wfn.org | [PCUSANEWS] Task force sex talk rated G

[PCUSA NEWS <PCUSA.NEWS@ecunet.org>]

Note #7981 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS:

Task force sex talk rated G
03446
October 21, 2003

Task force sex talk rated G

Group discusses scholarly texts, eschews 'caricature and stereotype'

by John Filiatreau

FORT WORTH, TX - Two full years into its work, the Presbyterian Church
(USA)'s Theological Task Force finally had a conversation about
homosexuality.

Actually, the topic during last week's meeting was a great deal more abstract
than that: the theology of homosexuality.

The 17 task force members in attendance read, discussed and analyzed six
papers on the subject, identifying many points of disagreement but never
letting their exchanges become confrontational, or even contentious.

They didn't address directly the central issue of sexual conduct standards
for ordination. That's on the schedule for February.

Nor did they take a vote. But they did reach a conclusion: that the available
scholarship on religion and homosexuality - especially work from the
perspective of Reformed theology - is scarce and intellectually unimpressive.

The six papers included a magazine interview, a speech delivered before a
partisan Presbyterian "affinity" group, two essays that directly concern the
Roman Catholic Church and a chapter from a book written in Germany in the
early 1960s.

"To me, it was striking how hard it was to find resources," said task force
member Frances Taylor Gench, a theology professor at Union Theological
Seminary/Presbyterian School of Christian Education in Richmond, VA, adding:
"Where are our Reformed theologians, and why aren't we getting more help from
them?"

Barbara Wheeler, the president of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York,
said: "I wondered whether there wasn't more scholarship. ... This literature
is voluminous, but it's not as voluminous as you'd like. And our own
contribution as a denomination was quite limited."

The Rev. Jack Haberer, the Houston pastor who moderated the discussion, made
clear from the beginning that what he had in mind was "an analytical
exercise" aimed at discovering whether the authors' ideas "hold water" or
not. Of the six documents sent to the task force members for study in advance
of the meeting, he said, "None is perfect, but none ... is wholly
despicable."

Haberer said later that he was gratified by the "lack of caricature and
stereotyping" in the members' exchanges of ideas.

"We're doing our work around this topic with very, very careful theological
reflection," he added, "and I think we're off to a good start."

The Rev. Mike Loudon, the evangelical Florida pastor who sometimes has chafed
at the slow pace of the group's work, was experiencing frustration of a
different kind: "I've got to confess to you: If I have to read one more
article (about homosexuality), I'm going to scream," he said. "It just gets
wearisome."

After the two-hour discussion, however, Loudon said: "I thought we did good
work, in terms of not being belligerent with each other. I think we're moving
forward. I think we're making some progress."

The session was entered on the meeting agenda as "Analysis of Two Theological
Views of Sexuality," apparently meaning for and against full inclusion of gay
and lesbian Christians in the life the church. The authors actually espoused
a welter of positions, ranging from a blanket condemnation of gay and lesbian
sexuality to celebration of a reputed homosexual "charism."

The conversation was almost exclusively about male homosexuals and male
sexual behavior. None of the papers made more than passing reference to
lesbians.

Scott Anderson, the executive director of the Wisconsin Council of Churches,
who is gay, said: "I appreciated the approach we took to these issues. So
often in the church we so quickly move into polemic mode. I think this is
good modeling for the whole church.  But it is strange to me to be having an
 intellectual and sterile conversation about something that for me is so
deeply personal. It's a bifurcating experience that makes participating in
this difficult for me."

The sense of trust that made it possible to broach the sensitive topic
without discomfort was a payoff of two years of community-building.

"Being here has been like being in safe territory," Joan Kelley Merritt said
at meeting's end. "I do not have to take a side. I can let it be. It's like a
sanctuary. ... But now I know we're going to have to go out into the breach
and face those nasty emails."

Gradye Parsons, the task force liaison from the Office of the General
Assembly, said, "It's the first time in 21 years that I have approached a
conversation about sexuality and my stomach was at peace."

The task force talked mostly about the same issues that arise repeatedly in
the church at large and will undoubtedly figure in the group's debates about
homosexual ordination:

* Whether the Bible's proscription of homosexual behavior is absolute;

* Whether one's sexual orientation is innate or voluntary;

* Whether homosexual behavior can be consistent with personal holiness;

* Whether God has ordained heterosexuality as the only "normative sexual
orientation for authentic human existence";

* Whether homosexuality is somehow a perversion of "nature."

As one might have guessed, half of the authors favor the inclusion of gays
and lesbians and half oppose it.

PRO:

"How To Decide? Homosexual Christians, the Bible, and Gentile Inclusion," by
Jeffrey S. Siker, assistant professor of theology at Loyola Marymount
University; from Theology Today, 1994.

Bottom line: "The Bible does not give us clear guidance regarding inclusion
of gays and lesbians in the Christian community, but it does give us clear
guidance regarding the inclusion of those who, even to our surprise, have
received the spirit of God and join us in our Christian confession."

In advocating inclusion, Siker, a Presbyterian, invokes the model of the
first-century church's grudging inclusion of "unclean" Gentiles in the
nascent Jewish Christian community.

He writes in part from personal experience: "Before I came to know various
Christians who are also homosexual in their sexual orientation, I was like
the hard-nosed doctrinaire circumcised Jewish Christians who denied that
Gentiles could receive the spirit of Christ as Gentiles. But just as Peter's
experience of Cornelius in Acts 10 led him to realize that even Gentiles were
receiving God's Spirit, so my experience of various gay and lesbian
Christians have led me to realize that these Christians have received God's
Spirit ... and that the reception of the Spirit has nothing to do with sexual
orientation. ...

"Now, with Peter, I am compelled to ask, 'Can anyone withhold the water for
baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?'"

Siker concludes, "The Bible certainly does not positively condone
homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does
it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian
relationships from being within the realm of God's intentions for humanity."

CON:

"Sexuality from the Beginning," by Thomas E. Schmidt; from "Straight &
Narrow? Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate" (Intervarsity
Press), 1995:

Bottom line: "A biblical view of sexuality does not depend on lists of
prohibited activities but on the pervasiveness and reasonableness of an
affirmed activity: heterosexual marriage. ... Homosexual acts (do not) remain
neutral. Instead, they undermine heterosexual union and the family."

Schmidt, writing for an academic audience, says the scriptural key is to be
found in Genesis, in the Adam and Eve story, which he says is the first of a
number of Biblical passages that clearly establish male-female sexual
relations as the norm for human beings.

While he concedes that "the human author of Genesis was not consciously
prohibiting same-sex relations," he holds that scripture makes clear that God
would prohibit it.

He argues in part from "complementarity," the notion that male and female are
"necessary counterparts" in the scheme of creation. In this connection, too,
he concedes that "the Bible does not make the point in so many words"; but he
claims it is permissible to "derive reasonable implications" from what is
observed in nature and what is found in scripture.

Schmidt invokes anatomy - one member termed it "plumbing" - in support of the
"complementarity" concept, writing, "The penis fits inside the vagina, and
the fit is pleasurable to both partners." In homosexual relations, he says,
"Either a penis or a vagina is missing, so the act can only simulate
penetration and envelopment."

He argues that homosexuality is a direct threat to heterosexual marriage and
to the human family: "There are fundamental problems involved in the
existence side by side of heterosexual monogamy and homosexual practice," he
says, without enumerating them. It is his contention that such practice
cannot be neutral but "is an expression of sexuality contrary to
heterosexuality."

Loudon says this resonates with the fears of some evangelicals that there is
a "gay agenda" that includes a conspiratorial interest in undermining
marriage and family.

Schmidt points out, "Every sexual act that the Bible calls sin is essentially
a violation of marriage, whether existing or potential."

Mark Achtemeier, a theology professor from Iowa, noting that Schmidt "puts
all his chips on Genesis," said he may do so because "the proof-texting case"
against homosexuality - basing the proscription on specific passages from
scripture - "is enormously vulnerable."

Yet one cannot simply disregard what scripture says, argued John Wilkinson, a
pastor from Rochester, NY: "You can't ignore the Bible; we have to remember
that."

Achtemeier said the case for complementarity is "very slippery."

PRO:

"Disputed Questions: Debate and Discernment, Scripture and the Spirit," by
Luke Timothy Johnson; from "Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary
Readings" (Blackwell Publishing), edited by Eugene F. Rogers Jr., 2002.

Bottom line: "The burden of proof required to overturn scriptural precedents
is heavy, but it is a burden that has been borne before. ... Inclusivity must
follow from evidence of holiness."

Johnson, a former Roman Catholic monk, agrees with Siker that the apostles'
inclusion of Gentiles in Acts "might provide a model for how the Spirit works
to change the community of the faithful and include previously excluded
groups."

Scripture is a weaving together of many "voices" that can seem inconsistent
or even contradictory, he writes, and Christians must be cautious about any
"ecclesial decision to live by one rather than another of these voices, to
privilege one over another, to suppress one in order to live by another." He
contends that the Holy Spirit is still in the business of revelation, and
that the meaning of scripture is still evolving today.

More persuasively, he questions "whether the church's concentration on sexual
behavior corresponds proportionally to the modest emphasis placed by
scripture."

"The harder question, of course," he adds, "is whether the church can
recognize the possibility of homosexual committed and covenantal love, in the
way that it recognizes such sexual/personal love in the sacrament of
marriage."

Member Joe Coalter wasn't very comfortable with the concept of multiple
Biblical "voices."

"Why read this book (the Bible) and not something else, if God is so active
in the world?" he asked " I'm uncomfortable when you give the structure so
many legs that it can go anywhere."

Haberer said he is from a Pentecostal tradition in which "revelation was a
daily thing  but it still had to stand up to the test of scripture."

Wheeler said she admired Johnson's "dynamic, living view of scripture," his
characterization of it as "something that goes out and grabs you," creating
"theological understandings  if you let it do that."

Achtemeier said there is a danger that believers meaning to be alert to the
movement of the Spirit will stop searching out "the will and intention of
God," and "just start listening to the voices themselves."

Coalter pointed out that "trying to decipher which is the Holy Spirit and
which is just a spirit is really hard to do," a quandary that arises from the
Reformed tradition that holds that the Holy Spirit is always at work.

One of the fundamental questions in all this, Johnson says, is whether
homosexuality and holiness in life are compatible.

CON:

"The Theologicoethical Aspect of Homosexuality," by Helmut Thielicke; from
"Theological Ethics" (Eeerdmans Publishing), translated from the German by
John W. Doberstein, 1979.

Bottom line: "The homosexual is called upon not to affirm his status a priori
or to idealize it ... but rather (to) regard and recognize his condition as
something that is questionable. ... Christian pastoral care will have to be
concerned primarily with helping the person to sublimate his homosexual
urge."

Thielicke, a Dutch theologian who died in 1986, begins with concessions about
scripture that are almost dismissive: "As far as the Old Testament is
concerned, it is uncertain whether the passages concerning 'sodomy,' which
have been traditionally authoritative, actually refer to homosexual acts at
all," he writes. "In the New Testament, homosexuality is again listed in
catalogue fashion with other forms of disobedience."

He contends that homosexual behavior is sinful, observing that "Jesus dealt
with the sensual sinners incomparably more leniently than he did with the
sinners who committed the sins of the spirit and cupidity."

In Thielicke's view, a Christian with a "homosexual urge" must try to
sublimate or suppress it; and one who engages in such sinful behavior (his
essay seems to concern only males) must "be willing to be treated or healed
so far as this is possible." Theilicke admits that that may not be very far.
"Experience shows that constitutional homosexuality  is largely
unsusceptible to medical or psychotherapeutic treatment," he writes, " as
far as achieving the desired goal of a fundamental conversion to normality is
concerned."

Interestingly, he also speaks of a special gift or "charism" of homosexuals,
"a pedagogical eros" often expressed as "a heightened sense of empathy."

He concludes, "The best way to formulate the ethical problem of the
constitutional homosexual, who because of his vitality is not able to
practice abstinence, is to ask whether within the coordinating system of his
constitution he is willing to structure the man-man relationshp in an
ethically responsible way."

Thielicke's prosaic treatment of scripture is a bit surprising, Haberer said,
since he "is looked on very favorably by evangelicals as one of their own"
and "is still accorded great respect within that community." Achtemeier said
the German's argument seems based "less on his approach to scripture and more
on the empirical facts of the case."

Barbara Wheeler noted of Thielicke, "He alone among these writers takes on
what is a major argument on the other side: that Genesis 1:2 trumps it all."
Anderson said: "This is one of the hearts of the debate - to what extent is
the Genesis story normative; and is it normative for every human being?"

Achtemeier, noting that it is Schmidt "who presents the appeal to Genesis,"
said Schmidt and Thielicke arrive at different positions, but it's not
because they "read the text differently  It's not a disagreement over
scripture."

Curtiss objected that, in Thielicke's formulation, "It feels to me like the
burden of redemption falls on the people who are homosexuals."

For Thielicke, Loudon said, "I think the pastoral-care thing is the point; I
see him struggling with the pastoral care." Wheeler agreed: "This is a pastor
tearing himself apart over this."

Several members noted that Thielicke's work is "dated," in that it is more
than 40 years old. But Loudon said it reminds him of a Studebaker Avanti - an
old model, but one that was well ahead of its time.

PRO:

"I'm Here," an interview with journalist Andrew Sullivan published in 1993 in
America, reprinted from the AndrewSullivan.com Web site.

Bottom line: "The church has conceded this: Some people seem to be
constitutively homosexual. ... Yet the expression of this condition, which is
involuntary and therefore sinless - because if it is involuntary, obviously
no sin attaches - is always and everywhere sinful! ... Philosophically, it is
incoherent; fundamentally incoherent."

Sullivan, a conservative former editor of The New Republic, says of his first
experience of same-sex love: "I felt, through the experience of loving
someone, or being allowed to love someone, an enormous sense of the presence
of God, for the first time of my life."

Of his previous period of denial, he says: "The moral consequences  of the
refusal to allow myself to love another human being, were disastrous. They
made me permanently frustrated and angry and bitter. It spilled over into
other areas of my life."

He later tells his interviewer: "I think we are called to commitment and to
fidelity, and I see that all around me in the gay world. ... The permanent
commitment of one person to another teaches human beings ... what love is ...
(and provides) ... a kind of stability and security and rock upon which to
build one's moral and emotional life. To deny this to gay people is not
merely ... wrong, from the Christian point of view. It is incredibly
destructive of the moral quality of their lives."

Sullivan faults the church for its long neglect of gay believers. Speaking of
AIDS, he says, "The spiritual dimension of this event is enormous, and the
need for the church to provide some structure, some hope, some spiritual
guidance and balm, and - Nothing; virtually nothing." He adds that while
about one-quarter of the members of his own congregation are gay, "There is
almost no ministry to gay people, almost no mention of the subject." (The
interview was recorded in 1993; Sullivan remarks presciently that
homosexuality "is at the very heart of the (Catholic) hierarchy.")

Surprisingly, he says he shares the church's high regard for "natural law."

"Here is something (homosexuality) that seems to occur spontaneously in
nature, in all societies and civilizations," he says, challenging the church
to a pastoral rather than judgmental role: "Why not a teaching about the
nature of homosexuality? ... Explain it: How does God make this? Why does it
occur? What should be do?  How can the doctrine of Christian love be applied
to homosexual people?"

All of the papers touch in some way upon the Augustinian concept of "natural
law," although the authors view it from a variety of perspectives.

Achtemeier said of Sullivan's argument, "What comes through is his sense that
the church's position ought to make sense - the kind of sense the gospel
ought to make."

"Do we say that the gospel has nothing to do with a whole category of people,
who  find themselves in this condition?" he asked.

Wheeler said Sullivan seems to be wondering "what he's supposed to do with
the capacity to love.  I think he wants the church to tell him how to get to
God."

Sullivan comments that true healing may come not in the church, but rather in
families of people "who deal with the issue more directly at the level of
human love."

CON:

"The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Theology, Analogies, and Genes," by
Robert A.J. Gagnon, assistant professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary; based on material prepared for a workshop at the
Presbyterian Coalition Gathering of 2001.

Bottom line: "A church that attempts to supplant a consistently and strongly
held sexual norm in scripture is a church that has given up hope that Jesus
is Answer enough."

Gagnon is the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and
Hermeneutics, a book some evangelicals consider the definitive work on
homosexuality. In this 16-page polemic, he contends, largely without
presenting supporting evidence, that "homosexual self-definition ... is based
on mutable subjective desire ... largely shaped by familial and
extra-familiar cultural/environmental factors."

"Homoerotic desire is not like race or anatomical sex. It is not a fixed,
immutable birthright," he says. "It is closer to an entrenched (but not
irrevocable) taste."

To be fair, Gagnon didn't prepare his paper for formal presentation to an
audience of scholars, but for oral delivery to a like-minded Presbyterian
Coalition audience. It is written to a different, and less academic standard.
It probably shouldn't be taken as a fair representation of his 500-page book.
Gagnon's paper is also the only one of the six to take an aggressive, frankly
polemic tone.

In Gagnon's view, homosexuals are petulant, unrepentent sinners who would
say, if they were honest, "I will be the master of my domain. I will dictate
to God what I need in life to make me happy." He has no compunctions about
putting words into others' mouths. The apostle Paul, for example: "If Paul
could be transported into the 21st century and told that homoerotic desires
have (at most) a partial and indirect connection to innate causation factors,
he doubtless would have said either, 'I could have told you that' or at very
least, 'That fits well into my own understanding of sin.'"

Gagnon hedges many of his claims to such a degree that little meaning remains
(italics added): "Reparative therapists and transformation ministries report
some success in achieving for motivated clients considerable to complete
change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation" ... "While not
discounting altogether genetic influence in the development of a homosexual
identity, the studies to date suggest that the influence is not major" ...
Same-sex intercourse is proscribed "in both Testaments, at least implicitly;
pervasively within each Testament, at least implicitly."

The receptive audience apparently emboldened Gagnon to make a number of broad
claims about homosexuality without presenting evidence in their support. For
example, he writes that homosexuality often results when a child is
"encouraged at a crucial stage of sexual development into cultivating
homosexual self-identification and behavior." He casually refers in passing
to "the off-the-charts promiscuity of homosexual men," and to undefined
"commonsense standards for sexual complementarity." He draws direct
correlations by assertion: "The greater the latitude for sexual
experimentation, especially in the period from late childhood through
adolescence and early adulthood, the greater the incidence of
self-identifying homosexuals." He makes claims so sweeping that their meaning
is obscure: "The behavior arising from homosexual desire is associated with
... an annihilation of basic societal gender norms."

"That is ultimately what this whole sexuality debate is about," he writes.
"It is about whether or not we have the right to define for ourselves what we
can do on the basis of desires that we experience in life."

Anderson called Gagnon's paper "a complete caricature" that is grossly
inaccurate in many respects. "There is a huge body of science that he chooses
not to cite," he charged, adding: "He does not in any way describe what life
is like in the gay community."

"This is a polemical document, written in the heat of battle," Curtiss
pointed out. Haberer explained that Gagnon is "a street-fighter kind of a
theological guy."

Wheeler said ruefully, "This is the tone of a lot of academicians."

Achtemeier commented that Gagnon "credits the proof-texting approach" to
scripture "more than the others," but the crux of his argument is "whether
homosexual orientation can be changed through effort." He said Gagnon clears
away ambiguity "by making (homosexuality) essentially a voluntary sort of
condition."

Loudon agreed that Gagnon "definitely does not believe the biological
evidence" that homosexuality is a biological condition "is definitive."

"I think that is very much at the bottom of this whole argument," he said.

Loudon said he believes Gagnon "represents very well his constituency, not
just in the church but in the world.  He sees this as a war."

"I think it's scorched-earth," Achtemeier remarked.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, please send an email to
pcusanews-subscribe-request@halak.pcusa.org or
pcusanews-unsubscribe-request@halak.pcusa.org

To contact the owner of the list, please send an email to
pcusanews-request@halak.pcusa.org