'Who do you say that I am?'

Sermon preached at Emmanuel United Church of Christ
Akron, Ohio
September 17, 2006
Andrew G. Lang

Readings:
Proverbs 1:20-33
Mark 8:27-38

Listen for the Word of God in the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 8, beginning at the 27th verse:

Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.” He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Good morning!

My name is Andy Lang, and I want to thank you for accepting me into your church family this morning while Pastor Jay is on a study tour to Scotland and France.

Although I have to confess that when I saw what readings the lectionary appointed for this Sunday I was tempted to rush to the airport and follow Pastor Jay to Scotland, or even farther if possible. The lectionary—because it’s a discipline of reading through most of the Bible in a three-year cycle—sometimes confronts the preacher and the congregation with uncomfortable texts that we would avoid if we could.

And at first glance, today’s readings from Proverbs and Mark are not comfortable words. Proverbs: “Because I have called and you refused, have stretched out my hand and no one heeded.... I will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when panic strikes you, when panic strikes you like a storm....”

When I read this, panic nearly struck me like a storm. I have to preach on this??? Well, I thought, maybe I’ll just bypass the Old Testament and go straight to the Gospel. Surely, here there will be comfortable words! But no: after subjecting Peter to a tongue-lashing so extreme that in our day Peter could have sued Jesus for creating a hostile work environment, our Lord then sets an impossibly high bar for his disciples: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.”

The reading from Mark is really a hinge on which this Gospel turns. Up to this point Jesus has been travelling through Galilee instructing his disciples and performing miracles that demonstrate his power. Now they have crossed the border into the Roman province of Judaea and have reached its capital, Caesarea Philippi. Though the disciples don’t know this yet, they’ve begun the final stage of a journey that will take them south to Jerusalem, where Jesus will be betrayed, condemned, and crucified. But here in Caesarea Philippi, Jesus (who wasn’t the kind of public personality who frequently consulted the opinion polls) puts an unusual question to his disciples: who do people say that I am?

The popular opinion, the disciples answer, is that Jesus is a great prophet like John the Baptist or Elijah. But the followup question is more difficult. It puts the disciples on the spot. Who do you say that I am?

Who do you say that I am? This is the classic question of Christian theology that echoes through the centuries. Who is Jesus? Is he a prophet? A teacher? A spiritual reformer or even the inspired founder of a new religion like Buddha, Mohammed or L. Ron Hubbard?

None of the above, says Peter. Yes, a prophet, teacher and reformer—but more than this. “You are the Messiah,” Peter says. In Greek, “the Christ.”

The Christ! Now, in Judaism this was an image of great power. The Christ was the anointed one, the one anointed by God as king to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel. The Christ was a new David who would liberate the people from foreign rule. So it’s no surprise that Peter was in for a culture shock when, moments later, Jesus reveals for the first time that “the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”

Must undergo suffering. Must be rejected. Must be killed. This was not the orthodox image of the Christ! For Jews living under Roman occupation, liberation by God’s Messiah was about the projection of power—very much like the apocalyptic revenge fantasies in our culture about an “Armageddon” in which God’s plan for history is supposed to be fulfilled in a big military operation in full technicolor. There's no room for defeat in the Messianic plan.

So what was Jesus talking about? Suffering? Rejection? Death? What kind of plan is that? Not a very good one, especially if you do a cost-benefit analysis. So Peter “rebukes” Jesus, and Jesus corrects him—but not gently. “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

And what does it mean to follow this Christ—a Christ who does not destroy his enemies but subjects himself to their power? “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?”

This is not the power of positive thinking! And in our culture it’s an intolerable heresy. We want more. More power, more freedom, more security, more health, more success, more efficiency, more property, more information, more knowledge ... even more spirituality. You only have to watch television to realize that spirituality is for sale just like any other commodity, and it’s not only the “prosperity preachers” who are guilty. The commodification of religion tempts all of us. I subscribe to an email newsletter published by an organization in San Francisco called “Q-Spirit” and last week I was invited to a retreat titled “Opening to Breath, Opening to Purpose.” Here’s what I was promised: “With the enhanced, cumulative power of four consecutive breathwork sessions, and its clear and supportive focus on life purpose, this retreat has been getting rave reviews on both coasts. Numerous participants have told us that the retreat has catapulted them into powerful new levels of awareness, healing, and purposeful action in their lives.”

Cumulative power! Clear and supportive focus! Rave reviews! How I would love to be “catapulted into powerful new levels of awareness, healing, and purposeful action.” And who wouldn’t want a dose of this spiritual Viagra? Like everyone else, I want more. But Jesus seems to be saying that more is less, and less is more. “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.”

That's not necessarily the answer I want to hear when Jesus puts this question (this very dangerous question) to me: “Who do you say that I am?”

All of us know ... all of us ... what it means to lose a part of our life. The death of someone who was so close that the loss makes you feel as if a piece of you has fallen away, a divorce, a disappointed hope, a struggle with mental illness, a prolonged experience of unemployment when sometimes it feels that even your sense of identity is on the line, as if there is no solid ground under your feet. I have my own list of losses, and perhaps you have yours. And all of these greater and lesser losses point to that inevitable loss at the end when perhaps we will be tempted to say, as Jesus said on the cross, “God, why have you abandoned me?”

Who do you say that I am? If I answer—“You are the Christ, but not the Christ I thought you were when I believed that my victory in life would come through the acquisition of security and the accumulation of power. You are the Christ whose divinity was revealed in your humanity, whose majesty was revealed in your humiliation, whose life was revealed in your death”—if I can say this and believe it, then I can also believe the One who says, “if you lose your life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, you will save it.”

But this letting go of my fear of loss is almost impossible. As John Calvin puts it, how could any of us possibly “give our consent to be reduced to nothing” unless—unless—“God lives and reigns in us.” Confessing Jesus as Christ is our confession that he is paradoxically the Ruler and Savior who died a shameful death but rose again on the third day, as he promised. That he lives and reigns now and lives and reigns in us, in this congregation, in Word and Sacrament, in the love we have for each other and for the world we serve in Christ’s name. Brothers and sisters: in Baptism we already have died in Christ so we can rise again in Christ, so that now “God [truly] lives and reigns in us.”

“You are the Christ.”

“The confession is short,” says Calvin, “but it embraces all that is contained in our salvation, for the title Christ, or Anointed, includes both an everlasting Kingdom and an everlasting priesthood, to reconcile us to God, and, by expiating our sins through his sacrifices, to obtain for us perfect righteousness, and having received us under his protection, to uphold and supply and enrich us with ... [his] blessings.”

Christ protects us, upholds us, supplies us, enriches us. So we can return to that difficult reading from Proverbs, which ends in this way:

“...[B]ut those who listen to me will be secure, and will live at ease, without dread of disaster.”

Read the full article

Welcoming the stranger

"God is still speaking,"—the identity and advertising campaign of my church, the United Church of Christ—has invited churchwide theological reflection about the Christian vocation of hospitality. What does it mean to welcome others with open arms, into your church and your life? The following was my contribution: a brief meditation on the stories in the Gospel according to John about Jesus' first encounters with his disciples.

Welcoming the stranger, who is no longer a stranger to God

John 1:29,35-39a,43,45-46

The next day [John] saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, "Look, here is the Lamb of God!" The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus.

When Jesus turned and saw John's two disciples following, he said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi ... where are you staying?" He said to them, "Come and see."

The story continues:

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, "Follow me." Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.... Come and see."

But our story began in this way: John saw Jesus ... and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." And the day after that John said almost the same thing to two of his disciples: "Look, here is the Lamb of God ... and they followed Jesus."

In his commentary on this account of Jesus' first encounter with his future disciples Karl Barth reminds us of the famous Renaissance painting of the Crucifixion by Matthias Grünewald—a copy of which Barth hung above his desk in his home in Basel, the same desk where he wrote much of the "Church Dogmatics." In this painting, standing below and apart from the Cross, is John the Baptist—one long forefinger pointing up to the crucified Christ. This was for Barth a metaphor for the vocation of a theologian, whose life must point away from herself or himself, and toward the One who takes away the sin of the world.

In the Gospel John does not say, "Come ... and see." It is true that later in story Philip is permitted to say, "Come and see." But John issues no invitation. He says one thing: "Look ... here."

Look.

Look ... anywhere? Look within? Look within and discover your own secret divinity? Look and within yourself discover the path that will lead from your innermost self to a personal relationship with God? No!

Yes, look. But here. Look here. Look away from yourself. Look beyond yourself. Look at this specific point. Look here. Look at the One who takes away the sin of the world.

John's two disciples heard this, and they left John to follow Jesus. They left John, and he let them go without a word. John was not concerned about his personal survival, or the survival of what today we would call his "ministry" or even the survival of his church. John's finger pointed away from himself ... toward the One who takes away the sin of the world.

The invitation is Christ's—not John's. Not the theologian's. Not ours. But Christ's. "Come ... and see." And if, like Philip, we ourselves are allowed to say these words, it is only because Jesus found us first and said, as he said to Philip, "follow me."

And all this means that the One who invites the stranger into relationship is Christ. And we only have to get out of the way. Like John the Baptist, we only have to stand aside—and below—the crucified One whose arms are held open to the stranger who is no longer a stranger to God.

[By Andy Lang, Meditation at Morning Prayer, Confessing Christ steering committee meeting, Jan. 18, 2005, First Church of Christ, Pittsfield, Mass.]

Read the full article

Does God have a plan for same-sex relationships?

The war between prohibitionist and liberationist approaches to the problem of homosexual relationships has reached an impasse. Is there a "Third Way" grounded in scripture and tradition that brings same-sex partners into the moral structures of the Christian community? This paper, published on the Andover Newton Seminary website, argues that there is. Please note: I recognize that this paper is out of date and flawed in many ways. It does not clearly affirm marriage equality, and does not honor transgender relationships. If I were to rewrite this paper today, it would be very different. Still, I hope some of this argument will be useful.

by Andrew G. Lang

A few years ago the Ramsey Colloquium—a group of Christian and Jewish scholars—published a sharp critique of "the gay and lesbian cause" which they titled "The Homosexual Movement." 1 As they predicted, their declaration was denounced as "a display of homophobia." "Such dismissals have become unpersuasive and have ceased to intimidate," they wrote. "Indeed, we do not think it a bad thing that people should experience a reflexive recoil from what is wrong." This "reflexive recoil" from homosexual behavior is not homophobia, they said, but the instinctive reflex of those who know that homosexuality violates God's natural law.

Among the authors were several academics at liberal strongholds like Amherst, Princeton, Oberlin, Yale and Hebrew Union College. It hardly needs to be said that entering the debate in this way exposed the Ramsey Colloquium to angry denunciation and was, for some of its members, an act of courage.

My purpose is not to criticize the declaration's reasoning but to draw your attention to one paragraph as the starting point for our conversation:

We believe that any understanding of sexuality, including heterosexuality, that makes it chiefly an arena for the satisfaction of personal desire is harmful to individuals and society. Any way of life that accepts or encourages sexual relations for pleasure or personal satisfaction alone turns away from the disciplined community that marriage is intended to engender and foster. [Italics added.]

This is a profoundly counter-cultural vision of human sexuality and one that can be helpful as we struggle with the moral question that is before us: should the church affirm faithful relationships between same-sex partners?

Calls Sexual Revolution into question

The Ramsey Colloquium, rightly in my opinion, calls into question the ethic of "sexual liberation." Thirty years after the Sexual Revolution, our culture still understands sexual freedom as freedom from constraint, namely, from the boundaries of discipline, order and structure. And who could be opposed to freedom? We always live in the tension between personal freedom and social discipline, so we want to liberate ourselves from this tension and live in the light of a pure freedom that never says "no" to human possibility. Defined in this way, freedom is the doctrine of personal sovereignty, the private property of the ego that has to be seized and defended. So words like "discipline," "order" and "structure" also provoke a "reflexive recoil"—the recoil of the individual ego when we encounter boundaries that limit our freedom of action. Naturally, in a culture that defines individuality as self-determination and self-assertion, discipline is at best suspect, at worst oppressive.

But this is not the church's traditional vision of freedom or individuality. Freedom, according to Christian tradition, is not only freedom from but also freedom for. Karl Barth saw it as "freedom for obedience" to the Word of God. Particularly in the witness of the Reformed churches, freedom cannot be understood as my self-liberation but only as the sovereign gift of God who, despite my opposition, rushes to my side and creates the right order that I have abandoned. So God places me in "disciplined community," as the Ramsey Colloquium puts it, or in a "community of disciples" who follow Christ as their Lord and whose lives are oriented towards this Lord as the source of their freedom and the measure of their behavior. It is in this community, and nowhere else, that God meets me through Word and Sacrament, and where I learn the boundaries and, paradoxically, the unlimited possibilities of the freedom that is mine only as gift, and never as self-determination.

The tradition defines God's sovereign gift of freedom in words that are familiar to all of us: covenant, election, justification, vocation, and sanctification. These are words I want to explore as we attempt to understand the morality of same-sex relationships among members of our church.

What is God's word on this subject? To begin with, I need to understand with you what we mean when we say that a "word" is addressed to the church, because there are many words to which you or I could appeal for authority. There are the words of psychology, sociology and genetics. There are the words of natural law and tradition. But all of these words are subject to the one Word whom we worship as Lord and to whom we owe obedience. So, in the familiar text of the Barmen Declaration:

Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scriptures, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and beside the one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths as God's revelation. 2

Jesus Christ is the one Word of God! Belonging to this Word, according to the Heidelberg Catechism, is our "only comfort, in life and in death." But what do we need to know, the Catechism asks, to "live and die in the blessedness of this comfort?" Three things:

First, the greatness of my sin and wretchedness. Second, how I am freed from all my sins and their wretched consequences. Third, what gratitude I owe to God for such redemption. 3

"Sin"—another counter-cultural word! But without the consciousness of sin the Gospel itself makes no sense. There can be no productive discussion of marriage and homosexuality, or really of any other moral question, unless we can agree that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Sin threatens our relationships with death. In the self-assertion of the ego against God not only our relationship with God but also every human relationship is brought into disorder. There is, in fact, no human covenant that is not wounded by our collective and individual rebellion against God's sovereign claim on our lives. This is certainly so in all the greater and lesser injuries that we inflict on each other—in heterosexual marriage, in celibate life, and in the partnerships formed by gays and lesbians. Sin distorts our life together as the Body of Christ, so that no contentious issue in the church can possibly be discussed without anger and mutual recrimination—particularly an issue like sexual morality, which exposes our deepest fears of alienation, loneliness and chaos. Sin distorts all of our relationships. Left on our own, we cannot live together as God intended.

But—thanks be to God!—God does not leave us alone. The Heidelberg Catechism affirms that we do have this "comfort, in life and in death," that we belong not to ourselves but to our "faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, who at the cost of his own blood has fully paid for all my sins and has completely freed me from the dominion of the devil."

Covenant: God's bridge to humanity

This brings us to covenant, defined by the Westminster Confession as God's "voluntary condescension" which bridges "[t]he distance between God and the creature." 4 "Covenant" is a critical concept in Reformed ethics, as you all know, and I cannot possibly say much about it a few minutes. But I agree with Max Stackhouse that "it is likely that nothing less than an understanding of and a commitment to covenantal mutuality under God can bring moral and spiritual coherence to what is otherwise experienced as a seething, chaotic mass of dominations and arbitrariness." 5

Moral and spiritual coherence! These are not empty words! We all sense that the scattered and broken pieces of our lives (and our relationships) belong together but we simply don't know how to re-build the structure we have demolished. But the Reformed tradition affirms that the coherence that eludes our best efforts has already been established definitively in Jesus Christ. How? Through the covenant of Baptism, our primal covenant, in which Christ's obedient "Yes" to God becomes our own "Yes"—and this is the starting point for our lifelong journey from chaos to coherence.

The self-disclosure of God in the covenant of Baptism reveals that God's being itself is covenant. In the reciprocal relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we learn that God's nature is not solitude, but communion. God's inherent nature is to be with others. The Roman Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar says it better than I can:

God is not a sealed fortress, to be attacked and seized by our engines of war (ascetic practices, meditative techniques, and the like) but a house full of open doors, through which we are invited to walk. In the Castle of the Three-in-One, the plan has always been that we, those who are entirely "other," shall participate in the superabundant communion of life. Whatever we regard as the ultimate meaning of human life, be it giving, creating, finding or being given, being created and being found; all this is fulfilled in the original prototype: in the life of the eternal "With." 6

The triune being of God is therefore the primal form of all of our covenants. Here, God chooses not to be alone but with and for the humanity God created. Here, God elects humanity to be God's covenant partner. Here, God's love cannot be contained but pours itself out with incomprehensible majesty into the creation and reconciliation of humanity. Christian covenants must participate in this Trinitarian structure, so that the order broken by sin and restored by God's sovereign decision in Christ becomes an order of being "with" others.

The form of covenant

From our participation in this divine self-disclosure—as Christians who have been incorporated into God's Trinitarian being through Baptism and who meet the Triune God again and again through Word and Sacrament—we can begin to describe the form of Christian covenant:

First, God chooses each of us for covenant, calls us into covenant life and uses covenant to complete God's work of conversion and sanctification in our lives. Election, vocation, conversion and sanctification! Nothing less is at stake in Christian covenant than the overcoming of our opposition to God! So every Christian covenant is a means of grace that draws us into the covenantal life of the Trinity. God works through covenants to convert us to a life with God and with others.

Second, Christian covenants are accountable to the community, and therefore must be sealed by public vows. In contrast to the secular theory of "contract," in which two independent persons with equal rights enter into an agreement, Christian covenants are accountable to the Lord who comes to us in Word and Sacrament, that is, in the realized life of the Body of Christ in the Christian community. Jesus Christ is the Lord of every covenant, but the Covenant Lordship of Christ is mediated through his Body, the church. Therefore, covenant promises cannot be a private contract between two solitary persons but always a public demonstration of vows in the presence of the community.

Third, the community is accountable to the covenants made by its members. Because we are sinners, our covenantal relationships are always threatened by moral disorder. Covenant partners will turn again and again to the church which, as the Body of Christ, will call us back into relationship.

Fourth, Christian covenants create new life. Just as the triune life of God is not enclosed within itself but creates life in all of its forms, human covenants must also be creative. This is seen most clearly in the covenant of marriage, where (if it is God's will) a woman and a man extend life through the birth and care of children. But this creative vocation must be seen in all of our covenants. In some way, every Christian covenant must extend the boundaries of life. Every Christian covenant must be generative and generous. Every Christian covenant must say "Yes" to life.

Marriage: the oldest of human covenants

Heterosexual marriage is the oldest of human covenants, and every other relationship descends from this encounter of a man and woman in marriage. This is obviously so because we are born in families and we owe our existence to heterosexual parents. But the tradition also says that in the marriage of a man and a woman we have a type, or an image, of the covenantal love of God for Israel and Christ for the church.

There is much discussion about whether same-sex relationships also should be called "marriage," and, as you all know, this is a subject on which the church is deeply divided. There can be no question, however, that the Jewish and Christian traditions set heterosexual marriage apart from all other covenants. In my view, the confusion of marriage with other relationships can obscure the priority of heterosexual marriage in God's creative design and the Bible's orientation towards marriage as an analogy of God's passionate and faithful love for creation. And although I intend to argue that the church must grant equal dignity to same-sex relationships lived under vows—an argument I will save for the end of this paper, if you will be patient with me—I am not yet convinced that "equal dignity" is the same as "objective equality." In other words, heterosexual marriage and same-sex relationships are not objectively the same thing but each has its own inherent moral dignity.

In any case, the marriage rites of all Christian churches testify to the tradition that marriage is a covenant between heterosexual partners. So does the only gay and lesbian denomination, the Metropolitan Community Churches, whose rite for blessing same-sex couples is called "union," not "marriage." In its "Order for Marriage," the Book
of Worship of the United Church of Christ reflects this ecumenical consensus:

The scriptures teach us that the bond and covenant of marriage is a gift of God, a holy mystery in which man and woman become one flesh, an image of the union of Christ and the church. 7

As the first human covenant revealed in scripture and the only human covenant present at the origin of the human race, I believe marriage has a privileged claim on the ministry of the church. Through the tradition's use of marriage as an analogy of God's covenant with humanity, marriage is prior to all other covenants but one—our primal covenant of baptism.

But although heterosexual marriage is unique, it also participates in the Trinitarian structure that is common to all Christian covenants. Marriage, if I may borrow from St. Benedict's well-known image of the monastery as a "school for sinners," is the school where those called into this covenant learn how to be with another and not alone. It is a means of grace, through which God calls a man and a woman away from the terrible solitude of the alienated self into a life of self-giving love. Like other covenants, marriage is not closed in on itself but open to others, first, to the gift of children and family, second, to the church whose liberating boundaries encompass every Christian marriage. Like other covenants, marriage is accountable to Christ, who is the Covenant Lord of the married partners and of their family.

The covenant of celibate community

Marriage is also a vocation, which means that to be a Christian marriage, God must summon a man and a woman into this relationship. But throughout its history, the church has also held an honored place for women and men who were called into a different covenant, but one by which they nevertheless were liberated by God to live a life with and for others. That covenant is celibacy, and to this we will now turn.

We are immediately in trouble here because most of us in this room are Protestant and we have had virtually no tradition of organized celibate community for more than 400 years—with a few exceptions, including one Augustinian monastery in Germany that transferred its allegiance to the Lutheran Reform in 1558 and somehow survived until 1675. 8

The disappearance of vocational celibacy, along with the organized structures without which any covenantal life is impossible, ought to be a serious concern among us. Luther's reaction to the abuse of monastic vows was so extreme that at one point he wrote that chastity is impossible outside of marriage. Calvin was equally contemptuous of the monastic way of life, writing that "the cloisters, the cells, the holes of the monkeries smell of nothing but excrement." 9 So there was no reform of celibate community in Protestant Europe, only a relentless attack on the monasteries that led to their dissolution.

Our break with 1,400 years of vocational celibacy has led us to believe that marriage is normative for all men and women, that is, the only vocation of relationship to which Christians can aspire. But it was not so in the apostolic church, as Karl Barth reminds us:

It is obvious that in the New Testament community marriage can no longer be an obligation. . . . This is the fact, too lightly ignored by Protestant ethics in its glad affirmation of marriage . . . , that Jesus Christ himself, of whose true humanity there can be no doubt, had no other beloved, bride or wife, no other family or domestic sphere but this community. Certainly, He expressed Himself very definitely about the divine basis, the indissolubility and the sanctity of marriage (Mk. 10:1-12, Mt. 5:27-31.) He did not command anyone to abstain from it in practice as He Himself did. . . . [But] there are those for whom entrance into the married state is not only not commanded but temporarily or even permanently forbidden. We certainly cannot say, in the light of these sayings [of Jesus], that entrance into marriage is universally the higher way, the better possibility. . . . Our true point of departure is that for Paul marriage is always a way (beside which he knows another and better) by which the Christian, becoming one body with his wife, does not deny the truth that he is one spirit with the Lord, but in his own way maintains and expresses it just as much as he who chooses a different path. 10

This "different path" is celibacy. So it is a mistake for us to see celibacy as either a compromise or a curse for those who, because of their sexual orientation or their situation in life, are unable to enter into the covenant of heterosexual marriage. Celibacy is a gift in which the person called into this life becomes fully human. Those who hear God's call to this life are not half-human. We cannot say they are incomplete because they have not fulfilled themselves in a union between a woman and a man. Nor should we understand celibacy as "asexuality" or merely as "abstinence" from a sexual relationship. Instead, celibacy is a particular disciplining of sexuality that liberates sexual energy for communion with others. We only have to look at the ecstatic visions of Roman Catholic mystics like St. John of the Cross or St. Therese of Avila, or the extraordinary creative energy of the Shaker communities, to see how sexual identity was not negated by celibacy but channeled into an intensely unitive relationship with Jesus Christ.

Celibacy therefore conforms to the Trinitarian structure of covenant. It is a life with and for, not a life apart from others. Like the covenant of marriage, it should be sealed by vows. We have no time to examine the arguments of Luther and Calvin against monastic vows, but by definition there should be no Christian covenant—including baptism, marriage and ordination—in which public promises are not witnessed by the community. By abolishing the vow of celibacy, the Reformers also abolished the possibility of celibate life as a normative vocation alongside heterosexual marriage. The result impoverished the church and denied any structured expression for those Protestants who were not called into marriage. A church without a covenantal vocation to celibacy is a church that is not fully oriented towards Jesus Christ—who, as Karl Barth reminds us, lived his life for others but not in the covenant of heterosexual marriage! Barth cannot be ignored when he writes that in Jesus "[t]he great example of a powerfully exercised freedom for celibacy is before us all." 11

On the other hand, the Protestant revolt against priestly and monastic celibacy was not groundless. Men and women like the monk Martin Luther and his future wife, the nun Katherine of Bora, were living under the burden of an enforced celibacy to which they were not truly called by God. We will take up this point again in a few minutes, because it will be a critical one in our discussion about same-sex relationships.

Are same-sex relationships a means of grace?

Do same-sex relationships conform to the Christian tradition of covenant? Can they become a means of grace through which God calls homosexual men and women to a life of conversion and holiness?

It is important to begin by acknowledging that homosexuality is most often experienced as inherent, as a "given," not a "choice." I know that some of us do not believe that the "givenness" of homosexuality is at all self-evident. But even the Ramsey Colloquium concedes—although rather reluctantly—that "some scientific evidence suggests a genetic predisposition for homosexual orientation," although it argues that there is no moral distinction between homosexuality and a predisposition towards "alcoholism or violence." The official Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality is somewhat more generous. According to the U.S. bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family:

[I]t seems appropriate to understand sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) as a fundamental dimension of one's personality and to recognize its relative stability in a person. . . . Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose. 12

But basing its argument on natural law, the Roman Catholic church prohibits the expression of love in a homosexual relationship because "only within (heterosexual) marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator's dual design as an act of covenant love with the potential of co-creating new human life." In the Roman Catholic view, a homosexual relationship is therefore "disordered" because it does not express the sexual encounter of a man and a woman and because it cannot be open to the procreation of children. For these two reasons, the church requires that gays and lesbians remain celibate.

The Roman Catholic teaching, in my opinion, is a reasonable attempt to struggle with a difficult problem in a way that does not dishonor or condemn the gay and lesbian members of the church. We can be grateful that the Church of Rome has broken decisively with the now widely-discredited model of homosexuality as a "disease." Instead, the church accepts that homosexual orientation is, at least generally, an inherent dimension of the human personality of gays and lesbians. The Roman magisterium therefore implicitly calls into question the ethics of so-called "transformation ministries" or "restorative therapies" that promise to convert or "cure" homosexuals into heterosexuals.

But the implications of the Roman Catholic teaching go deeper. Before 1975, Roman Catholic ethics assumed that homosexuality was a vicious choice. It did not acknowledge the concept of "sexual orientation." Since the only right expression of sexuality was either in heterosexual marriage or in celibate vocation, then every sexual relationship between two women or two men must have been a conscious act of rebellion against the will of the Creator—a rebellion, in other words, of persons who were naturally heterosexual but chose same-sex partners in violation of nature. This is clearly what Paul has in mind when he writes in Romans that "their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another." (Rom. 1:27 NRSV). Note the verbs "exchanged" and "giving up!" Paul clearly is condemning men and women who have a choice. The Romans described by Paul had freely chosen to "give up" what was natural to them for what was unnatural. 13

But Paul is not describing the homosexuals who are the subject of Roman Catholic ethics. Here, sexuality is not "chosen," but "given." One therefore has to ask who "gave" this orientation, and what is the nature of the gift?

One gift of homosexuality, from the Roman Catholic viewpoint, could be a consecrated life of celibacy. Since that church continues to maintain an entire infrastructure of organized celibate communities, it can at least offer this alternative with some credibility. But Protestants have less credibility when we impose celibacy on our gay and lesbian members. Our churches support virtually no institutional forms of celibate life and seem to have returned to the idea of permanent celibacy merely as a backdoor solution to the disturbing presence of openly homosexual Christians in the ordained ministry. Confronted with the ecumenical consensus that homosexuality is not chosen, some Protestant churches have rediscovered the vocation of celibacy several centuries after it was abandoned by Luther and Calvin. But the rediscovery lacks moral conviction, and the spectacle of married bishops and ministers—who have no personal experience of vocational celibacy and have never considered this vocation valid for themselves—imposing permanent celibacy on others is problematical, at least.

But enforced celibacy for homosexuals is equally problematical in the Roman Catholic tradition. Fundamentally, it violates the dignity of celibate life as vocation. There is no evidence in either scripture or tradition that God created an entire class of human beings who sui generis must enter into covenants of celibate community. Celibacy in the Catholic tradition is always seen as a gift, a way of life to which God elects and calls some, but not most, men and women. As any Roman Catholic vocation director will tell you, to live a life of enforced celibacy when that man or woman does not clearly hear the divine calling to this covenant is almost always destructive. Celibacy in the absence of God's call to celibate community is not necessarily a moral choice.

Protestants should know this well enough from our own history! One of the motors that drove thousands of Catholic priests, monks and nuns into the arms of the Reformation was the legal requirement of celibacy in the absence of a real vocation to this way of life. Eberlin von Günzburg, a Franciscan friar who converted to Lutheranism in 1522, was speaking for the generation of Luther and Calvin when he described the moral agony of a celibate life divorced from vocation. Celibacy, he wrote, was

. . . a daily nagging of conscience and unrest of mind, by which all joy becomes suffering, all consolation saddening, all sweetness bitter. . . . [It] dulls and deadens the human senses, hardens the heart, and restrains natural honesty, leaving one in the end in so uncivil and inhumane a state, and so guilt-ridden and remorseful, that one hates salvation and the good in one's life and longs for misfortune. 14

Protestants should remember the spiritual and mental anguish of our own celibate ancestors before legislating permanent celibacy for lesbians and gays who may not be called to this exceptional (and demanding) way of life. Nevertheless, some homosexuals are called to the covenant of celibate community, and so are some heterosexuals. The Roman Catholic church acknowledges the presence of both sexual orientations in its ordained ministry. But we should recognize with Karl Barth that celibacy is a "special vocation" and it would be a serious error to prescribe it when the vocation is absent. When celibacy is imposed not by God's call but by ecclesiastical discipline on gays and lesbians, the result is precisely what Gônzburg described: the senses are dulled, the heart is hardened, honesty is restrained so that, in the end, one is left is "so incivil and inhumane a state, and so guilt-ridden and remorseful, that one hates salvation . . . and longs for misfortune." Today, we would describe this condition as a state of deep melancholy, depression or despair—and why should we be surprised? What else could be the result when a man or a woman who is capable of giving himself or herself to another in love is sentenced by the church to a life of solitude? This was obvious enough to the Reformers 475 years ago and it should be equally obvious to the church today.

The vocation of gays and lesbians in the church

So, if not celibacy, then what? Is there a vocation for those gays and lesbians God has not called to either heterosexual marriage or celibate community?

Like all other women and men, lesbians and gays are called by God to live a life not for ourselves, but for others. We are called to covenantal relationships in which our lives correspond to the inner life of God who is self-in-community, who in God's own being is self-for-others.

Gay and lesbian unions are covenantal relationships if they conform to this Trinitarian structure. Like heterosexual marriage and celibate community, these relationships are "schools for sinners," in which two partners learn how to live in the paradox of freedom that is unlimited precisely because it is limited by the other. The partner in a same-sex relationship is truly "other"—not through the complementarity of a man and woman, of course, but in the mutuality of two persons who in freedom choose each other and delight in being chosen. God creates these relationships because within the limits of our given sexuality we are always called out of isolation into community. Always. Always! Through these relationships we learn what it means to be truly human, to care for another as much as we care for ourselves, to learn that a life enclosed on itself is death, but a life opened to other lives is God's gift and command to those who believe.

Neither same-sex relationships nor celibate community are objectively "equal" to heterosexual marriage. The marriage between a man and a woman has its own distinctive and privileged character. But neither are they "second-class" marriages. They are moral relationships and they have a specific claim on the ministry of the church.

Same-sex relationships are broken by the same powers of evil that threaten heterosexual marriage. All relationships are wounded by sin. That is why God gave us covenants and why Christ is the Lord of each covenant. When the church offers its ministry to same-sex partners it is affirming the reality of sin and therefore saying "no" to the false doctrine that there was no fall from grace and no need for the Cross. We often speak about "affirming" or "celebrating" same-sex unions but I am convinced the real pastoral need in the gay and lesbian community is the ministry of the church when our relationships are broken by sin. Like heterosexual couples, we are adrift in the ethical chaos of a society that exalts freedom over commitment, selfishness over self-sacrifice, and the fulfillment of personal "needs" over mutual responsibility. The church needs to be a safe harbor for these relationships—encompassed by ethical boundaries, discipline, accountability and tradition. In other words, gay and lesbian couples need structure, and we need just as much structure as heterosexual couples.

Same-sex couples therefore have a claim on the pastoral care of the church. The church must not abandon us to the moral disorder of a fallen world that is in rebellion against God. But the church's pastoral concern for these couples necessarily requires the public, liturgical expression of the vows that bind them together. Pastoral care without the public recognition of their vows would undermine the moral accountability of same-sex couples to each other and to the church. The congregation cannot legitimately expect conformity to ethical norms for same-sex partners if it is unwilling to witness the vows in which those partners commit themselves—in the presence of the community—to fidelity and mutual obedience. If a congregation permits pastoral care but denies the public rite of union it is saying, in effect, "we expect you to honor your covenant but we don't want to hear about it outside the pastor's office." "Don't ask, don't tell" is a cruel way of life for same-sex couples and if that constraint were imposed on heterosexual partners, I doubt many marriages could survive. "Private" promises of fidelity apart from the community are like New Year's resolutions, easy to break. Moreover, the alienation of same-sex unions from the liturgical life of the community plays into the hands of the secular ideology that covenants are only private contracts between individuals who are accountable to no one but each other.

Conversion and sanctification

Ultimately, the purpose of same-sex covenants, like the covenants of heterosexual marriage and celibate community, is conversion and sanctification. Through these relationships we cooperate with God's design for human life. They are a means of grace, and we could not be fully human without them. St. Irenaeus, who heard God's call to the covenant of celibacy, says this about God's work of sanctification:

If you are the handiwork of God, await the Artisan's hand patiently. He does everything at a favorable time, favorable, that is, to you, whom He made. Offer Him your heart, pliant and unresisting. Preserve the form in which the Artisan fashioned you. Keep within you the Water which comes from Him; without it, you harden and lose the imprint of His fingers. By preserving the structure, you will ascend to perfection; God's artistry will conceal the clay within you. His hand formed your substance; He will coat you, within and without, in pure gold and silver; He will adorn you so well that "the Sovereign will delight in your beauty" (Ps. 44:12). But if you harden and reject His artistry, if you show Him your displeasure at being made a human being, your ingratitude to God will lose you both His artistry and His life. Making is the property of God's generosity; being made is a property of human nature. 15

What a glorious vision, for all of us! God is an artisan who will adorn our lives "in pure gold and silver." But you and I cannot ascend to this perfection alone. Not alone. Not alone. God takes us by the hand and leads us through the terrors of life, giving us companionship so we can learn how to live not for ourselves, but for others. Through these relationships of community and family, of heterosexual marriage, celibate love and homosexual partnership, God converts us towards the "life for others" that is the primal nature of the Trinity, towards the majestic generosity and creative power of the Three-in-One into whom we were incorporated through Baptism, and we know this is true because Jesus Christ has been revealed to us as the first of many chosen, justified, called and sanctified by God.

Notes

1. "The Homosexual Movement: A Response by the Ramsey Colloquium," First Things, March 1994.

2. "The Theological Declaration of Barmen," United Church of Christ Web site at http://www.ucc.org/believe/barmen.htm.

3. "The Heidelberg Catechism," in The Living Theological Heritage of the United Church of Christ, v. 2 (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 1997), 329.

4. "The Westminster Confession," in The Living Theological Heritage, 561.

5. Max Stackhouse, Covenant and Commitments: Faith, Family, and Economic Life (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 155.

6. Hans Urs von Balthasar, You Crown the Year with Goodness: Sermons throughout the Liturgical Year (San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1989), 144.

7. Book of Worship of the United Church of Christ (Cleveland: Office for Church Life and Leadership of the United Church of Christ, 1986), 327.

8. François Biot, The Rise of Protestant Monasticism (Baltimore and Dublin: Helicon Press, 1963), 65-67. At this point the vocation of celibacy-in-community disappears from Protestant history until the first deaconess community was founded in 1836. Crossing the Atlantic with German Reformed and Lutheran immigrants, the deaconess movement spread to the United States, and its memory is preserved in the many "Deaconess Hospitals" affiliated with the United Church of Christ and the Lutheran churches. But today the deaconess movement in North America is only a memory. In Europe, there has been a modest revival of Protestant monasticism—most notably the ecumenical Taizé community in France. Unlike the deaconess movement, Protestant monks have met a cool reception in the United States, at best. The only alternative for North American Protestants called to this vocation are the small Anglican communities that are closer in spirit to Rome than to Wittenberg or Geneva.

9. John Calvin, Traité des scandales, quoted in Biot, The Rise of Protestant Monasticism, 37.

10. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, v. III.4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961), 144, 146.

11. Barth, Final Testimonies (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1977), 49.

12. Committee on Marriage and Family, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers" (Washington, D.C.: National Catholic News Service, Oct. 1, 1997).

13. Karl Barth at one time shared with Paul the belief that homosexuality is a choice, not a "given" condition. The two or three pages he wrote in Church Dogmatics on homosexuality assumed that gays and lesbians despise the opposite sex and choose partners of the same sex as a substitute for the woman or man they have rejected. Barth nowhere addressed the issue of sexual orientation or proposed an ethical response to it. Barth's assumptions were not unusual in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when he wrote his brief comments on homosexuality, and could have been a response to a pre-war homosexual movement in Germany that exalted the male as superior to women—not a popular motif in the male homosexual movement today. But it is not widely known that Church Dogmatics was not Barth's last word on the subject. "In light of conversations with medical doctors and psychologists," writes Barth scholar George Hunsinger, "Barth came to regret that he had characterized homosexuals as lacking in the freedom for fellowship. In the end he, too, found it necessary to interpret the plain sense of Scripture in light of advances in modern knowledge." George Hunsinger, "Thinking Outside the Box, Part 4: The Voice of 'Progressive Traditionalists'," The Presbyterian Outlook, March 13, 2002, online journal at www.pres-outlook.com/hun031302d.html.

14. Eberlin von Günzburg, quoted in Steven Ozment, Protestants: The Birth of a Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 79-80.

15. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," quoted in The Scandal of the Incarnation (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981), 72-73.

About the author

Andrew G. Lang is an author and journalist living in Cleveland, Ohio. This paper was presented at a conference May 6, 1998, at the Acton, Mass., Congregational Church sponsored by the Massachusetts chapter of Confessing Christ.

Last revision: Oct. 24, 2002.

Read the full article

Fifty years ago, gays were still dying in camps

by Andy Lang
Gay People's Chronicle (Cleveland, Ohio)
June 9, 1994

Fifty years ago, they were still dying in German prisons and concentration camps.

American, British and French troops were striking into Normandy. The Red Army was driving toward Warsaw. The Nazi empire was crumbling at its edges—but in the interior of Germany, the industrial machinery of the SS penal system was still operating at full speed. The Allies would not reach the gates of Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen until the following spring. Thousands of men imprisoned for "crimes against nature" would not live to see the day of liberation.

Nazi eugenic theory condemned homosexuality as "racial treason." In 1927, the man who would become Hitler's first Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, warned that "men practicing unnatural lechery between men must be prosecuted with utmost severity." In 1929, the racist philosopher Alfred Rosenberg denounced homosexuality as a Jewish conspiracy and promised that a future Nazi state would criminalize homosexual relations: "We will punish them by banishment or hanging."

The Nazis made good on their promises when Hitler seized power in 1933. The Gestapo compiled dossiers on gay men and arrested them by the hundreds. In the color-coding scheme for Nazi prisoners, German gays wore a pink triangle.

But the American Jewish Committee reports that only one in four Americans knows that German homosexuals were murdered in Nazi concentration camps. Attempts to tell the story of the Nazi campaign to exterminate gays have enraged both Christian and Jewish fundamentalists. In May, Jewish gays were punched and kicked as they tried to chant the Mourner's Kaddish—the traditional Jewish prayer for the dead—at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem. One of the assailants shouted: "Don't touch me! You are full of shit and AIDS!"

Most German gays who survived the holocaust were silenced by postwar persecution, says Dr. Klaus Mueller of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Unlike the Nuremberg laws that deprived German Jews of their civil rights, the victorious Allies never nullified Paragraph 175—the German anti-homosexual law. "Gays were subject to arrest under Paragraph 175, and West German police even used Nazi records to organize mass arrests of gay men in the 1950s and 60s. In some cases, gay prisoners were sentenced to longer jail terms because they had already served time in Nazi prisons."

Paragraph 175 remained in force in West Germany until 1969.

Courts in the postwar Federal Republic of Germany refused to classify homosexuals as victims of Nazi racial terror, Mueller says. Not one SS prison guard or camp official faced trial for the murder of gay men.

Mueller spoke May 21 at the Hillel Center on the Case Western Reserve University campus in Cleveland, Ohio. The event was sponsored by three lesbian/bisexual/gay religious organizations in Cleveland: Congregation Chevrei Tikva, Liberation United Church of Christ and Lutherans Concerned.

The Nazis believed homosexuality was a crime both against nature and the state, Mueller said. SS leader Heinrich Himmler "argued that every German man had a racial duty to expand Germany's population—particularly to beget the soldiers needed to fight future wars of conquest," Mueller said.

In a secret speech to SS cadets in 1937, Himmler described homosexuality as "an error of degenerate individualism that is contrary to nature."

"[N]ations with many children can gain supremacy and mastery of the world," he said. "It is essential for a nation to guide sex in the right direction."

Himmler dreamed of a racially pure German nation cleansed of homosexuals, Jews, Gypsies and the disabled. As supreme police commander and organizer of Germany's vast network of forced-labor camps, he had the power to translate his dream into reality.

Gays swept into the machinery of Himmler's police state died from the same conditions that killed other prisoners: disease, starvation, beatings, torture and hanging. Some were castrated to "cure" their homosexuality. In the Sachsenhausen camp near Berlin, gays were assigned to special labor detachments designed to work the prisoners to death. In Buchenwald, medical experiments on gays killed several inmates.

No one knows the exact number of gay men held in Nazi prisons and labor camps. Until recently, Holocaust documentation centers refused to count the number of homosexual prisoners. The survivors "were conditioned to be silent," Mueller says. "They internalized feelings of shame, believing that somehow they were responsible for their own persecution." Only in the past few years have the aging survivors begun to tell their stories.

Even less is known about the fate of lesbians in Nazi Germany, Mueller says. Paragraph 175 did not criminalize lesbian behavior—an oversight Mueller attributes to Nazi contempt for women in general. "Some Nazi officials believed lesbians could still be useful as breeders for future German warriors," he said. But the Nazis persecuted lesbians and destroyed their institutions. Lesbians, like gay men, were forced to conceal their identity during the Third Reich.

At the time this article was published, Andrew Lang was a reporter for United Church News, a newspaper published by the United Church of Christ.

Read the full article

At least 25 churches ordain homosexuals

Global trend: World's oldest Protestant churches now ordain gays and lesbians

by Andy Lang
United Church News
June 2002

The United Church of Christ was a minority of one 30 years ago when the Rev. William R. Johnson became the first openly gay man ordained to Christian ministry.

The ordination was controversial. Critics wondered if the UCC was taking a risk that endangered its relationship with other churches. Some feared the church would be drummed out of the ecumenical movement if it continued to ordain gays and lesbians.

But that never happened. Instead, a number of Protestant, Anglican and Old Catholic churches have moved in the same direction, including nine of the UCC's partners in the World Alliance of Reformed churches.

The trend started with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Netherlands, which decided soon after Johnson's ordination that lesbians and gays could serve openly as pastors. Since then, the practice has spread to 25 other churches—among them the oldest Protestant churches in Europe.

Sexual orientation is no longer a barrier to ordination in the Evangelical Church of the Union (EKU), the German ancestor of the UCC's Evangelical tradition. Its territory includes the capital city of the Protestant Reformation—Luther's Wittenberg. Homosexuals also can be ordained in the Reformed churches of Germany and Switzerland, the forebears of the UCC's Reformed tradition. The city once known as the "Reformed Rome"—John Calvin's Geneva—is no longer hostile territory for lesbians and gays called to Christian ministry.

Most of the historic Lutheran and Reformed churches in Germany and northern Europe now welcome homosexuals into ordained ministry.

Europe heads the list with 19 churches where homosexuals can be legally ordained. But several denominations in Africa, North America and the Pacific are also joining the trend, including the Anglican church in South Africa formerly led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the United Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and the Uniting Church in Australia.

Besides these Protestant and Anglican churches, at least three of Europe's "Old Catholic" churches permit the ordination of gays and lesbians. These are churches in the Roman Catholic tradition that broke with the Vatican in the 19th century.

Many churches have adopted uniform policies that expressly permit homosexuals to serve as priests or ministers. In others, the policy is either neutral or implicit, leaving the decision to a regional or local authority.

Practices are not consistent from church to church, but in all of them church leaders have either ordained openly homosexual candidates for ministry or signaled their willingness to do so.

The issue deeply divides some of the churches where lesbians and gays have been ordained. Open conflict has broken out in the Anglican Communion. The church's international conference of bishops in 1998 rejected "homosexual practice" as "incompatible with Scripture," but defeated a resolution condemning bishops who "knowingly ordain" gays and lesbians. Some Anglican bishops in Asia and Africa, despairing at the trend towards greater acceptance of homosexuals in the Episcopal Church, have threatened to break relations with U.S. bishops. Other churches have lost members and even entire congregations who feel they cannot coexist with openly gay clergy.

But in most churches, the trend is to recognize a diversity of practice—to "agree to disagree." In these churches there is continued debate, but homosexuality is no longer considered a church-dividing issue.

Many Protestant churches are still sorting out unresolved issues, with the result that policies are sometimes ambiguous or contradictory. Celibacy, for example, is generally not required by those German churches that ordain homosexuals, but some forbid gay pastors to live with their life partners in parish housing. That policy, critics say, has the unintended effect of splitting monogamous couples from each other, and sends mixed messages to the gay community about the church's commitment to lifelong fidelity as the ideal for human relationships. While the trend is towards inclusion of lesbians and gays in the ordained ministry, acceptance of homosexual pastors in Germany is often a quiet affair, not a confident proclamation that a consensus exists on the morality of same-gender relationships.

The 26 churches have a total membership of nearly 57 million.

Churches where homosexuals can legally be ordained

Anglican
Church of the Province of Southern Africa*, Episcopal Church (USA)*, Scottish Episcopal Church*, Anglican Church of Canada*

Baptist
Alliance of Baptists (USA)*

Christian
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)*

Lutheran
Church of Denmark*, Church of Norway, Church of Sweden*, Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession (Austria), Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland*, Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany*

Old Catholic
Old Catholic Church of Austria, Old Catholic Church in the Netherlands*, Old Catholic Diocese of Germany*

Reformed and United
Evangelical Church of the Helvetic Confession (Austria), Evangelical Church of the Union (Germany)*, Evangelical Reformed Church (Germany)*, Evangelical Reformed Churches of Switzerland*, Evangelical Waldensian Church (Italy)*, Netherlands Reformed Church, Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Remonstrant Brotherhood (Netherlands), Uniting Church in Australia*, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ (USA)*, United Protestant Church of Belgium*

At the time this article was published, churches marked with an asterisk had no explicit churchwide policy permitting or prohibiting the ordination of gays and lesbians. Generally, churches without a normative policy leave the decision to regional or local bodies, some of which are willing to ordain homosexual candidates. In some churches this amounts to a churchwide practice, since no ordaining bodies discriminate against homosexual candidates for ministry.

In Germany, a majority of Lutheran, United and Reformed Landeskirchen (regional churches) permit the ordination of homosexuals without requiring celibacy. In the United Protestant Church in Belgium, homosexuals generally can be ordained in Dutch, but not in French, congregations. The General Synod of the Church of Norway, voted in 1997 to oppose the ordination of homosexuals living with a partner, but four of the eleven Norwegian bishops have declared that this policy is not binding in their dioceses. The issue is still in dispute. There is no churchwide policy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, and at least one bishop has declared his willingness to ordain homosexuals. Other Finnish bishops have said they will do so only if the ordinand commits to lifelong celibacy.

In 2004 the Netherlands Reformed Church, Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands united into the Protestant Church of the Netherlands (PKN). It maintains the policies of its predecessor denominations permitting the ordination of homosexual ministers and the union of same-sex couples.

Because of the threat of schism in the Anglican Communion, some of the churches listed here may have rescinded implicit policies allowing gay ordinations.

This article was originally published in United Church News at news.ucc.org.

Read the full article

Hanns Eisler in the McCarthy Era

Hanns Eisler's persecution by the House Committee on Un-American Activties (HUAC) is more than a footnote in U.S. political and cultural history. Eisler—living in Malibu, California, and supporting himself by writing film scores for Hollywood studios—was the first target of HUAC's probe of alleged Communist subversion in the motion picture industry and the first victim of the notorious "blacklist" that eventually ruined the careers of thousands of directors, screenwriters, artists and academics. To the rising anticommunist star Richard Nixon, then serving his first term as a U.S. Congressman, "the case of Hanns Eisler" was "perhaps the most important ever to have come before the committee."

An extravert who loved to entertain, Eisler was a popular host in wartime Hollywood. His social circle included Charlie Chaplin, Clifford Odets, Charles Laughton, Peter Lorre, Artie Shaw and Ava Gardner. "Chaplin adored him," remembers actor Norman Lloyd. Eisler's beloved teacher, Schönberg, lived nearby. Back in New York, where Eisler had taught composition and counterpoint at the New School for Social Research before the move to Hollywood, he retained the admiring friendship of musicians like Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein and Roger Sessions. Who but Eisler could have organized such unlikely social combinations as Brecht's afternoon with Schönberg or Thomas Mann's dinner with Charlie Chaplin?

Read the rest of this article on EislerMusic.com

Read the full article