On June 7, 1959, during the morning worship service, I was called up to the front of North Broadway Methodist Church in Columbus, Ohio, with the rest of the third graders. Each of us was given a Bible for our very own. Apparently, I was doing some wool-gathering during the instructions we were given with the Bibles, and I took it home not realizing that I was supposed to revere it, refer to its importance in my life, take it with me to camp in the summer, and talk about loving it, but not actually open the thing and read it. So I began to read it. I read sporadically, and randomly, and without much understanding.

About a decade later, I began using a lectionary that my father had begun using when he was in college. Every January 1, I read Genesis 1-3 and the first chapter of Matthew, and I continue reading two or three chapters of the Old Testament and part or all of a chapter of the New Testament each day until December 31, when I read the book of Malachi and the 22nd chapter of Revelation. And then I start over.

This way of reading is no substitute for concentrated study of a topic, or a book, or an author, and solitary reading is no substitute for reading in community, but it does give me some familiarity with the content of the Scriptures.

Another decade later, I had been ordained, and had begun to serve my second pastorate: Central United Methodist Church, at Scottwood and Central in Toledo's Old West End. It very quickly became clear to me that my decision to avoid dealing with "the issue of homosexuality" was not going to work. The neighborhood was full of openly gay people. The church building was used for meetings of a gay advocacy organization. The congregation had many members who were convinced that God was about as concerned with the difference between gayness and straightness as the difference between right-handedness and left-handedness.

I wanted to hang on to the view that I'd grown up with: that homosexuality is wrong. I wasn't quite sure whether the wrongness of it was a matter of deliberate sinfulness or of un-chosen pathology; I suspected that there were elements of both. I had visions of a ministry in which gay people, through some combination of penitence and healing, would become straight; the way God wanted them to be. I began reading whatever I could find: books in favor of accepting gay and lesbian people, without any thought of their orientation's being changed, so that I could refute them; and books written by people who agreed with me, so that I'd have support for my opinion.

It was reading the anti-acceptance books that revealed to me that I needed to change my mind.

Granted, there was some pretty flaky stuff in the books by the pro-acceptance folks. There was the suggestion that the verb "yadha," "to know," as in " 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.' " (Genesis 19.5) really meant something like "get acquainted with them," for instance. There was the suggestion that the relationship between David and Jonathan was sexual, and that the love between Ruth and Naomi was more than just devotion between a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law. None of these seemed credible to me. But at least these writers were dealing with texts that seemed to go against their point of view. They didn't ignore them.

Deliberate omissions were the order of the day for the books written by the traditionalists, though.

In discussions of the sin of Sodom, nothing was said of Ezekiel's clear, precise, flat statement to Jerusalem, "As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it" (Ezekiel 16.48-50). And I'd wonder, "Did I read over that part without noticing it? It must be in the Index of Scripture Citations." And I'd check. Not there. Since Ezekiel said that Jerusalem's sin was worse than Sodom's sin, was there something worse than homosexual activity that we should be even more concerned about? These writers never mentioned it.

In discussions about the prohibitions in "the Holiness Code" in Leviticus (Chapters 18, 19, and 20), there would be a great deal said about why it was necessary to take the texts seriously: these were God's instructions on how God's own people were to live when they entered the Promised Land. This was Serious Stuff: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (18.22), and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (20.13). So, we should execute men who have had sex with men? "Well, no. We can set that part aside." What about the rest of the Holiness Code? Excommunication or exile for married couples that have sex during the wife's period? "Um, no. That doesn't apply to us." The parts about diet? The part about how hair is not to be cut? "No, those things don't matter now. But the part about homosexuality really matters. A lot."

In discussions of Romans 1.26-32, two omissions seemed curious to me. The first was the omission of any acknowledgement of Romans 2.1ff: "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things..." It seems to me that the word "therefore" indicates that the writer intends for a link to be seen between what he has just said and what he is about to say. If what he has to say at the end of Chapter 1 is about homosexual behavior, then it is clear that all who use his words to condemn people for homosexual behavior are themselves involved in homosexual behavior. How else could one read, "doing the very same things?” I couldn't accept that reading. When I was using Romans 1 to condemn others, I was not engaging in homosexual behavior myself, and I'm confident that the same is true of most heterosexual people who still use Romans 1 for that purpose.

A much better reading, I believe, is that Paul is asserting that all of us human beings are full participants in the fall, and we are all engaging in the worship of things that are not God. We fear, love, and trust Lord Mammon, Lord Mars, Lord Bacchus, and their myriad associates, more than we fear, love, and trust the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the One our Lord Jesus Christ called "Abba." He sees homosexual behavior, then, as a result of human sinfulness. This removes the possibility of using the text to declare some people as more sinful than the rest of us, but on this reading, there is no contradiction of what we know to be true, and there is no need to be careful to stop reading before we get to that "Therefore."

The second omission that seemed curious was the second appearance of the expression "para phusin," "contrary to nature" ("unnatural" in the NRSV). What was contrary to nature was contrary to God's design, against God's intention, evil, nasty, horrible. But the use of the identical Greek words in Paul's metaphor of the olive tree in Romans 11.13-24 was never mentioned. Here, Paul addresses his Gentile readers, and says that our inclusion among the People of God is contrary to nature. That is, having been born a Gentile, I was only acceptable to God because of God's commission of an unnatural act!

But how very like God to act in such a way. The prophet Jeremiah asks, rhetorically, "If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not such a land be greatly polluted?" (3.1a-c) "Yes it would," his hearers would have said. "The Law forbids such a vile thing, for 'that would be abhorrent to the Lord' " (Deuteronomy 24.1-4). Jeremiah goes on: "You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the Lord" (3.1e-f). But then he pleads, in God's name, for Israel to return to God. Or again, "No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord..." Deuteronomy 23.3). And when God chooses as a replacement for Saul "a man after his own heart" to be king of Israel, the one he chooses is David, the great-grandson of Ruth, a Moabite. "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" we say, referring to Jesus, and the Law says this about Jesus: "anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse" (Deuteronomy 21.23).

Two other groups of texts bear on the question of how we are to deal with tough issues in general. While they do not mention homosexuality, they seem to me to be relevant to the discussion. The first group has to do with whether we will always be able to find guidance in Scripture that is clear enough and direct enough to answer every question. The second group offers insights into how the earliest Church of which we have record dealt with its first divisive issue.

Will we always be able to find the guidance we want in Scripture? “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work" (2; Timothy 3.16-17) is wonderfully reassuring, but it stops short of saying "and every important question is answered in the Scriptures." In 1 Corinthians 7, we have two examples of Paul's conclusion that sometimes there is no word from the Lord. In 1 Corinthians 7.25, Paul writes, "Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." He then goes on to give his opinion. I think it is clear that when Paul denies that there's a command of the Lord, he means that he has received no direct revelation, AND that no command of the Lord on the question is to be found in scripture. And in 1 Corinthians 7.12, Paul introduces a passage with the words, "To the rest I say - 1 am not the Lord - that..," He goes on to comment on marriages between believers and unbelievers, and says that in some cases, divorce is permissible. Obviously, Paul did not have access to the written Gospels, and so little can be said with assurance about how much of the teaching of Jesus was available to him. He certainly had access to Genesis, though, and to the passages in Genesis to which Jesus appeals in his comments on divorce.  Pastor Kevin Mohr argues persuasively that Jesus refers back to Genesis 1 and 2 to focus on God's original intention that marriage be life-long. Where does Paul get the authority to state that, in some cases, divorce can be allowed

I think he gets that authority from Jesus. Rather, I think the Church as a whole gets that authority from Jesus. In John 16.12-15, Jesus tells his disciples that one function of the Holy Spirit will be to lead the Church into truths that he cannot yet expound to them, because they would be too shocking; "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." What things might Jesus have said then, if the disciples had been able to bear them? That it is not consistent with God's will for any person to claim ownership of another person? That it is consistent with God's will for women to be ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacrament? That God is pleased to bless same-sex relationships, and to call to ordained ministry partners in such relationships? On the first two questions, we are close to unanimity. On the third, we are divided.

"Truly I tell you," says Jesus in Matthew 18.18, "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Lutherans who would like to own slaves are now bound. They cannot do it and remain in good standing in this church. Congregations that wish to call women to be their pastors are now loosed from the restriction laid down in 1 Timothy 2.12: "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." Almost all of us in the ELCA believe that this binding of what was once loose, and this loosing of what was once bound, are consistent with God's will, and that Jesus is glorified in them.

In the Book of Acts and in several New Testament letters, we find evidence of how the Church dealt with its first major issue: the question of whether Gentiles ought to be included among the followers of Jesus, Son of David, King of the Jews, Savior of Israel. The issue is raised by God himself, when he sends Peter a vision (Acts 10). God tells Peter to kill and eat unclean animals. Peter objects, on two grounds: his own personal tradition, coupled with the Scriptural definitions of what animals may and may not be eaten. God overrules Peter’s objection: "What God has made clean, you must not call profane" (lO.17b). Peter then applies the vision to his baptism of Gentiles to whom the Spirit sends him, and who, on hearing the proclamation of the Gospel, are filled with the Holy Spirit.

There is consternation in the Church when it is learned that Peter has baptized Gentiles. As the Church grapples with the issue, the argument that carries the day for those favoring full inclusion of the Gentiles is God's action in filling them with the Holy Spirit: "If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?" (11.17). Luke says, "When they heard this, [those who opposed the inclusion of Gentiles] were silenced" (11.28).

They did not remain silent. The issue continued to come to the surface. Even Peter backed away from his convictions when on a visit to the church at Antioch, in order to try to avoid conflict with members of the "circumcision party." He wound up getting a public rebuke from Paul, instead (Galatians 2.11-14).

Paul emerged as the most powerful exponent of full inclusion of Gentiles in the Church. In his fervor, he went so far as to call for the self-mutilation of those who disagreed with him. Never, though, did he call for their removal from the Church. Never did he propose the formation of a new. Gentile-friendly church. He regarded his opponents as fellow servants of Jesus Christ, fellow members of the Body of Christ

It seems to me that those of us who favor the blessing of same-sex unions, and who would allow the participation of rostered individuals in such unions, are in a position similar to that of those who believe that the institution of slavery is, by definition, an offense against God.

When proponents of the ordination of women prevailed, and this church’s predecessor bodies began to experience God’s working through rostered women, we could look back at the Scriptures and see texts that now seem to point clearly and forcefully in favor. God made us, both male and female, in the image of God; how could we think people made in God's image were unfit for some kinds of service in the Church simply because of the way they were made? The first people Jesus sent to proclaim his resurrection to others were women; how could we think that people like those whom Jesus sent could not be set apart by the Church to proclaim the Good News about Jesus? Paul writes, "there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus;" how then could we maintain a distinction between male and female in ascertaining fitness for rostered ministry? And so on.

When the Abolitionists prevailed, though, what texts could they point to? I know of none. Indeed, the whole premise of the Letter of Paul to Philemon is that Paul is sending a runaway slave back to his master. How do we square that with our approval of the Underground Railroad?

If the day comes when gayness or Lesbianism is no more serious an impediment to rostered service in this church than left-handedness; and committed, faithful, life-long unions of gays and Lesbians are cause for celebration and thanksgiving to God; and some of our pastors and other rostered leaders are partners in such unions; we will not be able to say, "Because of this text, and this one, and this one, we should have realized long ago that this was the right course." But we will say, I am persuaded, "Since God has been giving them, and continues to give to them, the same gifts that he gives to us heterosexuals, who did we think we were that we could hinder God?"