapies, such as the most commonly cited group NARTH, claim that
their processes are supported by scientific data; however, such scientific
support is replete with confounded research methodologies (Mills K. Mission
Impossible: Why Reparative Therapies and Ex-Gay Therapies Fail, Rev., Feb. 1999).
What are sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sexual behavior?
Sexual orientation is defined by the sex of individuals for whom one feels an attraction and
affection, both physical and emotional. Sexual orientation includes "sexual activity with
members of one’s own sex (homosexual orientation), the opposite sex
(heterosexual orientation), or both (bisexual orientation)" (Barker RL. Milestones
in the Development of Social Work and Social Welfare.
Washington DC: NASW Press, 1999:439–440). Moreover, sexual orientation differs
from other mistakenly ascribed concepts, such as sexual identity and sexual
behavior. Sexual identity refers to a person’s self-perception of his or her
sexual orientation, and sexual behavior refers to a person’s sexual activities.
In an effort to understand human relationships and human sexuality, "social
workers must be knowledgeable about biological factors, as well as about the
roles played by psychological, cultural, and social factors in sexual
expressions" (Harrison J. Roles, identities, and sexual orientation:
Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. In Levant RF, Pollack WS, Eds.
A New Psychology of Men. New York: Basicbooks, 1995:1419).
Can therapy change sexual orientation?
People seek mental health services for many reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to assert that
lesbians and gay men seek therapy for the same reasons that heterosexual people do. However,
the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from
family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and
gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which
cannot and will not change sexual orientation. Aligned with the American Psychological
Association’s (1997) position, NCLGB believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe
emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by
stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social
climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation
(Haldeman D. The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. J
Counsel Clin Psychol 1994:221-227). No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are
effective, and in fact they may be harmful (Constructionism and morality in
therapy for homosexuality. Davison, 1991. In Gonsiorek JC, Weinrich, JD, Eds.
Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy,
Haldeman, 1994:137-148, ibid.). "
PART IV.
Can We Reconcile?
A gay man, a published author, with a doctorate and a mortgage, shared that he had
been in an exclusive, committed relationship for the last 30 years. It is not
only Kim Kardashian he has outlasted on the heterosexual side. His partner and
he have raised two daughters (one daughter has just married, so that now he also
has a son-in-law). As with other forms of prejudice, once we see strange,
unfamiliar subgroups functioning normally around us in our lives, they become
less strange and unfamiliar. Eventually they become normal to us. It is
ignorance on our part, rather than any fault of theirs, that causes problems.
Just as Jews, people with pet cats, and NASCAR enthusiasts, homosexuals can live
in our communities without endangering our religion, pet choices, or hobbies.
We accept that some faithful members of The United Methodist Church will maintain that
a reading of scripture not condemning homosexuality is not in keeping with the plain meaning
of the relevant texts. We do not seek to forcibly bar such people from full communion simply because
they get tongue-tied upon being confronted with the same interpretive methodology
when considering divorce. Such persons are perfectly acceptable members of our
United Methodist Church. At the same time, we find their method of isolated
reading of scripture hypocritically relaxed when considering issues of divorce
and questions of wealth. We would expect to hear increasingly tortured
exegetical work explaining away issues of usury, selling children to pay off
debts, slavery, and misogyny, among others. We do not accept the distortions,
interpretations, and accommodations they make to perpetuate their prejudice. We
simply know that there is no faithful way to single out homosexuality as an
especially vile sin and pussyfoot around all these others. There is no Christian
way to say that Christ’s reconciling work has covered all sinners except
homosexuals. More time is spent in scripture condemning behaviors that we accept
readily within our congregations nowadays. In short, we find their reading of
scripture wrong. We understand they believe the same about our reading of scripture.
What has been the church's pattern in such situations? What can we do together when we
recognize such a fundamental disagreement between us? Church history can offer examples
such as the Inquisition, the 16th century Wars of Religion, and the split over slavery in
the Methodist Church before the Civil War. While energetically and sincerely
pursued, these episodes in church history in retrospect have not been seen as
positive. Fortunately, we have a better example within the roots of our faith
that returns us to our scriptural heritage; we may consider the first conflict
between the Apostles recorded in the Book of Acts. Peter and Paul here find
themselves in diametric opposition: some of the followers of Jesus believe that
new converts to the Christian faith must first become Jews (Acts 15:5). God
commanded dietary laws and circumcision for faithful Jews. Observing these
commands is the only way to be righteous. Gentile followers of Jesus find the
prospect of circumcision barbaric and repulsive. Eventually, Paul and Peter are
inspired to recognize two distinct ministries; one to the Jewish Christians and
one to the Gentile Christians. How could their agreement to disagree help us in
our current difficulties? Could we make a Discipline that allows for the legalists to
maintain their righteousness while others are free to move on in the hope of spreading
the Gospel further?
Consider some demographic shifts: in the 1960s and 70s many a child was taught that
homosexuals were depraved perverts who lived in vile ghettos of iniquity far
away from normal American communities. Children growing up today know that gay
people – often their aunts, uncles, cousins, or neighbors – hold responsible
positions in government and commerce, adding to the quality of church and
community life through time, prayer, talent, and wealth. The worldview that
derives from an increasingly peculiar and archaic interpretation of scripture,
while it may be tenaciously held, is simply unsustainable. The church in the
United States has no future where we minister to a new generation of Americans
while insisting upon the weirdly antiquarian theology that normal gay people are
equal in the sight of the Constitution and in every other way, but are involved
in some sin in degrees more evil than any other, and are not equal in the
church. It is an intellectual and civic incongruity that young people simply do
not comprehend.
Society has changed since exclusionary language was introduced into our Discipline in 1972
and, though certain persons in our denomination hold sincerely to the same ideas that
championed this wording change half a century ago, the rest of us have had to
confront new challenges more openly. None of us feels free to be openly racist
as we might have been in the early 1970s. There are far more biracial
individuals couples today in suburban America. The introduction of Muslims,
Hindus, and Sikhs into our communities has caused us to become more
understanding about religious differences. Developmentally challenged persons
have been mainstreamed in society. All of these now normal parts of our society
were not welcome in the early 1970s and members of society openly said so.
Saying such things now is looked upon with disfavor. It is not reasonable today
to think or behave as we did in the 1970s.
Likewise, we know of people who are gay and functioning normally in society. Some in the
church believe that LGBT persons are bad and the church’s witness must be to
change them. Others do not believe LGBT persons are any more sinful than any of
the rest of us and the church’s witness can and should be concerned with other
things. Neither side is making any headway changing the convictions of the
other. Here we are stuck. What shall we do?
Can same gender marriage have some deleterious effect on the institution of marriage
generally? Perhaps. But no more or less than heterosexual marriages. There are
presently, within heterosexual marriage, a wide range of behavior, with some
couples behaving wholesomely and affirmatively toward one another while other
couples corrupt and demean one another. One can imagine being inspired by the
one set and repulsed by the other. What manner of non-individual, distributive
consequence might same-sex marriage have on the culture of marriage?
An argument put forward against same-sex marriages is that such couples cannot
produce children and reproduction is an indispensable key to marriage. This is
not a defining attribute of marriage in the Marriage Service of The United
Methodist Church printed in 1989 (or Marriage Service of The Methodist Church
printed in 1966 or in 1932), or in the Discipline for these years [these services were formally included
within the binding of the Discipline before the 1960s]. Although the intention to engage in
the procreation of children is not, and has not been, a mandatory prerequisite
to solemnizing a marriage in The United Methodist Church, certain reactionary
elements within our communion have been championing this as normative. In the
Methodist tradition there is no current or historical prohibition against
marriage for heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children.
But even if there were, what barriers exist for LGBT persons being fine Christian parents?
Same-sex couples haven’t the ability to reproduce naturally. They either have no egg or
they have no sperm. Some artificial means of reproduction or recourse to
adoption is necessary for LGBT couples to rear children. Once this obstacle has
been passed, LGBT parents appear to have the same strengths and weaknesses in
the same proportions as heterosexual couples. Ample evidence shows that children
raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual
parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no
relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's
emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment (Pawelski JG, et al. The
effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health
and well-being of children. Pediatrics 2006;118: 349–364). No evidence exists that a parent's
sexual orientation determines a child’s sexual orientation – witness the
surprise of a heterosexual couple upon discovering they have a gay child, or
the number of children adopted and raised by homosexual couples who are
irrefutably heterosexual. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a
result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. (Pawelski, et
al., 2006). No reputable, peer-reviewed, academic research supports the widely
held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.
Zach Wahls, at the age of 19, became an internet star in a video widely titled "Two Lesbians
Raised A Baby And This Is What They Got" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VnEexIhBTU
), which features the University of Iowa student speaking at a public forum to oppose an Iowa House
Joint Resolution that would ban gay marriage and civil unions. By his testimony,
he has suffered no harmful effects from having lesbian parents. Both men and
women have the capacity to be good parents, and having parents of both genders
does not enhance adjustment. The methodologies used in the major studies of
same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the fields of psychology
and developmental psychology. They constitute the type of research that members
of the respective professions consider reliable. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual
parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual
parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of
sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent
failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden
of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority
parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents. Discussion of this
may be found in the references below:
Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006
Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association.
(http://cha.org.ar/docs/matrimonio/CanadianPsychologicalAssociation.MarriageofSame-SexCouplesPositionStatement.pdf)
Short E, et al. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) parented
families – A literature review prepared for the Australian Psychological
Society. Brief of the American Psychological Association, the California
Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in support
of plaintiff-appellees.
A child growing up in the early to mid twentieth century likely heard gays described as
perverted, deviant, and disgusting. Such children learned that gays were
weak-minded, morally corrupt, and effete pedophiles. Those notions, drilled into
generations by rote, have not magically disappeared from minds just because they
have been discovered to have no basis in fact. Many such
children, once grown, could understandably find any occasion when they were
caused to think about homosexual intimacy and intercourse disagreeable (perhaps
somewhat akin to the discomfort teenagers might feel imagining their parents
engaging in intercourse). Such feelings can contribute to an inability to face
the injustice that our faith communities have perpetuated. As the rest of our
society makes reappraisals of its behavior toward LGBT persons, we in The
United Methodist Church would do well to reconsider those of our
scriptural interpretations that may provide props for our prejudice. The
continued exclusion of LGBT persons from full inclusion in the life of our
denomination is an embarrassing misunderstanding of scripture. Removing the
language that prevents sexual minorities from full inclusion in the life of our
denomination will free us to more authentically believe and live the Gospel.
We have been drilled to believe with fundamental zealousness a prima
facieinterpretation of a handful of Bible verses and thereby reject the overwhelming
message of the Gospel. We would embarrass ourselves profoundly if we were to insist on
applying the same fundamentalist extremism to scriptural injunctions regarding the status and
role of women, child rearing, agriculture, divorce, wealth, or middle school
science. We would never do this because the majority of us are heterosexuals,
parents, and productive members of society, and divorce and wealth are endemic
in American families today. We have found it easy to allow somewhere between
3.5% and 10% of the population (the LGBT portion) to be vilified because we are
too lazy to see how unevenly we weigh scripture.
We are all moral agents. We are responsible for our actions. The world, our lives,
and our church are our problem and our responsibility. In all of this
exploration of the origin of homosexuality, whether physiological or
psychological, this paper has not intended to align itself with the school of
behaviorist determinism. This theory argues that all human being’s actions and
attitudes are automatically conditioned by hereditary or sociological factors
and we have no control. Thus a person is deprived of any freedom of choice and
is absolved from taking responsibility for her or his actions. While it is one
thing to acknowledge our sexual orientation as possibly rooted in certain
endocrinology or patterns of maturation, it is something else again to conclude
that we are therefore helpless to manifest that sexuality in the context of
moral and ethical decisions. Absolute determinism is certainly not Wesleyan
because it negates the human spirit and ignores the human capacity for
responsible behavior. That spirit and capacity must also be expressed within the
boundary of our sexual predispositions.
The Christian faith has long maintained that persons must be held accountable for
their sexual expression. Above all, Christians affirm the sacred value of every
human life. Thus, sexuality that demeans that sacredness - that brutalizes,
exploits, or depersonalizes other human beings - is irresponsible and immoral.
It is for this reason that the Church has institutionalized the covenant of a
monogamous relationship as the ideal context for sexual relations between two
persons. Promiscuous sex - sex outside of caring for the total welfare of a
person - is superficial sex, which uses the other person and treats that person
as an object or a thing. We do not deeply care for another human being in the
course of an hour or a day or a week, and then move on to another person, and
then another, rupturing relationships and living as a law unto ourselves. Our
sexuality in love is not transient or fleeting; it is “for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health,” and we must most certainly
mean what we say when we vow, “Until we are separated by death.”
Do homosexual marriages exist, whether or not acknowledged? Of course they do. Over
the past few decades, we have heard more and learned to accept, or at least
tolerate LGBT relationships. Before this, we generally did not acknowledge LGBT
couples as a possibility. Gay couples now openly populate our communities, our
media, and our artistic expression. It is not at all clear or obvious that such
couples have had any negative influence on the balance of our society; in fact,
the argument can be made that such couples are in all ways a positive influence.
Can homosexual marriages be sacred? Arguing for covenant and commitment as the
factors that legitimize sexuality from the Christian point of view opens the door for
legitimizing homosexual relations between two persons who deeply care for one
another. The measure of responsible sexuality for the Christian should not be
genital differentiation, but relational commitment. According to this measure,
sexual acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are neutral. They ought to be
deemed immoral only as they exploit or dehumanize the one to whom they are
directed.
What norms can be used to hold homosexuals morally accountable? When we start with the
premise that a person is homosexual and free to choose within that tendency how he or she will
act toward the sacredness of others, we arrive at the same criteria we use for determining
heterosexual morality. Further, to the degree that homosexual promiscuity is
aggravated by society’s sanctions against “gay marriages,” then society itself
has been encouraging that instability. What is true for society is true for our
United Methodist Church. The Christian community has a moral obligation to
encourage covenantal relations between monogamous homosexuals, who, as
consenting adults, want to formalize their commitment to each other. Only when
Church and society recognize these covenants will we begin to lift our long-held
prohibitions against homosexuals who strive to be responsible in their
relationships. It is not enough to say that we are open-minded. We must organize
our civilization to match our cherished beliefs. It is unjust to exclude
committed monogamous homosexuals from a blessing by the Church and from
recognition by civil society. The scandalously true to the scriptures statement
is that in Jesus Christ, it is a relational commitment and not a genital
differentiation that distinguishes the act of love. In Christ, there is“neither
male nor female” (Galatians 3:28).
No matter what we decide within our United Methodist Church we will need some means
of ministering to an ever-increasing number of same-gender couples. Government
recognition of same-sex marriage is presently available in ten countries, a
growing number of U.S. states, and the District of Columbia. The states of Rhode
Island, and New Mexico do not allow same-sex marriages to be performed, but do
recognize such marriages performed elsewhere. Israel's High Court of Justice
ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it
is still illegal to perform them within the country.
Other countries, including the majority of European nations, New Zealand and Uruguay,
have enacted laws allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships, designed to
give gay couples rights similar to those afforded married couples concerning
legal issues such as inheritance and immigration. Our Discipline
is cutting us off from a larger and larger portion of the American population.
Apart from the states providing same-sex marriage, many jurisdictions in the
U.S. offer civil unions or domestic partnerships granting nearly all of the
state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples.
We have all spent so much energy on this issue in The United Methodist Church and so little has
been the result. Were that all this energy had been spent on something more
positive for the mission of the church! But we remain divided by conviction on
this issue.
Perhaps the Council of Jerusalem story from the Book of Acts can provide the guidance we
need; this would require of us a unity of apostolic proportions, however. Can we, in Christ,
agree to disagree? Can we in Christ remain in relationship, each of us permitted to minister in
the ways God has called us, and not requiring any congregation to support same-gender
relationships, bless them, or affirm them, while, at the same time allowing,
without hindrance, other congregations to do so? We have been holding one
another in a death grip over this issue. Can we learn from the wisdom of the
Council of Jerusalem to hold on to one another, in Christian charity, across
our differences?
What Reconciling United Methodists want is not to be required to follow a
hypocritical standard that is against our convictions. We acknowledge and
respect that faithful members of our denomination are of two minds and that a
way forward can be that we allow each side to make its own decisions about
homosexuality. However, to do this, we must remove the language about
homosexuality in the Discipline.
Consequently, the only statement which could be fittingly placed into the Discipline would be one in which we
acknowledge and respect that we are of two minds and will follow two different
directions, but that we choose to remain a United Methodist Church. Of this all
Reconciling United Methodists are convicted.
[1] Note
that in the Hebrew Scriptures, the term adultery is applied to a man who engages
in a sexual relationship with another man’s wife or to a wife who engages in a
sexual relationship with a man other than her husband—it is never applied to the
husband, no matter how many sexual relationships he has had, as the prohibition
was a patriarchal mechanism to protect a husband’s property rights over his
wife.
Prepared by Reconciling United Methodists of Eastern Pennsylvania
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reconciling United Methodists consider neither homosexuals, homosexuality in general, nor
homosexual acts between consenting adults in a committed relationship to be
sinful. We do not believe that any biblical passages refute this.
Reconciling United Methodists have found the statement in The
Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church that "homosexuality is
incompatible with Christian teaching" and statements subsequent to that
statement regarding homosexuality to be themselves incompatible with Christian
teaching. These statements pass judgment on homosexuals in direct conflict with
Jesus' commands that we not judge others. Further, these statements are
themselves hypocritical in that they single out homosexuality as sinful and
then treat it more severely than other acts considered sinful. Scripture
records that Jesus was seriously displeased with hypocrisy, and the statements
in the Discipline are simply hypocritical.
Reconciling United Methodists therefore advocate removing the offensive statements about
homosexuality from our Discipline. We propose allowing any
congregation to decide for themselves how to faithfully deal with this issue,
but Reconciling United Methodist individuals and congregations ought not be
required to be held accountable to these untenable directives any longer.
This paper fully explains our position, incorporating relevant Christian, Methodist, biblical,
societal, and scientific values. We recommend its prayerful consideration to all who care
about this issue and hope it serves to begin an open discussion with your Reconciling sisters and
brothers.
PART I
Context for Pertinent Biblical References
According to Mark’s Gospel, Jesus says, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits adultery” (10:11-12). These words are echoed in Matthew
5:27 and Luke 16:18. These well-documented words of Jesus seem a clear,
straightforward proscription against divorce. This passage even more strongly
condemns remarriage to another, calling it adultery, which unequivocally places it in the
category of sin. So imagine if we in The United Methodist Church were to ban from ordination all
who have been divorced and, especially, remarried; if we were to make it a
chargeable offense, with the penalty of rescinding ordination, for clergy to
divorce, and especially remarry; if we were to make it a chargeable offense,
with the penalty of rescinding ordination, for any clergy person to officiate at
the blessing of a relationship or the marriage or a person who has been
divorced; if we were to forbid the use of our buildings for such blessings or
marriage ceremonies. Imagine how few United Methodists would be unaffected, how
few clergy would be unchargeable, how few churches would remain in alignment
with the Discipline. Would there be any?
Again, according to Mark’s Gospel, Jesus says, “How hard it will be for those who have
wealth to enter the kingdom of God. … It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God”
(10:23-25; see also Matt. 19:24 and Luke 18:25). The first letter of John asks
how God’s love can abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees another
in need and does not help (3:17). Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy all
contain commands to loan without charging interest to one’s compatriot,
especially on loans to the poor, giving teeth to the moral requirement to care
for the widow, the alien, and the undocumented worker that runs through the Law
and the Prophets (Ex. 22:25, Lev. 25:36-37, Deut. 23:19-20). In fact, the
letter of James declares this to be religion that is pure and undefiled before God, “to care
for orphans and widows in their distress” (1:27). These examples barely scratch the surface
of the Bible’s concern for economic justice, for a view of the world and its goods (“the earth and
its fullness”) as belonging to God and to be shared so that all have enough. So imagine if we in
The United Methodist Church were to ban from ordination all who have ever
received interest or deposited money in banks that loaned their money for
interest; if we were to make it a chargeable offense, with the penalty of
rescinding ordination, for any clergy person who sees a person in need and does
not respond; if we were to make it a chargeable offense, with the penalty of
rescinding ordination, to officiate at the blessing of a relationship or
marriage ceremony for anyone who is rich in the biblical sense, which is anyone
who has more than enough to survive; if we were to forbid the use of our
buildings for such blessings or marriage ceremonies. Imagine how few American
United Methodists would be unaffected, how few clergy would be unchargeable, how
few churches would remain in alignment with the
Discipline. Would there be any?
John’s Gospel gives us the scene between Jesus and a woman caught in adultery. Shaming
those who would judge and stone her, Jesus turns finally to her with the words,
“Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). While we can all agree that the sentiment, if
not the words, is addressed to us, imagine if we in The United Methodist Church
were to ban from ordination all who sin; if we were to make it a chargeable
offense, with the penalty of rescinding ordination, for any clergy person to sin
or to bless any who sin; if we were to forbid the use of our buildings for any
event that blesses those who sin. Imagine how few United Methodists would be
unaffected, how few clergy would be unchargeable, how few churches would remain
in alignment with the Discipline. Would there be any?
These hypotheticals are beginning to shade into the ridiculous, since we can agree
that all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), but that very ridiculousness is the
point. We would no more build a church on judgment and exclusion, on morally measuring
with a fine-toothed comb those who desire to be a part of us, than we believe
God would. That is, except when it comes to sexuality and, specifically, sexual
relationships between persons of the same gender. We routinely ignore, dismiss,
reinterpret, water down, and otherwise hold as less-than-binding clear,
unequivocal, and numerous directives, such as not worrying about tomorrow
(Matthew 6:34), giving to any who ask without asking anything in return (Luke
6:30), returning no one evil for evil (Rom. 12:17), or having women be silent
and be saved by having children (1 Tim. 2:12,15). Some of these, like the last,
we ignore for good reason; others we dismiss because they are inconvenient,
because they so radically challenge, stretch, or find us or our society
wanting. In either case, however, we routinely do not
hold these scriptures so tightly that we feel their stinging judgment, nor do we
hold them as yardsticks to measure and judge those in our church whose continued
violation of such directives requires they be singled out for denial of
ordination, church blessings, and use of church buildings. Why, when it comes to
sexual relationships between persons of the same gender, do we approach the
scriptures differently? Why, in relation to same-gender sexual activity, do we
hold the scriptures more tightly, enforce them more stringently, wield them more
judgmentally? Why do we lift up scriptural passages we take to refer to
same-gender relationships as somehow more binding than the rest? Why these
particular passages?
It is not because these passages are somehow more central to the scriptural witness. Between
six and eight biblical passages have been taken to refer to same-gender sexual relationships,
a clearly unimpressive number compared with the well over 2000 passages dealing
with justice, compassion, and the ordering of our life together so that the
poor and vulnerable are provided for. By sheer number of passages as well as
the amount of consideration given, same-gender relationships are overwhelmingly
unimportant in the biblical witness, especially compared with the weight and number of passages
we water down or ignore.
Neither is it because the passages relating to same-gender relationships are somehow more specific
or clear. “Judge not, so you may not be judged” (Matt. 7:1) seems perfectly clear, as does
“Give to everyone who begs of you” (Luke 6:30), not to mention the also clear directive clearly
ignored in a land beset by obesity,“Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry”
(Luke 6:25). Such clarity and simplicity stand in contrast to the passages
frequently lifted up as condemning same-gender sexual relationships. While it is
suggested that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, which condemn as an abomination to God the
lyings of a man with a man as with a woman, are perfectly clear, such is not the
case.“Abomination” is a term applying to ritual preparedness and meaning more
“unclean” than morally reprehensible, which is why other seemingly innocuous
activities are also called abominations to God, such as eating shellfish,
heron, or seagulls (Lev. 11). Even more importantly, we cannot with ease
extract a sexual ethic that honors God from a time and place where women were
considered property and where the guilt and punishment for rape extends not
only to the rapist but to the victim as well (Deut. 22:23-29). Other passages
in the Hebrew scriptures are even less relevant, such as the story of Sodom
told in Genesis 19. In this passage Lot is ordered to surrender two visiting
male angels to a crowd of men who want to “know” them; he instead offers his
virgin daughters to the crowd. Even if “know” in this story has sexual
overtones, which some scholars deny, this story is no more a condemnation of a
consenting same-gender sexual relationship than the story of King David’s
affair with Bathsheba is a condemnation of male-female sexual relationships.
The Sodom story (and its counterpart, the story of Gibeah in Judges 19) is
about suspicion, rejection, and brutality, perhaps even sexual brutality,
toward strangers, in other words, about failure to extend hospitality to those
who are not part of the in-group (which is exactly how the story is used by the
other scriptural passages that refer to it; Jer. 23:14, Ezek. 16: 49-50, Luke
10:10-12, and Matt. 10:14-15). So, too, the reading by some of the creation
stories in Genesis 1 and 2 as the establishment of male-female sexual
relationships and the family in the heart of God’s will for creation is equally
tangential. First, to use a passage, like Genesis 2:24 (“For this reason a man
leaves his father and mother and embraces his wife, and they become one
flesh”), meant to explain what is the case (that most men leave their kinship
group to join their wives in establishing a new family) to argue what morally
should be the case is to not only to misuse the passage, but also to seek authority where
none exists; this passage no more rules out same-gender sexual relationships than it rules out
extramarital sexual relationships by the husband (as, for instance, Abraham and
Hagar[1]). Further, the reading and use of a verse meant to include
all humanity within God’s image (“male and female God created them”; Gen. 1:27)
to exclude some people and some relations totally misunderstands, even twists,
the verse. Finally, since these two Genesis verses are sometimes used to claim
that the mother-father headed family, which is undermined by same-gender sexual
relationships, is at the heart of God’s plan and will for creation, we should
mention that such a claim runs counter to Christian tradition, much of which,
beginning with the Disciples and Paul, placed a high premium on singleness and
celibacy, not family. This assertion runs counter to the gospels’ claim that
Jesus cared little for family bonds, in fact saw himself as subverting them
(Matt. 10:34-38 and Luke 12:51-52, among others); the claim that civilization,
based on the family, and the future of children, cared for by the family, are
threatened is simply ludicrous. It misses the biblical point that such care is
the responsibility of the whole community and should not be dependent on
kinship, but on the loving will of God and the humanity of the other.
The New Testament passages relating to same-gender sexual relationships are no more
clear or relevant. First and foremost, we must acknowledge and consider the
fact that Jesus himself never mentioned homosexual acts or behaviors despite
the fact that he lived in a time of openly widespread homosexual activity in
the classical Greco-Roman world. He could not possibly have not known about it.
Where it is mentioned, two words (malakos and arsenokotai)
appearing in lists of those who are evil or who will not inherit the kingdom of
God, sometimes translated as “homosexuals” or “sodomites,” in 1 Corinthians 6:9
and 1 Timothy 10, have nothing to do with loving, committed relationships
between persons of the same gender. Both have associations with male
prostitutes and have overtones of boys who sexually service men. Not only are
these passages irrelevant, but unclear—what exactly is being condemned?
Prostitution? Promiscuity? Pederasty? The only other New Testament passage
relating to same-gender sexual relationships is Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3,
where he states that God gives Gentiles up to their unnatural passions because
of sin, so that their men exchange natural intercourse with their wives for
unnatural intercourse with other men and women exchange natural relations for
unnatural. While this passage clearly has a problem with heterosexual married
couples engaging in extramarital same-gender sexual relationships, what is not
clear is that it has relevance to our discussion about committed, loving
relationships between persons of the same-gender. What is also clear is Paul’s
level of concern about such “unnatural” relationships, since he also lists in
Chapter 1 other consequences to which God gave them up because of sin—envy,
deceit, rebelliousness toward parents—none of which we applaud but none of which
we respond to with the fear, exaggeration, and vitriol with which the church
responds to same-gender relationships. Finally, most clear and important of
all, is that this first chapter of Romans is part of Paul’s larger argument,
the conclusion of which is that allsin and fall short of the glory of God so all are
justified by grace (Romans 3:23-25). Paul actually uses the prejudices of his audience,
their moral self-righteousness, to turn the tables on them. The point of the extended
passage is to puncture their right to judge others, because they too sin, or
exclude others - because they too need grace. This passage is only relevant to
the discussion of same-gender sexual relationships as a plea to lay aside
judgment and moral hierarchies and to include those engaged in such
relationships in the same grace that is extended to all.
Analysis of Traditional Biblical Interpretations
Because these passages are neither more central or important to the scriptural witness
as a whole nor more clear and relevant to life today than passages we routinely
ignore, reinterpret, or find nonbinding, we are left with the same question:
why do we not treat these few and questionable passages relating to same-gender
relationships in the same way we treat so many others? Why are we so willing to
hold loosely so much of scripture, yet so unwilling to do so when it comes to
these passages? As Yale historian John Boswell has written, If religious
strictures are used to justify oppression by people who regularly
disregard precepts of equal gravity from the same moral code, or if
prohibitions which restrain a disliked minority are upheld in their most
literal sense as absolutely inviolable while comparable precepts affecting the
majority are relaxed or reinterpreted, one must suspect something other than
religious belief as the motivating cause of the oppression."[Christianity, Social
Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Kindle digital location 226]
What is that something else, something other than religious belief, that has
motivated The United Methodist Church in the development and maintenance of
disciplinary policies that discriminate against persons involved in committed,
loving same-gender relationships and the churches called to affirm them?
Since the first statement in the Discipline related to same-gender relationships and declaring
same-gender sexual practice incompatible with Christian teaching was included in 1972,
we could trace that “something other than religious belief” to the sweeping changes the
world and the US had undergone in the space of 30 years. The Civil Rights
Movement had confronted Jim Crow laws, legal segregation, and legal
discrimination and made initial momentous strides; birth control and women’s
liberation had begun changing the face of both the household and the workplace,
as women postponed childbirth and entered the workforce in increasing numbers,
while feminist thought began disclosing the structures of male privilege, not
just in the contemporary United States, but throughout history; independence
movements across the globe had broken the grip of most colonial powers;
liberation movements began unveiling the more insidious face of colonialism,
economic bondage; Viet Nam had left a feeling of weakness and humiliation in the
powerful United States. All of these meant a shaking and changing of the world
as it had been, of power as it had been distributed, and of the assumptions in
philosophy, theology, and policy that arose out of that former world. Today we
view this tumultuousness time as an era of necessary changes, but these changes
felt uncomfortable, even threatening, especially to those who were privileged by
the way things had been and comfortable in the way things were. Added to that
was the increasing immigration and burgeoning multiculturalism in the US that
meant more and more people were being confronted by foreign peoples, faiths, and
customs. Within the church, women’s ordination, birth control, women’s right to
choose, changes in divorce policy, and polarization around the Viet Nam War and
cultural experimentation shook traditional faith to its foundation. We could
trace that“something other than religious belief” to such sweeping changes and
the sense of dislocation they gave rise to in a world that had once made sense
and felt like home, and thus to the need to draw the line somewhere.
Whatever the cause, the result has been clear: we have been hypocritical as a church,
criticizing the speck in the eye of someone else while ignoring the plank in
our own, judging as unbiblical and sinful the behavior and desire of someone
else while excusing our own behaviors and desires that far more often and far
more egregiously do not live up to the will of God as unfolded in scripture.
We would do well to recall the story in John 8 of a woman caught in
adultery and brought to the Temple by Pharisees and scribes, who pointed out to
Jesus that the scriptures teach that such a woman should be stoned. His
response—“let the one without sin cast the first stone”—makes clear that a moral
problem far greater than her sin is the readiness to judge others, to punish or
exclude them, and to overlook the sin in one’s own life, which includes that
very readiness to judge. We don’t need to caricature those in the story, the
Pharisees and scribes, by painting them as self-righteous and corrupt. We only
need to recognize that they saw themselves as right — as supported by scripture
— and took it upon themselves to judge. They were no different than we as a
church, who have taken it upon ourselves to focus on the behavior of a minority,
to call it sin, to find scriptural support, and to judge, punishing, through
policies that exclude from full acceptance and participation in the church,
those who engage in such behaviors and those who would support them. We
continue to cast the first stone, either dismissing the words of Jesus, or
choosing hypocrisy, seeing the sin of another as more weighty than our own. In
either case, we fail both to love our neighbor and to honor the God whose rain
falls on righteous and unrighteous alike.
PART II.
The Cost of The United Methodist Discipline's Position on Homosexuality
The changes in the Discipline regarding homosexuality were installed in the era of
the righteous hysteria of the Anita Bryant crusade against homosexuality (you may recall
her Garden of Eden paraphrase condemnation line, “God didn’t create Adam and Steve”) in the
Miami-Dade Metro area. Inserting this language into The United Methodist Discipline at that time
struck a painful and divisive wedge into The United Methodist Church, causing an
altercation that has continued unabated for 40 years. Nothing good has come of
this language and the church has paid a tremendous cost. Unfortunately, these
costs are not confined only to a dis-United Methodist Church. The American
United Methodist Church does not exist in a vacuum, but within a complex and
pluralistic America, where The United Methodist Church plays a small and
decreasing role.
We must consider what the current position of the Discipline has cost The United
Methodist Church. First, it has cost us the gifts and graces of those not
ordained by The United Methodist Church because of this issue, the gifts and
graces of those put on trial and forcibly removed from ordination, and the gifts
and graces of heterosexual ordained ministers who defied the Discipline
as called to do so by their faith. Worse still, there is the cost of those who
remain in the clergy and hide, or live a lie, so that they can keep their
ordinations. These pastors have no choice if they truly believe they are called
to ordained ministry in United Methodism. And perhaps worst of all, it has cost
us those heterosexual clergy who remove themselves from The United Methodist
Church clergy or path of ordination because they see the church’s position on
homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teaching. Much more frequently,
lifetime United Methodist church members, raised in the great Methodist
traditions and imbued with the Spirit of Christ, are leaving our church, or
their children are leaving, because they see a mockery in the church slogan
“open hearts, open minds, open doors” when the language in the Discipline
creates the polar opposite effect. The United Methodist Church is a denomination
in serious decline in the United States, and this policy is one major reason why.
The denominations closest in tradition and history to United Methodism, namely, the
Episcopal Church (our mother church), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(founders of Protestantism), the United Church of Christ, and the Presbyterian Church (USA),
all have rejected their previous anti-homosexual positions, publicly acknowledging that they were
wrong. This leaves The United Methodists with the Roman Catholics, the Mormons,
and some Baptist organizations, even while some Baptists have now broken ranks.
Roman Catholic Argentina is leaving both Catholicism and the United States
behind in its secular legislation in support of homosexuals and same-sex unions.
How can we simply dismiss what our closest sister Christian denominations, the
Episcopals and the Lutherans, are now stating, that our
position is incompatible with their understanding of Christianity? As many of you know, the
Methodists are currently in communion with those two denominations in actual
merger conversations, and our negative stance on inclusiveness is an
embarrassment and a will surely become a setback in these conversations.
As Christians, we must scrutinize the role we play in society. The current language
in the Discipline belongs squarely in place with the longstanding degradation of homosexuals
in our society, which has long considered homosexuals mentally ill and even criminal, unfit
to be a part of good society, objects of hatred and derision. The vehemence of this
repression has constantly led to beatings, killings, bullying, isolation, forced
torturous so-called "treatments," and other degradations of our fellow human
beings. The result of all this oppression has been that for the last century
here in the United States, homosexuality has been driven underground, with
disastrous results. Homosexuals, who really could not change who they were, were
forced into hiding their true identity at all costs for fear of very real
rejection and condemnation if their true nature were discovered.
What have been the costs of all of this oppression within our society?
One important and rarely mentioned cost is the effect on heterosexual marriage.
Untold thousands of homosexual Americans have been and continue to be pressured
into heterosexual marriages, where they can not fit, leading to incalculable
betrayals, heartache, divorces, children with broken homes, and financial ruin.
This has happened innumerable times in The United Methodist Church, and it
continues today, even among United Methodist clergy. The vehemence of this
extraordinary judgmentalism in the Methodist church is perhaps best illustrated
by what one heterosexual United Methodist ordained minister wrote on the
subject: "I knew that the Methodist stance on homosexuality was wrong, but I was
afraid. My unease with the subject was grounded in the possibility that I might
myself be seen as a little toosensitive to homosexuals. When my own
Methodist minister had started speaking out against prejudice against
homosexuals in the 1970s, not a few members of that congregation began
questioning his sexual orientation. Just having remained single into my thirties alone had
made me sensitive about possibly being seen as different that way. As must be obvious to all,
ministers with careers can hardly afford the consequences of such gratuitously bequeathed
suggestions” (personal communication). How many persons have had these exact
thoughts? Has it kept people from speaking out on the subject? That kind of
stress-inducing pressure is damaging when it stops free speech. This pervasive
judgmental and hateful attitude toward homosexuals for more than a hundred years
has forced homosexuals to live a lie in this country, that is, present
themselves as heterosexual. Until very recently this was an absolute necessity
just for persons to keep their jobs, to survive their military service, to
belong to any social or religious organizations, to stay in their own homes or
apartments, to be accepted by their society, by their friends, by their
families, or to stay out of jail or mental institutions.
In 2013, the still very repressive atmosphere in the United States continues to
contribute directly to the millions of cases of clinical depression and feelings
of lack of self-worth. The lack of any sanctioned homosexual unions akin to
marriage may leave promiscuity a viable option for some. Moreover, the
repression of homosexuality may lead to alcohol and drug addictions, as well as
other pathologies associated with self-hatred. This repression fosters
gay-bashing in word and deed, often by those who call themselves Christian, as
well as by many who resort to this criminal behavior to mask their own
homosexual tendencies. It also has a history of driving sexuality into a
clandestine underground, which still isolates particularly those lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons still hiding who they are from society.
This isolation leads to the kind of political and religious hypocrisy seen in
those who present themselves as heterosexuals, like the gay-bashing Senator
Larry Craig and the televangelist Ted Haggard. Perhaps worst of all, though, the
condemnation of homosexuality still leads to murders of known homosexuals and to
suicides of homosexuals, often of our most vulnerable teenagers, who cannot cope
with the wrath their church and society visit on them. These pathologies are
evident in homosexuals, not because of who they are, but because of the
brutalities they bear from society and the church.
The United Methodist Church plays a part of this condemnation and repression because
of the language in the Discipline. Do United Methodists really want to offer this high level
of condemnation and judgment of others as followers of Jesus Christ? Anyone who really does think so
needs to ask whether their position of moral authority is consistent with
Christian teaching, specifically Jesus’ teachings. If one knows the Bible,
one already knows the answer.
Tenets of United Methodism, the Quadrilateral, and "Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds"
Let us continue by looking at the language of the Discipline
through the lens of John Wesley’s Quadrilateral, the very foundation of
theological work in United Methodism. For scripture, we have those previously
discussed six to eight passages in the Bible that are purported to denounce
many homosexual acts. We have just described our tradition on homosexuality,
which represses, condemns, and rejects homosexuals in a very ugly way that
negatively affects us all as a people.
Now let us look at the other two pillars of the Quadrilateral, experience and
reason. Too often, biblical "interpretations" in support of all manner of passing judgment
on others have led directly to brutality, exclusivity, subjugation, oppression,
repression, or condemnation of human beings because of who they are, and we have
recognized in hindsight that these "interpretations" were actually corrupt
abuses of scripture. The Bible has been used to excuse or cover monumental acts of oppression.
As Christians, we look back with horror and shame at the way in which fellow Christians in
Germany not only failed to stand up against Hitler, but looked the other way when Nazi
“purity” policies led to the killing of well over 11 million persons for simply
being who they were; let us not forget, some of these victims were homosexuals.
In the United States, Victorian Christians looked the other way as Native
Americans were brutally exterminated or, if not, then led in chains from their
homes to reservations where they could be held subjugate and invisible. American
Christians quoted endlessly from the Bible, successfully defending their
particularly cruel version of American slavery and genocide for many
generations, fostering a particularly virulent brand of racism that persists to
this day in some quarters in America.
Too many Christians look the other way at the vulnerability and degradation of homosexuals
in this country today. Too many Christians stand completely on the wrong side or simply bury
their heads in the sand, and this very un-Christian behavior is nothing new. But let us be clear.
For Reconciling Methodists, who understand our God as a God of love, a God of justice, a God
who commands us to "Love thy neighbor as thyself", a God of compassion, we can only conclude that
this God just has to be sick to death of the innumerable times we fail to learn
from God's commands OR from history, and continue to find new ways to pass
judgment on others, and always with disastrous results.
Let us now look at a related critical issue. What has been our experience with
forced sexual denial? The "evangelical" mantra of loving the sinner but hating
the sin always resolves in the unbelievable conclusion that if one can’t help
being homosexual, one should be celibate. Pope John Paul II said this in San
Francisco in 1987 (http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Celibacy.html). This new
call for clerical celibacy in a Protestant denomination is particularly ironic
because we are all Protestants precisely because Martin Luther proclaimed that a
person who was not celibate was not unqualified to be ordained to minister to
the church. Luther was quite right about that. Today, we must face up to this
issue again as we witness the exposure of the true nature of the vows of
celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, what has now been finally
forced out into the public glare concerning countless cases of sexual entrapment
of children by Catholic clergy may be the tip of that iceberg, as the curtain
remains tightly closed concerning the bulk of sexual activity in the Catholic
clergy (both homosexual and heterosexual).
"Enforced" vows of celibacy, of course, are just another
example of the result of attempting to force persons to behave in ways that go
completely against their nature. Certainly some persons can be celibate; many
can and many are; one can rationally deduce that, even within holy matrimony,
celibacy can be a fact of life for both partners. But to think and act
rationally about celibacy we must accept the fact that levels of sexual urges
differ greatly among individuals. Experience and science tell us without
question that celibacy is, and must be, a matter of one’s personal needs, rather
than a matter of choice, and definitely not something for some people (who may
not be celibate themselves) to require of other persons. Nevertheless, in 2012
some United Methodists still find themselves attempting to force a sort of
Catholic celibacy in two ways, first, in requiring United Methodist homosexual
clergy to be or become celibate, and second, in the ex-gay programming business,
where non-bisexuals are left with no choice but celibacy if they are to
disengage from homosexual behavior. Some ex-gays claim to have been exclusively
homosexual and changed to exclusive heterosexuals through these ex-gay
transformations. We have no reason to doubt that these persons are telling the
truth, at least as they honestly see it. Further, we feel strongly that if
someone is so broken or damaged by society’s brutal repression that they themselves
genuinely want and express the need to participate in something like an ex-gay program,
then these persons should have that option. Much more important is the question we must
ask the church at large - what kind of a society have we created that makes some people
hate themselves so much as to need to undergo an unbelievable transformation
like a change in sexual orientation. For those who have not grasped the gravity
of that change, what would it take for you yourselves to willingly undergo that
kind of a treatment?
We must also bear in mind that true celibacy requires giving up a lot more than just
sex – the celibate is required to give up his or her soul mate or life companion, or any
possibility of finding one, if he or she is truly to be celibate, and that means giving up one of
life’s most rewarding gifts and life’s greatest enduring joys. For those who
advocate this path, can you imagine being told by someone who claims some sort
of moral authority over you that you had to give up your spouse who is also your
soul mate? Would you believe them when they tell you they are speaking for God?
It is particularly ironic that The United Methodist Church, while supporting just
that kind of a sexual transformation in homosexuals who do not want to change
their sexual orientation, does not hold the same criteria over transsexuals,
those who actually change their sex. For the record, Reconciling United
Methodists are glad that the church holds this position. Here at least, we are
not forced to pass judgment where we have no business doing so.
What is our experience of committed, one-on-one relationships, respectful, mutual, loving,
tender, soul mates, partners in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, till death do them part,
but with both partners of the same sex, sometimes successfully and lovingly
raising children within these relationships? These relationships possess exactly
the same attributes and challenges any heterosexual person could hope for in a
heterosexual marriage. How can these relationships filled with real love and
joy not also be sacred and approved by God? Such relationships are reality,
whether we like them or not, and they are solid and healing relationships for
the parties involved; who are we to judge them? What business is it of ours how
God will judge them? Some persons have incredible gifts and calling for the
ministry and are also homosexual. These persons are a reality and are attested
by the church. Who are we, all sinners just the same as them, to judge them? Or
do we somehow think we are better than they? If so, what is our biblical
justification for taking a position of moral authority over these fellow human
beings? If we are going to be true to Jesus’ calling, we have to admit that we
are not any better than homosexuals at all, and we are not authorized to judge them.
This brings us to one exercise in Reason, the fourth element in the Quadrilateral. Reason tells
us that any interpretation of scripture that results in acts of judgment on other persons
is inconsistent with Christian teaching, or more explicitly, directly defies
Jesus’ command to us on how to live as His followers. Jesus said, with absolute
clarity, “Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37). Jesus did not
state exceptions to this rule; he made an entirely universal statement.
Clearly, it is not our business to be condemning any fellow human beings. This
text is not some obscure passage in the Hebrew Scriptures but is front and
center in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ paramount teaching on how to live
life as His followers. Jesus asks each of us to take his teachings seriously
for living the Christian life; if we are truly saved, we will do our best to
obey his commands. He knows we cannot be perfect and tells us so, but that is
most assuredly not a reason not to try and to do what we can.
The language in the Discipline passes judgment in every sense of the word on homosexuality.
Because of the language in the Discipline, we ignore Jesus’
command about not passing judgment. Instead, we actually put persons on trial,
we pass judgment on persons for being homosexual, and we pass judgment on
heterosexual persons for blessing and affirming homosexuals. In addition, we
actually punish them for their so-called transgressions, not transgressions of
the Bible, but transgressions of the Discipline.
Not only is the language in the Discipline inconsistent with Christ's teaching, but it is also
counter to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. It also makes a mockery of our beloved United
Methodist slogan, “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors.” These Discipline
statements on homosexuals are anything but open.
All of this is heinous to United Methodists who believe that homosexuality is not
sinful at all, any more than heterosexuality. We Reconciling United Methodists
want to really open our doors. Our hearts and minds already are open, and we are
very blessed by that. We are advocating that The United Methodist Church allows
us to open our doors as well. We do not want to tell others what to believe or
what to do in their congregations. For now, Reconciling congregations' doors
must theoretically still remain closed against our will and against our beliefs,
until the language from the Discipline is removed, if we are to
remain United Methodists. Even persons who think that homosexuality is
inherently sinful must still concede that homosexuality, even if it is a sin, is
only one sin among countless sins, and that no one is more guilty of sin than
any other person, and that all persons, including clergy, are children of God,
all persons are loved by God, and all persons are created in the image of God.
Further, those who have supported the language in the Discipline
must admit that if they are followers of Jesus, they are in no position to sit
and pass judgment on others; certainly we Reconciling United Methodists are in
no position to judge them. To be true to Christ, we must find our common bonds
and treat all persons in the way that Christ taught us. We have never been
given, and never will be given, God’s authority to judge or condemn anyone
else’s sins when we are equally guilty of sins ourselves. If homosexuality is to
be considered a sin by anyone, then it is to be treated like any other sin or
abomination, such as divorce (Mark 10:8), remarriage (Mark 10:11-12),
collecting and holding wealth (Ex. 22:25-27, Ezek. 18:13), or for that matter, wearing
cotton-polyester blends (Lev. 19:19), feasting on shrimp (Lev. 11:10), or
playing football (Lev. 11:8).
Let’s face it: if we really believe in Christian teaching, or more to the point, if we believe
in Jesus Christ and his teachings, if we fear God’s judgment, then we need to do better
than this. We must remove judgmental language from our church laws and ask for
forgiveness for having included it in the first place. We recognize that we need
to get the plank out of our own eye before we start pointing out the splinters
in others'. And, as Jesus knew when he said it, there will always be planks in
the eyes of us all - homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals alike. But again,
that is no reason not to try. It is time to remove the language about
homosexuality out of the Discipline.
PART III.
The Scientific Perspective
Most nonreligious studies on the subject of homosexuality have centered on answering
the following questions:
* What are the demographics of homosexuality in the general population?
*What causes homosexuality?
The only honest answer to both questions today is: We don't know. No reliable data
exist. Almost all inquiry into the first question emanates from the work of Alfred Kinsey,
and inquiry into the second question emanates from the work of Sigmund Freud.
Kinsey, reared in a strict Methodist home, publishedSexual
Behavior in the Human Male in 1948. His work on homosexuality stirred up a
firestorm when it first appeared in a nation heretofore completely silenced on
the subject. With regard to homosexuality, his formulation of the 7-point
spectrum of sexual behavior is now the axiomatic and fully accepted basis on
which all serious current studies are built, with a scale of "0" at one end of
the spectrum, meaning 100% heterosexual orientation, nondeviating, "6," meaning
100% homosexual, nondeviating, and "1" through "5" representing various degrees
of what he termed bisexuality, or capability for both homosexual and
heterosexual behavior.
The most interesting challenges to Kinsey's work were directed toward his placement of 6%
of the population figure in category 6, i.e., 100% homosexual. This figure is often questioned by
the fact that Kinsey relied heavily on the prison population to gather much of his data, going on
the assumption that the prison population exhibits, or exhibited, higher
incidences of homosexual behavior than is, or was true in the population at
large. It should also be considered, ironically, that in the mid-1940s when the
research was done, when even discussion of homosexuality was completely taboo,
the prison population was probably the only place where any sort of honesty or
credibility could be attained.
Today, pro-gay groups tend to use the figure of 10% as exclusively homosexual. This
figure has not been substantiated and arguably is impossible to substantiate due
to the still prevalent taboo and secrecy around the subject, but this figure is
probably high. Anti-gay groups tend to use figures of 3.5%, a figure also
impossible to substantiate and probably low. The problem remains that reliable
data absolutely cannot be achieved in a population where it is possible and even
deemed preferable to deny homosexual tendencies when in fact one actually has
them, and where there is no known scientifically accurate litmus test for
homosexuality, which could yield scientifically reliable numbers. Consider
this: if the figure were actually 3.5%, not to include bisexuals in any way,
then that means that the purely homosexual population in the United States is
more than 11 million people, a number that would make the group the seventh
largest state, right next to Pennsylvania. Or its the same number of people who
were killed by the Nazis in World War II. Or consider this: today we claim that there are 6.5
million American United Methodists, probably also an inflated figure, so the low estimate LGBT
community is now MUCH larger than the high estimate United Methodist community.
In looking at the second question, many hundreds of studies, following Freud,
attempt to discern a cause of homosexuality within the simplistic "nurture
versus nature" argument. The study of genetics is still in its infancy, in terms
of our understanding of how genes affect the lives and especially the behaviors
of individual persons. The effects of environmental, parental, cultural, and
socioeconomic influences are less obliquely discernable and describable, but
deviances from suggested normative nurture influences driving individuals toward
homosexuality are more than significant. Obviously, the cause, or more probably,
causes, of homosexuality are quite complex and definitely are not close to being
scientifically "proven" or accurately described and accepted, either by the
scientific community or the populace at large. In the end, they are just
theories. Two points must be made here. First, pro-gay groups tend to want to
push the premise that homosexuality is genetically based because they feel that
homosexuals cannot then be "blamed" by those who would blame them, as there is
no control over one's genetic makeup. Basically, this reasoning is a reaction to
persons who do blame homosexuals for being who they are. But that is a weak
premise for many reasons. Similarly, antigay groups want to push the premise
that homosexuality is caused by the environment. They want to conclude that
homosexuality is a "learned" behavior and therefore can be "unlearned." This
argument is also simplistic, as well as impossible, as some kinds of learning,
once learned, cannot be unlearned.
A simple but easy to understand example of the impossibility of "unlearning" something
"learned" is this. If you are a native speaker of English, a totally cultural and learned
linguistic phenomenon, and you were told as a full adult that you had to now
"unlearn" English, meaning NOT that you had to learn another language, but that
you had to get yourself in such a state of being that you utterly cannot
understand what even a single word or phrase in English means, do you think you
could do that? If you really think you could, you should be easily enough convinced to prove it.
We must acknowledge that we aren't even close to a definitive answer to the
question of what causes homosexuality. Without known cause, one cannot
scientifically derive "cures" or preventions.
So given this current state of affairs from a scientific point of view, what do the
scientists say about homosexuality? For this, we must turn to the medical
professions, as they are the scientists who apply medical science to human
diseases, conditions, bodily functions, and behavior.
Here, the policies are unequivocal and are based on medical science's most nearly unbiased
collective knowledge of human conditions. The American Medical Association, the American
Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National
Association of Social Workers, some of the nation's most respected institutions
representing the medical professions, all now state and have held the position
for at least two decades that
* homosexuality is not a disease or a mental disorder,
* discrimination against the LGBT community can have or does have harmful effects on those
discriminated against
* there is no scientific or medical basis whatever for LGBT persons to be discriminated against
in any way.
* attempts at remedial or so-called "reparative" therapies for LGBT persons have no basis in science
and can do much harm, especially if the so called therapies are administered against the will or the
nature of the treated individual.
A third question, "Can a person change from homosexual to heterosexual behavior?" is ruled out by
the medical professions as first it sees no basis for such changes, and second
it sees such application of "reparative" therapies as wrongheaded and potentially very harmful.
Please review the following policy statements from the American Psychiatric Association, the American
Medical Association, and the National Association of Social Workers:
1.) From "The American Psychiatric Association position paper on Reparative or Conversion
Therapies", March 2000 (www.apa.org/):
The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and
self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality
may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone
"reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals
are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction.
The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying
interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are
alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization
discussed. Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any
psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy which is
based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or
based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual
orientation.
2.) American Medical Association Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation, 1995
H-65.992 “Continued Support of Human Rights and Freedom”. Our AMA continues (1) to
support the dignity of the individual, human rights and the sanctity of human life, and (2) to
oppose any discrimination based on an individual's sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin or age and
any other such reprehensible policies. (Sub. Res. 107, A-85; Modified by CLRPD
Rep. 2, I-95; Reaffirmation A-00; Reaffirmation A-05; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07)
H-65.983 “Nondiscrimination Policy.” The AMA affirms that it has not been its policy now
or in the past to discriminate with regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. (Res. 1, A-93;
Reaffirmed: CCB Rep. 6, A-03; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07)
H-65.990 “Civil Rights Restoration.” The AMA reaffirms its long-standing policy that there is
no basis for the denial to any human being of equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities
commensurate with his or her individual capabilities and ethical character because of an
individual's sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or transgender
status, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin, or age. (BOT Rep. LL, I-86;
Amended by Sunset Report, I-96; Modified: Res. 410, A-03)
3.) National Association of Social Workers, "Reparative" and "Conversion" Therapies
for Lesbians and Gay Men. Position Statement, January 2000
When generally recognized standards do not exist with respect to an emerging area of practice,
social workers should exercise careful judgment and take responsible steps (including
appropriate education, research, training, consultation, and supervision) to
ensure the competence of their work and to protect the clients from harm (NASW, 1996).
The social worker should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any
form of discrimination on the basis of . . . sexual orientation . . . (NASW,
1996)
What are "reparative" or "conversion" therapies?
Reparative or conversion therapies claim, through the use of psychotherapy or other interventions,
to eliminate a person’s sexual desire for a member of his or her own gender. The
National Association of Social Workers’ National Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Issues (NCLGB) recognizes the emergence of these misleading therapies.
Reparative and conversion therapies, sometimes called "transformational
ministries," have received wider attention against the backdrop of a growing
conservative religious political climate (NASW, 1992), and through recent media
campaigns supported by the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council.
By advancing their efforts through such propaganda, proponents of reparative and
conversion therapies, such as the most commonly cited group NARTH, claim that
their processes are supported by scientific data; however, such scientific
support is replete with confounded research methodologies (Mills K. Mission
Impossible: Why Reparative Therapies and Ex-Gay Therapies Fail, Rev., Feb. 1999).
What are sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sexual behavior?
Sexual orientation is defined by the sex of individuals for whom one feels an attraction and
affection, both physical and emotional. Sexual orientation includes "sexual activity with
members of one’s own sex (homosexual orientation), the opposite sex
(heterosexual orientation), or both (bisexual orientation)" (Barker RL. Milestones
in the Development of Social Work and Social Welfare.
Washington DC: NASW Press, 1999:439–440). Moreover, sexual orientation differs
from other mistakenly ascribed concepts, such as sexual identity and sexual
behavior. Sexual identity refers to a person’s self-perception of his or her
sexual orientation, and sexual behavior refers to a person’s sexual activities.
In an effort to understand human relationships and human sexuality, "social
workers must be knowledgeable about biological factors, as well as about the
roles played by psychological, cultural, and social factors in sexual
expressions" (Harrison J. Roles, identities, and sexual orientation:
Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. In Levant RF, Pollack WS, Eds.
A New Psychology of Men. New York: Basicbooks, 1995:1419).
Can therapy change sexual orientation?
People seek mental health services for many reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to assert that
lesbians and gay men seek therapy for the same reasons that heterosexual people do. However,
the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from
family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and
gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which
cannot and will not change sexual orientation. Aligned with the American Psychological
Association’s (1997) position, NCLGB believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe
emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by
stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social
climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation
(Haldeman D. The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. J
Counsel Clin Psychol 1994:221-227). No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are
effective, and in fact they may be harmful (Constructionism and morality in
therapy for homosexuality. Davison, 1991. In Gonsiorek JC, Weinrich, JD, Eds.
Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy,
Haldeman, 1994:137-148, ibid.). "
PART IV.
Can We Reconcile?
A gay man, a published author, with a doctorate and a mortgage, shared that he had
been in an exclusive, committed relationship for the last 30 years. It is not
only Kim Kardashian he has outlasted on the heterosexual side. His partner and
he have raised two daughters (one daughter has just married, so that now he also
has a son-in-law). As with other forms of prejudice, once we see strange,
unfamiliar subgroups functioning normally around us in our lives, they become
less strange and unfamiliar. Eventually they become normal to us. It is
ignorance on our part, rather than any fault of theirs, that causes problems.
Just as Jews, people with pet cats, and NASCAR enthusiasts, homosexuals can live
in our communities without endangering our religion, pet choices, or hobbies.
We accept that some faithful members of The United Methodist Church will maintain that
a reading of scripture not condemning homosexuality is not in keeping with the plain meaning
of the relevant texts. We do not seek to forcibly bar such people from full communion simply because
they get tongue-tied upon being confronted with the same interpretive methodology
when considering divorce. Such persons are perfectly acceptable members of our
United Methodist Church. At the same time, we find their method of isolated
reading of scripture hypocritically relaxed when considering issues of divorce
and questions of wealth. We would expect to hear increasingly tortured
exegetical work explaining away issues of usury, selling children to pay off
debts, slavery, and misogyny, among others. We do not accept the distortions,
interpretations, and accommodations they make to perpetuate their prejudice. We
simply know that there is no faithful way to single out homosexuality as an
especially vile sin and pussyfoot around all these others. There is no Christian
way to say that Christ’s reconciling work has covered all sinners except
homosexuals. More time is spent in scripture condemning behaviors that we accept
readily within our congregations nowadays. In short, we find their reading of
scripture wrong. We understand they believe the same about our reading of scripture.
What has been the church's pattern in such situations? What can we do together when we
recognize such a fundamental disagreement between us? Church history can offer examples
such as the Inquisition, the 16th century Wars of Religion, and the split over slavery in
the Methodist Church before the Civil War. While energetically and sincerely
pursued, these episodes in church history in retrospect have not been seen as
positive. Fortunately, we have a better example within the roots of our faith
that returns us to our scriptural heritage; we may consider the first conflict
between the Apostles recorded in the Book of Acts. Peter and Paul here find
themselves in diametric opposition: some of the followers of Jesus believe that
new converts to the Christian faith must first become Jews (Acts 15:5). God
commanded dietary laws and circumcision for faithful Jews. Observing these
commands is the only way to be righteous. Gentile followers of Jesus find the
prospect of circumcision barbaric and repulsive. Eventually, Paul and Peter are
inspired to recognize two distinct ministries; one to the Jewish Christians and
one to the Gentile Christians. How could their agreement to disagree help us in
our current difficulties? Could we make a Discipline that allows for the legalists to
maintain their righteousness while others are free to move on in the hope of spreading
the Gospel further?
Consider some demographic shifts: in the 1960s and 70s many a child was taught that
homosexuals were depraved perverts who lived in vile ghettos of iniquity far
away from normal American communities. Children growing up today know that gay
people – often their aunts, uncles, cousins, or neighbors – hold responsible
positions in government and commerce, adding to the quality of church and
community life through time, prayer, talent, and wealth. The worldview that
derives from an increasingly peculiar and archaic interpretation of scripture,
while it may be tenaciously held, is simply unsustainable. The church in the
United States has no future where we minister to a new generation of Americans
while insisting upon the weirdly antiquarian theology that normal gay people are
equal in the sight of the Constitution and in every other way, but are involved
in some sin in degrees more evil than any other, and are not equal in the
church. It is an intellectual and civic incongruity that young people simply do
not comprehend.
Society has changed since exclusionary language was introduced into our Discipline in 1972
and, though certain persons in our denomination hold sincerely to the same ideas that
championed this wording change half a century ago, the rest of us have had to
confront new challenges more openly. None of us feels free to be openly racist
as we might have been in the early 1970s. There are far more biracial
individuals couples today in suburban America. The introduction of Muslims,
Hindus, and Sikhs into our communities has caused us to become more
understanding about religious differences. Developmentally challenged persons
have been mainstreamed in society. All of these now normal parts of our society
were not welcome in the early 1970s and members of society openly said so.
Saying such things now is looked upon with disfavor. It is not reasonable today
to think or behave as we did in the 1970s.
Likewise, we know of people who are gay and functioning normally in society. Some in the
church believe that LGBT persons are bad and the church’s witness must be to
change them. Others do not believe LGBT persons are any more sinful than any of
the rest of us and the church’s witness can and should be concerned with other
things. Neither side is making any headway changing the convictions of the
other. Here we are stuck. What shall we do?
Can same gender marriage have some deleterious effect on the institution of marriage
generally? Perhaps. But no more or less than heterosexual marriages. There are
presently, within heterosexual marriage, a wide range of behavior, with some
couples behaving wholesomely and affirmatively toward one another while other
couples corrupt and demean one another. One can imagine being inspired by the
one set and repulsed by the other. What manner of non-individual, distributive
consequence might same-sex marriage have on the culture of marriage?
An argument put forward against same-sex marriages is that such couples cannot
produce children and reproduction is an indispensable key to marriage. This is
not a defining attribute of marriage in the Marriage Service of The United
Methodist Church printed in 1989 (or Marriage Service of The Methodist Church
printed in 1966 or in 1932), or in the Discipline for these years [these services were formally included
within the binding of the Discipline before the 1960s]. Although the intention to engage in
the procreation of children is not, and has not been, a mandatory prerequisite
to solemnizing a marriage in The United Methodist Church, certain reactionary
elements within our communion have been championing this as normative. In the
Methodist tradition there is no current or historical prohibition against
marriage for heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children.
But even if there were, what barriers exist for LGBT persons being fine Christian parents?
Same-sex couples haven’t the ability to reproduce naturally. They either have no egg or
they have no sperm. Some artificial means of reproduction or recourse to
adoption is necessary for LGBT couples to rear children. Once this obstacle has
been passed, LGBT parents appear to have the same strengths and weaknesses in
the same proportions as heterosexual couples. Ample evidence shows that children
raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual
parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no
relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's
emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment (Pawelski JG, et al. The
effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health
and well-being of children. Pediatrics 2006;118: 349–364). No evidence exists that a parent's
sexual orientation determines a child’s sexual orientation – witness the
surprise of a heterosexual couple upon discovering they have a gay child, or
the number of children adopted and raised by homosexual couples who are
irrefutably heterosexual. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a
result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents. (Pawelski, et
al., 2006). No reputable, peer-reviewed, academic research supports the widely
held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.
Zach Wahls, at the age of 19, became an internet star in a video widely titled "Two Lesbians
Raised A Baby And This Is What They Got" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VnEexIhBTU
), which features the University of Iowa student speaking at a public forum to oppose an Iowa House
Joint Resolution that would ban gay marriage and civil unions. By his testimony,
he has suffered no harmful effects from having lesbian parents. Both men and
women have the capacity to be good parents, and having parents of both genders
does not enhance adjustment. The methodologies used in the major studies of
same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the fields of psychology
and developmental psychology. They constitute the type of research that members
of the respective professions consider reliable. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual
parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual
parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of
sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent
failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden
of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority
parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents. Discussion of this
may be found in the references below:
Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006
Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association.
(http://cha.org.ar/docs/matrimonio/CanadianPsychologicalAssociation.MarriageofSame-SexCouplesPositionStatement.pdf)
Short E, et al. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) parented
families – A literature review prepared for the Australian Psychological
Society. Brief of the American Psychological Association, the California
Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in support
of plaintiff-appellees.
A child growing up in the early to mid twentieth century likely heard gays described as
perverted, deviant, and disgusting. Such children learned that gays were
weak-minded, morally corrupt, and effete pedophiles. Those notions, drilled into
generations by rote, have not magically disappeared from minds just because they
have been discovered to have no basis in fact. Many such
children, once grown, could understandably find any occasion when they were
caused to think about homosexual intimacy and intercourse disagreeable (perhaps
somewhat akin to the discomfort teenagers might feel imagining their parents
engaging in intercourse). Such feelings can contribute to an inability to face
the injustice that our faith communities have perpetuated. As the rest of our
society makes reappraisals of its behavior toward LGBT persons, we in The
United Methodist Church would do well to reconsider those of our
scriptural interpretations that may provide props for our prejudice. The
continued exclusion of LGBT persons from full inclusion in the life of our
denomination is an embarrassing misunderstanding of scripture. Removing the
language that prevents sexual minorities from full inclusion in the life of our
denomination will free us to more authentically believe and live the Gospel.
We have been drilled to believe with fundamental zealousness a prima
facieinterpretation of a handful of Bible verses and thereby reject the overwhelming
message of the Gospel. We would embarrass ourselves profoundly if we were to insist on
applying the same fundamentalist extremism to scriptural injunctions regarding the status and
role of women, child rearing, agriculture, divorce, wealth, or middle school
science. We would never do this because the majority of us are heterosexuals,
parents, and productive members of society, and divorce and wealth are endemic
in American families today. We have found it easy to allow somewhere between
3.5% and 10% of the population (the LGBT portion) to be vilified because we are
too lazy to see how unevenly we weigh scripture.
We are all moral agents. We are responsible for our actions. The world, our lives,
and our church are our problem and our responsibility. In all of this
exploration of the origin of homosexuality, whether physiological or
psychological, this paper has not intended to align itself with the school of
behaviorist determinism. This theory argues that all human being’s actions and
attitudes are automatically conditioned by hereditary or sociological factors
and we have no control. Thus a person is deprived of any freedom of choice and
is absolved from taking responsibility for her or his actions. While it is one
thing to acknowledge our sexual orientation as possibly rooted in certain
endocrinology or patterns of maturation, it is something else again to conclude
that we are therefore helpless to manifest that sexuality in the context of
moral and ethical decisions. Absolute determinism is certainly not Wesleyan
because it negates the human spirit and ignores the human capacity for
responsible behavior. That spirit and capacity must also be expressed within the
boundary of our sexual predispositions.
The Christian faith has long maintained that persons must be held accountable for
their sexual expression. Above all, Christians affirm the sacred value of every
human life. Thus, sexuality that demeans that sacredness - that brutalizes,
exploits, or depersonalizes other human beings - is irresponsible and immoral.
It is for this reason that the Church has institutionalized the covenant of a
monogamous relationship as the ideal context for sexual relations between two
persons. Promiscuous sex - sex outside of caring for the total welfare of a
person - is superficial sex, which uses the other person and treats that person
as an object or a thing. We do not deeply care for another human being in the
course of an hour or a day or a week, and then move on to another person, and
then another, rupturing relationships and living as a law unto ourselves. Our
sexuality in love is not transient or fleeting; it is “for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health,” and we must most certainly
mean what we say when we vow, “Until we are separated by death.”
Do homosexual marriages exist, whether or not acknowledged? Of course they do. Over
the past few decades, we have heard more and learned to accept, or at least
tolerate LGBT relationships. Before this, we generally did not acknowledge LGBT
couples as a possibility. Gay couples now openly populate our communities, our
media, and our artistic expression. It is not at all clear or obvious that such
couples have had any negative influence on the balance of our society; in fact,
the argument can be made that such couples are in all ways a positive influence.
Can homosexual marriages be sacred? Arguing for covenant and commitment as the
factors that legitimize sexuality from the Christian point of view opens the door for
legitimizing homosexual relations between two persons who deeply care for one
another. The measure of responsible sexuality for the Christian should not be
genital differentiation, but relational commitment. According to this measure,
sexual acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are neutral. They ought to be
deemed immoral only as they exploit or dehumanize the one to whom they are
directed.
What norms can be used to hold homosexuals morally accountable? When we start with the
premise that a person is homosexual and free to choose within that tendency how he or she will
act toward the sacredness of others, we arrive at the same criteria we use for determining
heterosexual morality. Further, to the degree that homosexual promiscuity is
aggravated by society’s sanctions against “gay marriages,” then society itself
has been encouraging that instability. What is true for society is true for our
United Methodist Church. The Christian community has a moral obligation to
encourage covenantal relations between monogamous homosexuals, who, as
consenting adults, want to formalize their commitment to each other. Only when
Church and society recognize these covenants will we begin to lift our long-held
prohibitions against homosexuals who strive to be responsible in their
relationships. It is not enough to say that we are open-minded. We must organize
our civilization to match our cherished beliefs. It is unjust to exclude
committed monogamous homosexuals from a blessing by the Church and from
recognition by civil society. The scandalously true to the scriptures statement
is that in Jesus Christ, it is a relational commitment and not a genital
differentiation that distinguishes the act of love. In Christ, there is“neither
male nor female” (Galatians 3:28).
No matter what we decide within our United Methodist Church we will need some means
of ministering to an ever-increasing number of same-gender couples. Government
recognition of same-sex marriage is presently available in ten countries, a
growing number of U.S. states, and the District of Columbia. The states of Rhode
Island, and New Mexico do not allow same-sex marriages to be performed, but do
recognize such marriages performed elsewhere. Israel's High Court of Justice
ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it
is still illegal to perform them within the country.
Other countries, including the majority of European nations, New Zealand and Uruguay,
have enacted laws allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships, designed to
give gay couples rights similar to those afforded married couples concerning
legal issues such as inheritance and immigration. Our Discipline
is cutting us off from a larger and larger portion of the American population.
Apart from the states providing same-sex marriage, many jurisdictions in the
U.S. offer civil unions or domestic partnerships granting nearly all of the
state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples.
We have all spent so much energy on this issue in The United Methodist Church and so little has
been the result. Were that all this energy had been spent on something more
positive for the mission of the church! But we remain divided by conviction on
this issue.
Perhaps the Council of Jerusalem story from the Book of Acts can provide the guidance we
need; this would require of us a unity of apostolic proportions, however. Can we, in Christ,
agree to disagree? Can we in Christ remain in relationship, each of us permitted to minister in
the ways God has called us, and not requiring any congregation to support same-gender
relationships, bless them, or affirm them, while, at the same time allowing,
without hindrance, other congregations to do so? We have been holding one
another in a death grip over this issue. Can we learn from the wisdom of the
Council of Jerusalem to hold on to one another, in Christian charity, across
our differences?
What Reconciling United Methodists want is not to be required to follow a
hypocritical standard that is against our convictions. We acknowledge and
respect that faithful members of our denomination are of two minds and that a
way forward can be that we allow each side to make its own decisions about
homosexuality. However, to do this, we must remove the language about
homosexuality in the Discipline.
Consequently, the only statement which could be fittingly placed into the Discipline would be one in which we
acknowledge and respect that we are of two minds and will follow two different
directions, but that we choose to remain a United Methodist Church. Of this all
Reconciling United Methodists are convicted.
[1] Note
that in the Hebrew Scriptures, the term adultery is applied to a man who engages
in a sexual relationship with another man’s wife or to a wife who engages in a
sexual relationship with a man other than her husband—it is never applied to the
husband, no matter how many sexual relationships he has had, as the prohibition
was a patriarchal mechanism to protect a husband’s property rights over his
wife.