Love = love

By Sarah S. Howell

I have a t-shirt that says, “Gay? Fine by me.” I have another with stick figures in three pairs: one, a man and a woman; another, two men; the third, two women, and all with the caption “Love = Love.” I was raised to love people no matter what they look like or what they think or do. I am grateful for that. But I don’t wear those shirts often, because I find myself on the fence on this issue.

The question of ordaining gays has been brought very close to home as a young woman I know who wants to be ordained in the United Methodist Church has come out as a lesbian.

To see people that I know and love being denied the fullness of their pursuit of what they perceive as God’s call on their lives is troubling at the very least. I cannot ignore my church’s stance on the issue, much less the scriptural basis in which it is grounded. The fact of the matter is that the United Methodist Church, of which I am a part, does not ordain gays. If I pursue ordination myself, there will be times when I will have to adhere to the tradition of my denomination, which may mean denying support to friends who want to be ordained. It breaks my heart to think about having to do so.

The church I attend in Durham, North Carolina, is a diverse congregation, and that includes diversity in sexual orientation and gender identification. I know that there are some people in that church who believe that homosexuality is a serious sin, but they still share hymnals with our gay members and hug them during the passing of the peace. They may not agree with their life choices, but they love them unconditionally.

It seems to me that this is the church’s best response to the question of homosexuality. A person’s sexual orientation—or race, age, gender, etc.—should never prevent him or her from being included in the worshiping body of Christ. I have seen what it looks like for a church to “love the sinner and hate the sin.” If it were not possible to do this, how could any of us ever relate to one another? We know all too well that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

But several questions remain. Why is homosexuality portrayed as so grievous a sin by the church when adulterers, even among the clergy, are not always dealt with consistently? Is the issue of ordaining gays eventually going to follow the trajectory that the question of ordaining women did (at least among most Protestant churches), or is this a different kind of question? Are we really accepting gays into the body of Christ if we love them unconditionally but do not allow them to be ordained?

Sarah S. Howell is a junior at Duke University.

Comments

[Jeff]

Sarah,

I have never been to this blog before, but i saw your note on Facebook and thought it better to respond here rather than there...

This is a very thoughtful post and I appreciate what you have to say a lot... I find myself in a somewhat similar place as you regarding this - one of the most sensitive and pertinent issues currently facing the mainline Protestant curches in America in general, and the UMC in particular.

I haven't formulated my thoughts on this in a very coherent fashion, probably because I don't really have very many coherent thoughts on this... So, I'm shooting from the hip here... Now that I've published my disclaimer, here goes...

I tentatively lean heavily (if that's possible) towards the full inclusion of homosexuals in the life of the church - including making available to them the rites of ordination and marriage.

I am not an expert on this by any means. But, my opinion is based on Galatians 3:28 (there is no longer jew or greek, slave or free, male or female for we are all one in Christ Jesus) and on Paul's description of Christian marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33. Nothing in Paul's description of a Christian marriage necessarily precludes homosexual couples - as he commends the self-giving love of Christ as the hallmark of Christian marriage to the Ephesians and to us.

I get where you're coming from with your line of thought that it is the tradition of the UMC. (And, the Christian Church at large as well.) I think that most of the time that we neglect tradition, we do so at our own peril. *But*... that being said, the Church traditionally has also advocated practices that are clearly against the Gospel...

Bottom line on that is... I really question what sort of role tradition can play in this discussion... Should it play some sort of role? Yes. But, to simply say that our tradition does not allow for the ordination of homosexuals is ultimately a cop-out. (And I know you weren't suggesting such a simplistic use of tradition in your argument, but I really do think that is inevitably where that line of thinking ends up.)

And we also do need to grapple with the scriptural texts on the issue. BUT... I also think we need to include scriptural texts in this discussion that are not normally included... Galatians 3:28, to cite one example.

But the bottom line is this... Even *if* homosexuality is a sin, should we exclude people from the ordained ministry because of it? You wisely cite the double standard that is applied to homosexuals and adulterers, for example. I know a lot of people that are on the path towards ordained ministry. I probably will join them on that path someday. We are all sinners... My sins might not be apparent, but I know the daily reality of my own sins. We all do. Yet those sins do not hold us back from ordination.... why? Because we know that ultimately our ministries our works of God's grace and the power of the Holy Spirit. We are all earthen vessels... All of us, including our homosexual brothers and sisters, and so why would we exclude them from ordained ministry?

[Amy]

You've got the t-shirts but you don't seem to have the message. If "love=love" what more do you need to support full rights for GLBT people?

I am ordained clergy, and I do not, for a second, support our denominational "policy" excluding gay marriage or gay ordination. I support my friends, closeted and out who are pursuing ordination. Pressure has to come from without and within to bring change.

Until we recognize and celebrate the call of God on ALL people, we are agents of oppression.
Jesus said something about "letting the oppressed go free"

[Jason Byassee]

There is a certain impatience in both these comments that is common to this debate on both sides: you shout down your opponents rather than arguing on any grounds they might share in a way that has a chance of changing their minds, or at least respecting their disagreement. This is why James Alison and Eugene Rogers are so important--they offer arguments that are biblically based, steeped in tradition, aimed at those who also cherish scripture, tradition, and discipline--instead of either mocking them or expressing disgust at them (they've seen enough of that from the other side).

[Suzy]

My "day job" overlaps with politics frequently, and I often hear arguments that insist everything would be fine if everyone would just come around to one person's right way of thinking. I don't think the world works that way, however. We can't short-circuit discussion on this topic, and perhaps we shouldn't wish to. Minimizing its complexity is dangerous. That may mean that the conflict is not resolved in our lifetime, but we need to resolve it in truth, not just drag opponents along kicking and screaming, send them fleeing, or leave them feeling they've been abandoned. None of those are solutions for the body. I may grow impatient with proceeding decently and in order, but the reasons that tradition grew up are still valid.

I am concerned about such comments as, "Even *if* homosexuality is a sin, should we exclude people from the ordained ministry because of it?" While I don't necessarily disagree with what I think Jeff is saying, that "even if" is dangerous, because it seems to suggest that sin is irrelevant.

[Brandy]

I wish I could spend a lot of time responding to this blog, but,I have so much homework to do, sigh. But I did want to say a few things...

First, Sarah, I appreciate your post, and your thought on these issues. I appreciate your willingness to wear the shirts and appreciate your honesty about 'being on the fence'.

I also think that your thoughts and comments about the church and the variety of opinions in your church are wise. I think there is something to be said about a church embracing a variety of opinions and thoughts... about, in Yoderian terms, open meeting.

With that being said, I do think Jeff and Amy have a point and I do get nervous about the result of this variety of opinions.

I think that there may be a danger in this variety of opinions, of a church holding that some people in the congregation view homosexual relationships as sinful whereas others are in homosexual relationships...

I don't want to be extreme or polemical, but just speak from my own experiences...

I am a lesbian, and I go to a school and am part of a church where there are a variety of opinions, within the people in leadership and in the students and congregation. (I actually go to Duke Div :-)).

I dont really want to talk about the divinity schol, as I think a variety of opinions are necessary in an academic environment (though I would say that there is not equal weight given to those who affirm LGBT people/relationships.... but that is another conversation). But, church...

Like I said, open meeting is important. However, as a lesbian who does not plan on being celibate my entire life, the view by some in my congregation results in me often feeling like a second-class citizen.

Love the sinner, hate the sin is tricky, because part of 'hating the sin' means helping the person out of the sin/not supporting the sin. Look at Matthew 18-if a person is living in sin, there is a way that a congregation should respond. Or, even with some of the details of that aside, our hopes for people 'living in sin' is that they work their way out of it... the process of sanctification, right?

So, if we hold this view, then logic would suggest that a lesbian in a relationship is problematic because they are willingly 'living in sin' and 'not trying to break free from it'.

To be honest, I dont know what to do with this issue. I want to be open and patient with those who think differently than me, and want to affirm the idea of open meeting, but, at the same time, it is difficult for me to feel welcome and safe and 'equal' in a place where people think that my relationships are sinful.

Just my thoughts, in the form of rambling due to time constraints, sorry.

Thanks again for your blog. :-)

[John C. Bonser]

Where in the Gospels does Jesus tell us that the homosexual is condemned?

Before she became the darling of the right wing Dr. Laura used to tell her listeners that homosexuality is condemned in Torah about the same place that kosher cooking is promoted.

[Jason Byassee]

He doesn't address it directly of course, and when he speaks of sinners he tends to do so with forgiveness--judgment he aims more readily at religious leaders of course. But he does insist that he upholds and fulfills the law. Israel's Torah, in Chris Seitz's words, is authoritative not just when it's referred to, but when it's deferred to. The church has blessed sexual intimacy in covenanted partnerships between man and woman for its whole history. The pro-inclusion side does itself no favor when it acts like this would not be a massive change. It may yet be right to do so of course.

[Paul]

"and when he speaks of sinners he tends to do so with forgiveness--judgment he aims more readily at religious leaders of course" This is of course true, but in the context of this conversation it might be misleading. The fact that Jesus speaks with forgiveness should not be divorced from the fact that that forgiveness is expressed in the context of the coming kingdom, which is announced with a call to repentance. Which call is reiterated throughout the new testament. An aspect of the gospel which it increasingly seems to be lost amid the rush to be "compassionate." Forgiveness in no way condones or confers special status to the activity forgiven. The language used is the same, but the meaning is changing. It seems.

[Bob]

Being patient and charitable toward those who are opposed to homosexuality is a good thing, and I try to be that way most of the time with people who hold views different than mine. However, I have trouble with two positions in the post and comments:

1. I think we need to take seriously the scholarship that essentially demolishes the interpretations of scripture that have historically been used to support racism, sexism and homophobia. Bishop Sprague (UMC) and Bishop Spong (Episcopal) have presented carefully developed exegetical work on the passages the church has used for race and gay bashing.

2. The last time I looked scientific study had still not been able to provide a definitive answer regarding the genetic basis for sexual orientation, but there seems to be some strong evidence of biological differences between heterosexual and homosexual persons. If it turns out that homosexual orientation is a Creation gift the same as heterosexual orientation, then the church will have to shift on this issue like it did on racial and gender equality, and those currently demanding repentance for what they call the “sin” of homosexual orientation will be the ones needing repentance and forgiveness.

In the meantime, I think the world would be a vastly better place if we could bring ourselves to be less judgmental and more unconditionally loving. Maybe some of the energy used to be anti-gay could be more profitably employed on behalf of peace, education, equality, health care and human dignity.

(Full disclosure: I am a straight male retired United Methodist Pastor who never supported the UMC passion on homosexuality.)

[Jason Byassee]

To describe the work of bishops Spong or Sprague as "careful" is not a way forward for anyone who doesn't already agree--both men's mockery (no other word works) of traditional theologies of God, Christ, salvation etc means they will not be listened to on this. Nor does it help to equate race and sexual orientation--gays and lesbians can often "pass" for the norm much more easily than non-white persons can.

I do think, in response to Paul, that Jesus' manner with non-Jews is important. His form of compassion for sinners is indeed to tell them to sin no more. But he does not tell Samaritans to be Samaritan no more! I do think reflection on Jesus' practice toward the religiously unclean is a way forward for pro-gay inclusion folks. It's not a knock-down argument, but it's strong.

[Sarah S. Howell]

Thank you everyone for your feedback; my post was intended, not to promote a specific viewpoint, but to pose questions and encourage discussion, and I'm glad to see that a variety of people have responded so far. I want to respond to a few things that have been said in the comments:

Jeff - I think that to suggest that deferring to tradition is a cop-out is to (a) underestimate the difficulty of upholding tradition, especially in the American Protestant church and (b) forget that tradition is there for a reason. These issues are not new; people have thought about these things for a long time, and even though the shape of the questions may change over time, we cannot discount what has gone before. It seems to me that a poor grasp of the role of tradition in the modern church is something that Protestantism in particular really struggles with.

Suzy - Thank you for pointing out that for one side to win this debate is for the other side to lose and for damage to be done to the body of Christ. If one extreme or the other has its way, it does no one any good because it harms the unity of the church and damages relationships.

Bob - Certainly the scholarship you refer to should be taken seriously, but so, too, should interpretations of Scripture that have come to the other conclusion. Both sides have very good arguments, both are Scripturally based, and both run into problems along the way. Also, I will say that at one point all I needed to hear to OK homosexuality across the board was that some people are born that way. I certainly think that's true, but if we believe in original sin, we must know that just because we are born a certain way does not make the actions that stem from that OK. I was born a sinner, but my sins are still sins. I've always leaned toward full inclusion (though I think marriage might be a different issue...longer story there), but I am learning to struggle with these very real issues brought up by Scripture and what the Bible tells us about human nature.

Jason - Interesting point about the Samaritan thing. I'll have to think about that more. I guess my first response would be that there is a difference between being a homosexual and being a practicing homosexual. I don't think it's the church's job to turn people straight--the very thought gives me chills. Also, I have a friend who is gay and is choosing to remain celibate because he's Catholic, and although this seems to be the best course of action if he believes that Scripture forbids him to act out his sexuality, it breaks my heart because he feels very lonely a lot of the time. I mean, clearly everyone, gay or straight, ought to observe limits when it comes to sexuality, and I don't know the right answer here, but cases like that of my friend do make me a little sad.

These responses of mine are all fairly disjointed and painfully brief, but besides the question of homosexuality are those of church tradition, Scriptural authority and plenty of others...any of which would require a dissertation to begin to be understood. Thanks again for everyone's thoughts.

[Jason Byassee]

Great post Sarah to spark all this.

My worry about Protestants invoking celibacy is we don't actually have it as a practice except for when we demand it of gays and lesbians--it's more intelligible in a Catholic context.

The other pro-inclusion arguments that 'work' for me include the analogy to the inclusion of the gentiles in Acts 15. This is strengthened with Gene Rogers' argument that Romans suggests previously unclean things (Gentiles) are now clean. The analogy may fail in that God forecasts no large-scale inclusion of homosexuals in the OT, and the NT is at pains to argue that this inclusion of the nations is scripturally foretold. James Alison's arguments about scapegoating, borrowing from Rene Girard, are very good and always elegantly rendered.

[real live preacher]

I salute the bravery of this post. I heard Sarah taking a stance that is outside of her own community practice. Her willingness to do so carefully is well-advised.

And at the end, she let us know where she feels she is going and the church should go. The rest was just a description of what is.

I've read everything the Bible has to say about homosexuality. My own conclusion is that this is a non-issue. Full membership in the Body of Christ with full privileges and responsibilities. But I deal with people in church who are struggling. My gentle but firm stance (and a willingness to talk about it) paired with an understanding that this issue takes time, seems to be a good approach.

[Obadiah Ballinger]

I have nothing terribly unique to add to this conversation, but I'm heartened to read all that is here. The discussion needs to continue, and this has generally been a civil, upbuilding conversation.

I do confess a feeling of weariness in reading this. I am a gay man who came out seven years ago, near the end of high school. My first concern in wrestling with my sexuality was how it would affect my call to ministry, which I've felt for even longer. The church's welcome and ordination of lovingly-partnered queer folks has been a recurring theme throughout my college and seminary careers. God willing and the creek don't rise, I will be ordained with the blessing of the United Church of Christ, but I'm sure that I will be surrounded and affected by these conversations through the rest of my ministry.

Nevertheless, I sometimes tire of it. It is a measure of the extent to which I have already been welcomed and included that I feel free to pursue other parts of the Gospel's call in our time. I am more concerned about addressing the global disparity of wealth, inclusion of the most poor into our churches, finding ways to be "progressive" and "evangelical", connecting local and national expressions of the church, and bringing together academic scholarship with the lives of those in the pews. I can get impatient when the question of gay ordination comes up--especially when it is strangers deciding the validity of my calling. Yet, I know that the issue really IS important for the Church to consider, and these deliberations will take time and patience. I am grateful for those folks here (mostly straight) who are carrying on the conversation and discernment for the benefit of the entire church. I will continue to follow these conversations, and when I have something to add, I'll chime in with more than this slightly impatient comment. Thanks for your indulgence.

[Greg Garrett]

The ordination of gays and lesbians is a huge issue in my church, the Episcopal, as most of you know, and it is probably going to be the factor that results in the breakup of the Anglican Communion as we know it now, although if it weren't this, it would be something else.

I find that I'm okay with that, because to argue that some of God's creatures can be sexual beings and others can't doesn't make sense to me. When I was in the ordination process, a gay priest often used to ask me, "Are you celibate?" His question was not out of prurient interest; it was one of outrage. His continuance as a priest in our diocese depended on his not expressing his sexuality, ever, and he wanted me to be clear what that felt like.

I come down on the side of love and inclusion, but understand that others can't, or won't. Some people left the Episcopal Church when we ordained a gay bishop; I joined it.

God alone knows who's right.

Thanks, Sarah, for starting the discussion.

[don't eat alone]

Sarah

As one who soon be living in the shadow of Duke University (my wife is coming to pastor at Pilgrim UCC) I appreciate the candor and compassion with which you speak. One of the reasons I left my Baptist upbringing to become a part of the UCC is the UCC's inclusiveness. As I have said on other occasions, all theological arguments notwithstanding, when I do stand before God I can live with the question, "Why did you let so many people in?" I can't live with God saying, "Why did you keep people out?"

Peace,
Milton

[Bob]

Jason, to avoid dealing with the research and conclusions Spong and Sprague (among others before and after them) articulate by attacking them for the way they present it or for making others uncomfortable with the challenges they issue does not to address the issues of misunderstanding how the scriptural record came to be and how some items have gotten blown out of context. At the same time fails to exmaine the difference between exogesis and isogesis.

To say that same-sex oriented persons can pass is to particpate in branding them "different" and therefore deserving of exclusion (else why would there be any reason to "pass"?) The church in general defines same-sex oriented persons as outside the will of God and therefore deserving of a variety of exclusionary and destructive treatments. If it turns out God made them that way we will need to rethink our exclusions.

To equate same-sex orientation with the state of original sin is a logical falicy. Original sin is a doctrine that the church has invented that justifies it's views of an angry and punitive God. Same-sex orientation appears to less a choice than a physical circumstance.

[Sarah S. Howell]

Milton - Thank you for your comment and for the perspective of inclusiveness that you bring from the UCC.

Bob - Not to get too into this, but in my view, original sin has nothing to do with promoting an image of "an angry and punitive God" and everything to do with proving that God loves us unconditionally--even though we are all sinners. As the psalmist says, "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5). I can't think of a better way to see the depth and breadth of God's capacity for mercy and forgiveness than to understand it in the context of our sinful nature.

I do agree with your last sentence, though. I've talked to enough people to know that you don't just wake up one morning and decide to be gay, just as I didn't decide to be straight.

[Jason Byassee]

Bob I'm not avoiding engaging Spong or Sprague, I've read their work carefully, and of course they're right about some things, though I think the bulk of their work ridiculous and destructive. I don't think their popular packaging of dated 19th century German biblical scholarship can be described as "careful."

You go on to attribute to me several statements which I did not make.

On "passing" all I mean is that one often can't identify sexual orientation by looking at someone, whereas racial minorities are usually immediately identifiable as such. Black intellectuals often point to the phenomenon of bi-racial persons who can pass in both communities as a sign that race is itself non-sensical. The larger point: sexual relationships are a matter of behavior, likely rooted in genetics and other deep factors, while race is an explicitly exterior identity marker imposed by others.

It is, I must say, exceedingly odd to accuse me of "branding" anyone.

[Mike]

Bob-
I think the argument that turns original sin into a human invention creates a slippery slope. Would you likewise argue that the Trinity is a human invention? Is the resurrection?

Church membership through baptism involves a degree of community discipline that North American Christians (especially Protestants) are largely uncomfortable with. Perhaps the church needs to discover a degree of communal respect for the discipline of 2000 years of church history and an understanding that individual conceptions of a faithful witness are often flawed, especially when they abandon the historic values of the church.

[Mike]

Part of the recovery of church discipline that I talked about above involves being able to call a heresy a heresy.
With that in mind, Spong is a heretic.

[Kent]

The question of sexual orientation reflects a deeper concern. The church has not done well with exploring what it means to be a sexual being.

Sexuality obviously confuses people, as much as it fulfills, frightens, and frustrates. If we aren't clear on our human sexuality, just how clear can we be in any arguments about sexuality and Christian identity?

I can't imagine how Scripture or doctrine alone (whichever lens you choose to view it through) will provide us a satisfying answer to this. Ongoing studies on human sexuality cannot be overlooked.

How would a more focused study of human sexuality change much of the debate about sexual orientation and Christian identity? Or would it at all?

[Doreen A Mannion]

Sarah,

Thank you so much for writing this.

I actually felt called to ministry before accepting Christ, as a very out lesbian. At the time I considered myself UU.

After my conversion experience, I felt my Christology was too high for UU, too low for most Protestant denominations, and I did not feel a call to the MCC.

I discovered the UCC, but know that while the denomination is open & affirming, not all congregations are. I sometimes grieve over the fact I am UCC almost by process of elimination, not because I could fully consider all ways of serving, knowing what I do about being a lesbian and ordination.