Lutherans Move Towards Recognizing Gay Couples
TNG Managing Editor Corey, who is also a Theology major at Georgetown, submitted this piece.
As you may have read a few weeks back, I am writing my thesis on the Lutheran Church (ELCA)'s ongoing work on changing their policy towards same-sex couples. A week ago, the task force who has been writing the new policy proposal released new documents that shocked a lot of people. The recommendations laid the groundwork not only for same-sex couples to be given a form of official recognition by congregations that chose to do so, but also for same-sex couples to serve as pastors if neither the congregations nor the bishops and bodies overseeing them had a problem with such a candidate.
The ELCA already allows openly gay and lesbian people to serve as pastors, but they must remain celibate - unlike hetero pastors, who can be married if they wish. The proposal stops short of creating an official ceremony procedure, or rite, for same-sex couples, but would allow for pseudo-official recognition by the church.
The reason? A majority of the task force feels that partnered gays and lesbians should be allowed to become pastors. However, they don't think this can be done without some way to tell who is "partnered" for life, as a married couple pledges to be, and who is just having a fling or short-term relationship. The only way to do this is to make a publicly-accountable procedure, involving some kind of ceremony and registry, so that the members of the church know that it is for real. The task force made clear that accountability is crucial, and that same-sex partners need the same support network that the church provides to hetero couples if they want these relationships to last.
And, basically, they couldn't have this procedure for pastoral candidates and not the rest of the church. Hence, proposing that congregations be allowed to formally recognize same-sex relationships.
What's interesting about the proposal is that it both puts forward a pretty radical proposal while tempering it with the principle that congregations not comfortable with a same-sex partnered pastor do not have to select one. Similarly, a bishop or synod (basically, subsection of the church) that feel morally opposed to this notion do not have to approve of such a pastor being selected. It's a system that - while not ideal from a gay standpoint - might actually allow the measure to be passed without the whole church falling apart. Real progress usually comes in small steps, and this is not a bad one at all for the church to be taking.
I also think it's notable that the church still has disagreements as to whether or not gay sex is inherently sinful, but recognizes that like it or not, there are a lot of gay couples in the church. At more liberal congregations, they are all but getting married anyway. And where being "out" is less of a viable option, people are more likely to sleep around or at least not keep a long term partner - a situation which no one in the church likes, be they in support or opposition to same-sex couple recognition. The task force has presented a solution that actually addresses issues rather than hiding from problems, a rare thing in American Christianity today.
The proposal has a few hurdles to pass through yet, and it's unclear what will happen. There has already been some harsh reactions from the more "conservative" factions of the church, a term which I am hesitant to use because it implies a perhaps-incorrect political fault line. The bishops have begun to respond, too. In March it will face the church council; if it passes there, it will have to get voted on by the entire church assembly in August's Minneapolis-based conference.
If you're interested in learning more, you can read through the church's documents, but I'll warn you, they're a bit hefty for the casual reader. Also, if people are interested, I can write more updates on this - god only knows I have plenty of material - and I would be happy to send sections of my thesis work to you if you contact me. Though I may make fun of you for reading my thesis.
6 comments:
Coming from a deeply conservative Mormon family (not my parents, but the rest of 'em) and having spent more than my fair share of time living in Baptist/Evangelical country, things like this never cease to amaze me. I had no idea that the Lutherans were making positive headway on gay issues. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the update, Corey.
I suppose we're coming from opposite points of view. You and Hans feel that this is a form of progress, while at best, I view this as a way for gays to be considered slightly less unequal by their fellow human beings.
You wrote:
A majority of the task force feels that partnered gays and lesbians should be allowed to become pastors. However, they don't think this can be done without some way to tell who is "partnered" for life... The only way to do this is to make a publicly-accountable procedure, involving some kind of ceremony and registry, so that the members of the church know that it is for real.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that something like that already exists. It's called "marriage."
I really don't mean to be snarky -- really -- but I still can't help feeling sad for these gay Lutherans submitting themselves to judgment by people literally acting "holier than thou." Holiness, I might add, that derives from nothing more than being born heterosexual.
They're just begging for acceptance, and for no good reason that I can think of. If their faith tells them that their god does not consider them "sinful," then why do they need buy-in from people? Is their god the center of their faith, or is it the human beings within the faith? If it's their god, then no problem -- they're free to worship their god any way they want. But if it's the acceptance of human beings they're really worried about, then their pathetic supplication gets them what they deserve: degradation and table scraps.
I'm sorry I can't take a more affirming view of this. I hope you don't take this personally.
Mike,
Don't worry -- as an anti-clerical agnostic, I hardly take it personally :-)
Corey
Mike,
I understand your sentiment completely and I'm not about to gush over a baby-step towards acceptance, but I still view it as a positive. This isn't something that glbt Lutherans should be content with, but it's a step closer. It might be a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.
From a legal/legislative standpoint I'm far less forgiving. To hell with civil unions, I want full and equal rights recognized by the state and I want them now. Religious institutions are a different game, though. You can't legally challenge their points of view with very few exceptions, such as the Mormons overstepping into the political arena on Prop 8. Getting people to change the way that they've been interpreting a book for hundreds of years is a little more difficult than mounting a legal challenge to a discriminatory law.
I'm a little more accustomed to seeing religious leaders rail against us godless heathens. The Mormons will excommunicate people for merely having gay tendencies and not begging jesus and zombie-Joseph Smith to "fix" them (my family's reunions are interesting). I understand where you're coming from, but for me, to see the Lutherans actually wanting their openly glbt members to stick around and be part of their community is a sentiment from a religious institution that I'm just not used to seeing.
Hans --
I'm sure that this is positive in its own way. My standpoint is that this is a lot different -- perhaps even irrelevant -- to civil rights laws.
Our laws by definition have to include everyone. In principle, at least, everyone is supposed to be treated equally, even if they're despised by the rest of society.
A religious organization, on the other hand, is by definition exclusive. It doesn't have to include anyone it doesn't want to. You have to accept a specific set of beliefs in order to belong.
We have an obligation to make our laws reflect the principles on which they were founded. But if a church (or synagogue or ashram or mosque etc.) wants to believe that Leviticus 18:22 is one of its fundamental principles, that's their right.
It's just like a model railroad club can mandate the use of S-gauge trains instead of the HO scale as a requirement of membership. (Yes, I had to look that up!) The HO-scalers can wail and gnash their teeth, insisting that their way is just as good and accept whatever half-measures they can get from the S-gaugers. Or they can just start their own club where they won't have to beg for equality from anybody.
Maybe that's a little simplistic -- you can't just start another Catholic Church -- but it illustrates my point: The efforts by religious gays to gain acceptance is a purely human phenomenon. It is a way to get other people to agree with their existing interpretations of their god's will or their scriptures' meaning.
And by continually petitioning their fellow human beings for acceptance, they place those human beings on an undeserved pedestal of power, as if their opinion could somehow validate religious beliefs that religious gays obviously hold already.
I could go on and on. But what seems to me is that gay Catholics just want to be part of the Catholic church, a human creation. Gay Mormons want the same from the Mormon church, another human creation. The Lutheran church (named for a human!) is yet another human creation.
So no matter how strongly held or fervent their beliefs, religious gays are really fighting for acceptance from human beings who are no better than they are. And because they want to be a part of a human institution -- a church -- they grovel at the feet of those who control it.
And that, Hans, is why I just can't care that this latest move by the Lutherans is positive. It very well may be, for gay Lutherans. I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm really not. I'm just one of those gay people who's been chewed up and spit out by religion and is much happier without it. So I guess I'm biased. And I guess that's why I feel so sorry for those gay Lutherans.
Eh... We see it a little differently and I do understand your point. I'm not a religious person, so I didn't take that as dick-ish. I view it as an inkling of movement in the right direction, though there's a long way to go.
Post a Comment