A Synopsis of the Sexuality Studies Hearing With Dr. Jim Childs

On June 12, at Zoar Lutheran Church in Perrysburg, the Northwestern Ohio Synod hosted a sexuality studies hearing with Dr. Jim Childs, head of the ELCA’s Sexuality Task Force, for the Region 6 area. About 105 people attended the hearing, which was facilitated by the Rev. Marc Miller, assistant to the bishop. Participants opened with prayer, devotions and song. The proceedings remained civil throughout the entire morning, and only a few people left during the hearing after excusing themselves for prior commitments.

Some hearing participants voiced appreciation for the task force’s efforts and for the scholarship within the study, particularly the accompanying background essays on biblical texts. Many said they learned more about the issue of ordaining, consecrating and commissioning homosexual people in committed relationships for rostered leadership and of blessing same-sex unions, as well as the various viewpoints in the debate.

However, several people commented that the arguments and perceptions detailed in the study had a polarizing effect on participants and simply gave more “ammunition” for folks to press their positions. One study participant discovered an “ugly face” on the church and a lack of mutual support, while another found out how to listen to others more and not resent different viewpoints. One said the study group “agreed to disagree,” and a few people shared how difficult it is to truly say, “I know I’m right about this.”

Some people expressed disappointment that the study lacked reconciliation of arguments, healing comfort for homosexual people, discussion of civil rights or hope for church unity. A few said they wanted more in-depth study of Scriptural passages, other than the six “clobber passages” that directly relate to same-sex acts, such as the book of Acts, the Gospels and other passages considered liberating texts for homosexual people. Others pointed out that general semantics was a barrier in that key terms mean different things to different people – particularly “sin,” “welcoming,” “accepting,” “homosexuality,” “homosexual acts,” “relationships” “blessing” and “union.”

One person asserted that the study and other actions/discussion happening throughout the ELCA were biased in favor of changing the ELCA’s policy toward homosexual clergy and same-sex unions, while another insisted that no such agenda was apparent. One person was upset that Part I of the study, especially its focus on single people and youth, was being ignored in the debate surrounding Part II. Another person told of pre-emptive actions taken by council and congregational leadership to structure bylaws against calling a homosexual pastor or performing any ceremonies for same-sex unions.

One person asked folks to consider what they would feel if their own son were gay. Another person said the nuclear family of man, woman and children should serve as the church’s “beacon on the hill.” Many people expressed desire to be more attentive to truly welcoming homosexual people in their congregations regardless of personal positions on the study debate. One person said larger city areas seem to be more welcoming and more likely to call gay and lesbian pastors and perform same-sex union ceremonies, referencing a congregation in Columbus. Another person cited a different Columbus congregation that counsels homosexual people through reparative therapy as they seek a “straight” lifestyle, adding that such therapy had great success. One person responded that most people who go through reparative therapy either eventually accept their homosexual orientations or kill themselves. Another person cited the book “Anything But Straight,” written by a man who was engaged in reparative therapy for four years in a covert research project and who formulated negative conclusions of such therapy.

Several people appealed to the church leadership to follow the Scriptures’ instructions concerning all matters, including homosexuality. Many said Scripture was clear in prohibiting homosexual clergy or unions. One person said that since the Bible writers are God himself, God understood homosexuality then and understands it now and is against it. A few people predicted the ELCA’s disintegration if any changes were made to “Vision and Expectations” or the policy on marriage rites. One person quipped that the church was the “GLCA,” and another asked if the church was going to scratch out parts of the Bible. One person mentioned that there are passages that Christians already do not believe are applicable to their behavior today, including some prohibitions in the Leviticus code.

Several people called for a “straw poll” on this issue throughout the ELCA before the 2005 General Assembly. One person referenced a large congregation who had taken such a poll that had overwhelmingly rejected any change in policy; another person privy to that congregation’s vote said that while 300 people may have voted, only 30 showed up to participate in the sexuality study. Another hearing participant said the last time a straw poll was taken, Barabbas won. Many expressed hesitation to force any type of policy change that would split the church, with some making reference to Craig Nessan’s book “One Body, Many Members.”

One person asked how a bishop could lead a synod but not take a position on the issue. Bishop Marcus Lohrmann responded that he desires serious and open conversation and sound Lutheran hermeneutics, and that he was proud of the way folks throughout the synod had approached the study. “I don’t serve the church if I make my position the rallying point,” he said, adding that he wished people would ask him what he felt about tithing, war and peace, or justice issues. Lohrmann said that while he “might be wrong,” he was concerned for the unity of the church and was reluctant to advocate any change in policy without broader support. He said gays and lesbians have long born the sins of the church in its struggle to be welcoming, that we bear each others’ sins, and that our comfort is Jesus who bears our sins and those of the church catholic on the cross.

A couple of hearing participants expressed frustration with the structure of the churchwide governance, the lack of punitive action taken against congregations who call homosexual clergy in committed relationships or leaders who perform blessing ceremonies of same-sex unions, and the influence of the minority gay lobby. One person asked for any 2005 General Assembly voting members present at the hearing to stand up; three people stood up. [A total of 18 voting members recently were elected.] One person referenced a 2003 General Assembly vote that directed voting members to the 2005 assembly to be well-informed of their synods’ attitudes and feelings toward the issue of ordaining, consecrating and commissioning homosexual people in committed relationships and blessing same-sex unions, which seemed to suggest that they act as representatives of that sentiment rather than as a voting member who votes his/her own conscience as directed by the spirit of the gathering.

Congregations represented at the hearing included All Saints-Toledo, Augsburg-Toledo, English-Bluffton, Epiphany-Toledo, First-Leipsic, Good Shepherd-Vickery, Holy Trinity-Toledo, Hope-Bowling Green, Emanuel-Napoleon, Peace-Port Clinton, Redeemer-Toledo, Salem-Toledo, St. John-Fremont, St. John-Stony Ridge, St. Lucas-Toledo, St. Mark’s-Bowling Green, St. Paul-Haskins, St. Paul’s-Maumee, St. Peter-Norwalk, St. Petri-Toledo, Trinity-Fremont, Zion-Gibsonburg, Zion-Huron and Zoar-Perrysburg. Other congregations may have been represented by hearing participants who chose not to offer comment. Also in attendance were retired clergy, synod council members and Region 6 and NWOS staff.

Childs responded to some questions throughout the hearing, including how study feedback was tabulated, where the ELCA would go from here, and what his personal feelings on the issue were. Childs said he would not betray his commitment to the Sexuality Task Force by injecting his personal comment into the debate, and he insisted that he and the rest of the task force had no other personal agenda than to conduct the study faithfully and with credibility.

Childs said the task force could not change the structure of church governance but could provide ways for people to contribute to it as much as possible. The task force currently is processing 10,000 feedback forms and is expecting many more. Everything is read and archived, with responses classified into about a dozen common positions. “Unique” or particularly insightful comments are forwarded directly to Childs. Recommendations to the 2005 assembly will be made public – the schedule can be found at the task force’s Web site: http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney

The task force is continually updated on the homosexuality debate in other denominations, including the ELCA’s full communion partners. Childs noted that even in bodies that had made recent decisions, both for and against policy changes, the debate often continues. He also noted how a spectrum of viewpoints can be held by laity and clergy that may be contrary to the church leadership’s official position.

As for social concerns such as gay rights or civil unions, Childs said such was not the task force’s primary area of concern, but added that the ELCA Division for Church in Society is charged with making social statements. The task force accepts material from groups advocating various positions, and it did formulate a dialogue model for engaging in conversation with gay and lesbian people and distributed it to all synodical bishops.

The task force is not prepared to provide any further guidance on how the church could conduct same-sex union blessings because the issue itself is not settled. Since the study was published, the civil arena has seen much activity on the issue of unions, including sanctioned gay and lesbian weddings in some cities and a proposed federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman only. Still, the task force is charged with determining whether homosexual behavior is compatible with Christian behavior and will continue on that course.

Childs said that both “sides” of the debate on ordaining, consecrating and commissioning homosexual people in committed relationships and blessing same-sex unions claim Scriptural basis, and that certain viewpoints are not posited as any departure from Scripture. He acknowledged that the biblical texts on homosexuality contained in the study are all negative, and said he understood people’s request for inclusion of more positive texts for further interpretation. However, he said, the task force was concerned about making the study too broad in scope.

Childs added that he hoped for “collateral values” – a positive play on the term “collateral damage” – in addition to the task force’s goal of forming a recommendation to the 2005 General Assembly. That the study was able to strengthen people’s arguments is not necessarily a bad thing, Childs said, because there is “a lot of bad argumentation out there.” People have tried to listen to each other better and are taking the Bible seriously, which may be “our best legacy,” he said.