[BACK]

On Homosexuality and Ordination

Forwarded to the Provincial Elders Conference (PEC): 8/93
Adopted by Northern Province PEC:_____
Adopted by Southern Province PEC:_____

Final Report to the Provincial Elders' Conferences Regarding the Issue of
Homosexuality and Ordination, 1990-1993

The Faith and Order Commission was asked to consider the issue of homosexuality and ordination by the joint PEC's. We have spent considerable time and study, discussion and dialog. Some positive things have emerged from this process:

1. We have sensed the spirit of God moving in us and in those who have shared their thoughts with us;
2. We have learned to understand and respect our differing perspectives;
3. We have gained greater insight and understanding concerning homosexuality.

We recommend that the church participate in a similar process of study, discussion and dialog concerning homosexuality. On the issue of ordination of homosexual persons, however, we are unable to reach consensus, and therefore, make no recommendation to the PEC's.

Adopted by the Faith and Order Commission August 1993

An Analysis of the Faith and Order Commission's Study of Homosexuality
(prepared by Stephen Nicholas March, 2001)

THE GENESIS OF THE STUDY

The impetus for undertaking this study by the Faith and Order Commission came from the Northern and Southern Provincial Elders Conferences. In 1990 they requested that the Commission do a study of the subject and make recommendations to the PEC's concerning the ordination of practicing homosexuals. The Commission first dealt with the subject in July, 1990, where it was determined that the question of whether or not to ordain practicing homosexuals should be viewed in a wider context. The Commission decided that there were at least six questions which had to be addressed before making a recommendation about ordination, namely:

1. The question of authority. How does God speak to us through the scriptures, and through the biological, psychological and social insights given by the world around us?

2. Sexuality is to be viewed in the context of human sexuality.

3. Methodology and process in our consideration are important, for the discussions of the Commission and in our reflection with the whole church.

4. What approaches have various societies held to homosexuality throughout history?

5. What ecclesiological implications are there to homosexuals, that is church membership, ordination?

6. What pastoral implications are there for the community, the family, the individual?

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY AND SCRIPTURE

The Commission decided to begin with the consideration of the question of authority in arriving at a doctrinal position on any issue of faith. They decided to examine the interpretation of scripture in the Moravian tradition.

To facilitate this purpose, Brother Art Freeman wrote a paper for the Commission called "An Understanding of the Nature of Scripture and Its Authority." Copies of the paper were mailed to eight Moravian clergy and they were requested to respond to Br. Freeman's paper in one or two pages. Br. Freeman in his paper maintained that scripture is not the word of God, but it contains the word of God, along with many other things that are reflections of ancient myths and cultural traditions. The task of the church as interpreters of scripture, is to separate the authentic word of God from the various human traditions and perspectives. Dr. Freeman says, "Historical study has made it difficult to deny that scripture was produced as part of the historical process. Also, when one reads scripture as a whole, and not merely selected texts, the great variety of perspectives and answers to common questions within scripture become apparent. This makes it very difficult to make scripture as the only source of our faith and life."

According to Br. Freeman, if we believe that the words of scripture teach absolute truth, that we have fallen into the trap of Pharisaism. Jesus' intention was not merely to deliver his followers from the literalism and legalism of the Pharisees, only to usher them into a new bondage based upon literal adherence to the words of scripture. The words, teachings, and traditions within scripture are not absolute, the experience of the gospel and God's grace is the only thing which is absolute. This is the bottom line for religious authority. Whatever witnesses to the gospel and the grace of God is authoritative. The more clearly a passage of scripture does this, the higher it stands in authority.

Br. Freeman maintains that we can no longer proclaim the sole authority of scripture in the modern world. The reason for this is the rapidly expanding field of scientific knowledge and the increased awareness of the great world religions. "Thus it is difficult to maintain that the holy scriptures are and shall remain the only source and rule of our doctrine, faith and practice, as is stated in what used to be called the Moravian Brotherly Agreement." Br. Freeman believes that the question of authority can no longer receive a single unified answer, but must be understood in the contemporary world as a triangle resting upon the three legs of the Judeo-Christian salvation tradition, the creation traditions and science, and the insights of other religions.

Seven Moravian pastors chose to write replies to Br. Freeman's paper. The replies were sent to the Commission through its convener, Brother Gordon Sommers. The respondents were the Brethren Gary Kinkel, William McElveen, Warren Sautebin, Doug Bauder, Thomas Shelton, Steve Nicholas, and Hampton Morgan. Some of the responses were supportive of the positions of Br. Freeman's paper, some had criticisms of his methodology, and some had deep concern about undermining the sole authority of scripture.

Several papers expressed a concern with the loss of the principle of sola scriptura, which they saw as foundational for both Moravians and Protestants, thus introducing a relativism which they felt would be destructive of religious authority. Several felt that Br. Freeman's departure from accepting scripture as the sole authority for the church would be a dangerous change from the tradition and history of the Moravian Church which began with John Hus. One person questioned Br. Freeman's understanding of Zinzendorf, and another questioned his interpretation of some of the teaching of the New Testament.

In early January, 1991, Br. Freeman read the seven responses and wrote a paper in reply. Both the responses of the seven clergy and Br. Freeman's response to them were presented at the January, 1991, meeting of the Commission. In his response, Br. Freeman contended that the principle of sola scriptura must be understood in the context of the 16th Century. The concern of the reformers was to reject the idea of the church being the supreme and always correct interpreter or scripture.

For Luther, sola scriptura was Christ-centered in intent. Scripture is the word of God because in it the Word, Christ, is revealed. It is the crib wherein Christ lies. This allows room for degrees of significance to be attached to different parts of scripture, as Luther commented when he compared the gospels and the epistles of Paul and Peter to the epistle of James, which he said was an epistle full of straw because it contains nothing evangelical.

This view of scripture also seems to fit well with what the ancient Moravian Church said about scripture, namely that it was "ministerial," not essential. It only had value as it served the essential, which was our relationship with God and Christ. One could argue that for Luther, scripture was viewed in the same way.

To view scripture as infallible, Br. Freeman contends, does not solve the problem of spiritual authority. This assumes that the scripture which we call infallible consists of a single unified writing. But historical criticism has uncovered many layers of oral and written traditions which have originated over more than a thousand years. It contains differing perceptions of human existence and different answers to the same issues. Therefore, even if we have an infallible scripture, it does not eliminate the need for proper interpretation. So in the end, infallible scripture which is fallibly interpreted does not give us a reliable source of authority.

As they read the responses from the seven clergy, the Commission speculated about how the question of homosexuality may have affected the responses received. If the question would have been "Should the church practice foot washing as a sacrament?" would the responses to interpreting scripture been different? The members of the Commission commended Br. Freeman for his labor on the subject of scriptural authority, and also instructed the convener to send letters of appreciation to the seven clergy responders. From their discussion, a new series of questions for study arose:

1. Biblical

2. Psychological

3. Historical and cultural shaping of expressions of sexuality

4. Church statements on sexuality

5. Sexually transmitted disease and sexual abuse

6. Homosexuality

The Commission agreed to explore human sexuality at its July, 1991, meeting. This exploration was to include personal study, reading of student papers on homosexuality (MTS), denominational material from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and conversations with the gay community. In April, 1991, Dr. Freeman produced a paper on sexuality which dealt with sexuality in biological, psychological, and social perspective, and surveyed some helpful New Testament perspectives. In his paper he views scripture as containing various streams of tradition on the way to discovering answers rather than containing all the answers. He feels that this is in harmony with the evidence provided by historical study of scripture, but understands that this is difficult for the church to accept, because of the nature of authority that we have given scripture. This is especially difficult for lay persons to understand because of the way they have frequently been shielded from the results of historical criticism.

DEALING WITH THE RELEVANT BIBLICAL TEXTS

At their next meeting in June, 1991, the members of the Commission decided to discuss in detail the relevant Biblical texts. The following texts were listed for consideration: Genesis 1-3, 19:1-11; Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Judges 19; Romans 1:26-27; I Timothy 1:10; I Corinthians 6:9-11; II Peter 2:4-8; Jude 6-13.

The following principles of interpretation were accepted by the Commission for purposes of discussion:

1. We will attempt to be honest to the historical, literal (i.e. responsible), meaning of scripture in its historical, cultural context.

2. We will attempt to be clear about the contemporary issues we bring to scripture. Is the issue sexual immorality or sexual orientation?

3. We will need to be clear about what we do with what we find. How will scripture be/become God's word for us? We understand that the spirit of God calls us into a search for understanding what it means for us to be faithful to God in our context. This is not an exclusively intellectual exercise. Prayer informs the search. A final, definitive interpretation of scripture is contrary to the nature of reality in which we are called to live with mystery, paradox and ambiguity.

The first text selected for discussion was Genesis 1-3. An attempt was made to discuss these chapters separately. A discussion of the meaning of imago dei followed. It was noted that this concept has meant a variety of things throughout the church's history. One member argued for complementarity as the meaning of imago dei. A man and a woman need each other to be whole. One question raised by this interpretation is, "Do single people, whether by choice or by chance., lack wholeness?" Another member commented that the concept of complementarity as a presupposition of wholeness, falls on the doctrine of the incarnation (if we believe that fullness of God dwells in the man Jesus).

One member argued for understanding Genesis 1 in terms of the polarities of finitude/infinitude. Humanity is called to live out of the tension between being of the earth and yet conscious of being of the divine as well.

A discussion of the distinction between normative and natural ensued without resolution. Normative may be culturally related, while natural refers to the intention of creation. Is marriage normative or natural? Were human beings created for marriage, or was marriage a provision of God for humanity? If Christ is the nature we are moving towards, what is the relationship of marriage to this nature (Christ)?

It was agreed that the norm for marriage is the survival of the race. This will mean different things at different times in history. In the context of the text of Genesis it meant having as many children as possible. Our context calls for a very different response.

The question of what it means to be whole, or complete, surfaced again. Can an individual be a complete self? Apart from relationship with an other/others? If not, is relationship with an individual of the opposite sex necessary for wholeness, or is relationship with a community sufficient?

An attempt to summarize the discussion and points of agreement in relationship to Genesis chapter one followed. It was agreed that all that is in male and female is in God.

A discussion of Genesis chapters two and three began with the question, "Do the creation narratives address the question of homosexuality? Was it on the mind of the author/editor(s)?" One member believed the material was relevant to the question, believing the intent of the material was normative for male/female relationships ("Leaving, cleaving, and weaving"). Someone else commented that even if this was the intent of the narrative for the normative male/female relationship, the question of homosexuality is not specifically addressed by these texts. "Why is the Bible as silent as it is on the question of homosexuality?" In summary the Commission agreed that the Genesis material does not specifically talk about homosexuality, but disagreed about how to interpret the silence.

The Commission moved to a discussion of Leviticus. How do we decide what parts of the Holiness Code are applicable now? Do we accept part, or all of the code? Does the description of homosexuality as "abomination" indicate that the practice itself was unacceptable or that it was participation in a foreign cult that was unacceptable? A member noted that the description in Leviticus 18 was of consenting adults. Another observed that there was nothing in the text itself that compelled us to change the traditional understanding of homosexuality.

Someone then gave a summary of the Commission's discussion of Leviticus. This led to further discussion of whether female homosexuality was implicitly included in the text as an abomination. The Commission agreed to disagree, the interpretation at least partially depending on whether one sees the prohibition as against participation in the cult or in specifically homosexual behavior.

The next text discussed was Romans 1:22ff. The opening comment argued for seeing the text in its context, as an analysis of the human predicament, in need of grace. It was agreed that homosexuality, both male and female, is described as a sin in this text.

The Commission agreed that these were the main texts in our discussion of sexuality and homosexuality, and that the other texts listed did not give any additional insights which would assist us in our study.

The convenor asked, "Where to from here?" and outlined the steps we have taken, and then some future steps. We have discussed hermenuetics and key texts. Next we shall consider the medical and psychology evidence. In the future the ethical and pastoral perspectives will need to be explored. Finally, a recommendation to the church will need to be written.

REPORT TO THE SOUTHERN PROVINCE SYNOD OF 1992

In August, 1991, the convener of the Commission prepared a report to be forwarded to the 1992 Synod of the Moravian Church, Southern Province, which included a paragraph on the Commission's study and progress, which follows: "The issue of homosexuality and ordination. At the invitation of the Provincial Elders Conference of the Southern Province, the Commission undertook this challenge. We identified a number of sub-themes, including the interpretation of scripture in the Moravian tradition; interpretation of the specific references to homosexuality in the scriptures; the nature of human sexuality; medical, psychological, and social dimensions to homosexuality; the pastoral ministry of the church to families of gay and lesbian persons; and the specific issue of ordination of homosexual persons. The Commission has not completed its work, and the task will continue before report is made to the Provincial Elders Conference."

INTERVIEW AND DISCUSSION WITH BR. DOUG BAUDER

The Commission next met in February, 1992, and several documents were distributed which dealt with the issue of homosexuality. Among them were: "A Proposed Position Statement on Homosexuality" from the Macedonia Moravian Church; and an article on what the church can and cannot responsibly teach from the Circuit Rider, the United Methodist Church magazine. The Commission invited Douglas Bauder, an ordained Moravian pastor who is homosexual, to tell his story and answer questions from the Commission. Brother Bauder told the story of his experience of coming to awareness and acceptance of his homosexual orientation, and the role of the Moravian Church in this process. There were many questions and much discussion with Br. Bauder relating to homosexuality in general, and also the issue of the ordination and service of homosexual pastors.

PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE JOINT PEC'S, 1992

After the conclusion of Br. Bauder's visit, the Commission discussed the Macedonia Moravian Church paper, and also discussed the report of the committee to study homosexuality from the United Methodist Church, which was published in the Circuit Rider. The Commission noted areas of concurrence and also areas of disagreement with the United Methodist committee report. The Commission agreed that they would forward a preliminary report to the Provincial Elders Conferences of the Northern and Southern Provinces, which would include what the church can and cannot responsibly teach:

1. What the church can and cannot responsibly teach;

2. That the Faith and Order Commission needs to continue to study the subject of homosexuality and ordination before arriving at a recommendation;

3. That we will recommend that educational materials be developed for use in congregations. Brother Sommers will develop a bibliography for this purpose.

The Preliminary Communication (see appendix) was subsequently published in the November, 1992, issue of The Moravian, and generated eighteen letters to the editor. The letters expressed a great variety of reactions. Some expressed appreciation for the Commission's addressing a complex and difficult issue being faced by the church and society. Others were very critical that the Commission did not advocate a particular posture regarding homosexuality. These criticisms ranged from accusations that the statement on one hand was too liberal, and on the other hand should have called for the approval of same sex covenanted unions. There are four criticisms which the Commission felt reflected some misunderstandings of the preliminary statement. They were:

1. Biblical authority. The Faith and Order Commission accepts fully the authority of scripture. We affirm that there are differences of Biblical interpretation, including the passages in the Bible where homosexuality is mentioned.

2. Same sex marriage. The statement makes clear that marriage is understood in heterosexual terms and is not applied to same sex unions.

3. Homosexuality and ordination. We have not recommended any change in position on homosexuality in ordination to the Provincial Elders Conferences, and we apologize for the confusion in that the title of the article in The Moravian may have led readers to believe that we have come to a new resolution on this matter.

4. Homosexuality is a faith issue. We have sought to engage the church in considering homosexuality as an issue of faith and as a church dividing issue. To this end, we consider it imperative for the church to continue on its examination of our varied beliefs on this subject and our appraisal of scientific evidence.

The Commission discussed the negative responses to our preliminary report in the November, 1992, issue of The Moravian. We will send letters to all eighteen of those who responded to our article in The Moravian. A copy of our letter will be published in The Moravian.

INTERVIEW WITH A FORMER HOMOSEXUAL

At the February, 1993, meeting of the Commission, a guest who had been a practicing homosexual for many years and a member of the Moravian Church, but who had left the practice of homosexuality and was now a candidate for the ministry in the Moravian Church met with us. He shared the story of his journey and the great help that friends in his church and the Elders of his congregation had been for him. He made several recommendations to us which were:

1. That we should have patience with this subject and give hope to homosexuals. That we should not beat homosexuals over the head with scripture passages.

2. That we should not be afraid to address the issue. We should deal with homophobia, dispel ignorance, and love homosexual persons.

3. That we should confront the hypocrisy in the church, especially that of heterosexuals, who believe their sins are not as severe as the sins of homosexuals. We need to remember that all of us sin, and that all sin is serious in God's sight.

4. We need to encourage evangelism among homosexuals the same way that we would anyone else.

5. We need to reach out and provide pastoral care for the parents and families of homosexuals.

The thirteen members of the Commission shared their own personal perspectives on the appropriateness of ordaining practicing homosexuals at the present time. A straw vote showed that there were seven members who favored ordaining practicing homosexuals and six who were opposed. It was generally agreed that the one member who was absent from this meeting of the Commission would have been opposed to the ordination of practicing homosexuals, which means the Commission is essentially deadlocked on this issue. Recognizing that after almost three years of dealing with this subject, we were unable to come to consensus, the following resolution was unanimously adopted and forwarded to the Provincial Elders Conferences of the Northern and Southern Provinces:

INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO REACH CONSENSUS AND FINAL REPORT

"The Faith and Order Commission was asked to consider the issue of homosexuality and ordination by the joint PEC's. We have spent considerable time and study, discussion and dialog. Some positive things have emerged from this process: 1. We have sensed the spirit of God moving in us and in those who have shared their thoughts with us; 2. We have learned to understand and respect our differing perspectives; 3. We have gained greater insight and understanding concerning homosexuality. We recommend that the church participate in a similar process of study, discussion and dialog concerning homosexuality. On the issue of ordination of homosexual persons, however, we are unable to reach consensus, and therefore, make no recommendation to the PEC's."

After the unanimous adoption of this motion, the Commission decided to suspend discussion of the issue of homosexuality and ordination for a time. At the August, 1993, meeting of the Commission, one member shared a possible format for the development of study materials for Moravian congregations. The Commission adopted these recommendations and forwarded them to the Provincial Elders Conferences to be discussed at the joint PEC meeting in January, 1994. The model for this study would be the document prepared by the Church and Society Commission of the Southern Province "The Moravian Church and the Abortion Issue, Points of View for Study and Discussion." A suggested title would be "Homosexuality and the Church: Decide for Yourself." The outline would include:

Part 1. Articles from the October, 1991, issue of The Hinge, in which Steve Nicholas and Mary Borhek developed two approaches to Biblical interpretation and homosexuality.

Part 2. Personal stories from Doug Bauder and a Moravian Seminarian which articulate two different outcomes to the homosexual experience.

Part 3. The articulation of documents of the church on the subject, including the 1974 resolution of the Northern Province Synod, the preliminary conclusion of the Faith and Order Commission in 1992, and the final report to the Provincial Elders Conferences by the Commission. Questions for discussion of these documents would be included.

Part 4. A list of practical issues that churches and our society face along with questions for discussion. Such might include the service of homosexuals in the military, curriculum in public and private schools, ordination of homosexuals, homosexuals as leaders in congregations, the blessing of same sex unions by the church, and still others.

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

The minutes of the Commission meeting from September 15-17, 1994 state that Rev. Rick Sides of the Southern Province Dept. of Education will lead development of materials to be produced for congregations of both provinces. Subsequently, Rick in consultation with the director of educational ministries in the Northern Province and the Church and Society Committee of the Southern Province, determined to produce a more general guide for dialogue about controversial issues. This guide was followed in three town meetings in the Southern Province which discussed homosexuality, and it was also followed in several regional town meetings in the Northern Province leading to the Synod of 1998.

Prepared by Steve Nicholas March, 2001

---