Open Hands Vol 13 No 4 - Treasure in Earthen Vessels: An Exploration of Sexual Ethics

Open Hands Vol 13 No 4 - Treasure in Earthen Vessels: An Exploration of Sexual Ethics

13

4

1998

Spring

Vol. 13 No. 4
Spring 1998
2 Open Hands
Vol. 13 No. 4 Spring 1998
Resources for Ministries Affirming
the Diversity of Human Sexuality
Open Hands is a resource for congregations
and individuals seeking to be in
ministry with lesbian, bisexual, and gay
persons. Each issue focuses on a specific
area of concern within the church.
Open Hands is published quarterly by
the Reconciling Congregation Program,
Inc. (United Methodist) in cooperation
with the Association of Welcoming &
Affirming Baptists (American), the More
Light Churches Network (Presbyterian),
the Open & Affirming Ministries (Disciples),
the Open and Affirming (United
Church of Christ), and the Reconciling
in Christ (Lutheran) programs. Each of
these programs is a national network of
local churches that publicly affirm their
ministry with the whole family of God
and welcome lesbian and gay persons
and their families into their community
of faith. These six programs—along
with Supportive Congregations (Brethren/
Mennonite), and Welcoming (Unitarian
Universalist)—offer hope that the
church can be a reconciled community.
Open Hands is published quarterly.
Subscription is $20 for four issues ($25
outside the U.S.). Single copies and back
issues are $6. Quantities of 10 or more,
$4 each.
Subscriptions, letters to the editor,
manuscripts, requests for advertising
rates, and other correspondence should
be sent to:
Open Hands
3801 N. Keeler Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Phone: 773 / 736-5526
Fax: 773 / 736-5475
Member, The Associated Church Press
© 1998
Reconciling Congregation Program, Inc.
Open Hands is a registered trademark.
ISSN 0888-8833
Printed on recycled paper.
TREASURE IN EARTHEN VESSELS
An Exploration of Sexual Ethics
Outlaws and “Inlaws” 4
CHRIS GLASER
Ethics is an “inside” job, especially among outcasts.
Sex in Church - Can We Talk? 5
JOHN SPRINGL
Isn’t even church a sanctuary from sex?
Myth, Mystery, and Human Sexuality 6
JOHN BALLEW
Cutting off its sacred import spites our sexuality.
Getting Sexuality in Perspective
Cross Cultural Comparisons 8
STEPHANIE S. SPENCER
More multiple choice than either/or.
Sexual Ethics in an Overpopulated World
Pollution, Purity, Property, and Procreation 10
CAROL ROBB
The marriage of economic and sexual ethics.
Blessed and Challenged by Jesus
Where We Get the Chutzpah to Do Our Own Ethics 14
THOMAS C. ZIEGERT
A Biblical basis for a gay-positive sexual ethic.
A Sexual Ethic of ‘Least Harm’ 15
MARIE FORTUNE
Revising our understanding of what constitutes sexual sin.
Call for Articles for Open Hands Winter 1999
Why Be Specific in Our Welcome?
Theme Section: Next year’s winter issue will address the question of why welcoming
congregations have a particular focus on g/l/b/t and their families. What is the need?
What is the hope?
Ministries Section: We are seeking articles describing practical experience and suggestions
in the following areas: Welcoming Committees, Connections (with other justice
concerns), Worship, Outreach, Leadership, Youth, Campus, Children. These brief articles
may or may not have to do with the theme.
Contact with idea by August 1 Manuscript deadline: October 15
Chris Glaser, Phone/Fax 404/622-4222 or ChrsGlaser@aol.com
We welcome the
Open & Affirming Ministries
as a full ecumenical partner
of Open Hands.
Spring 1998 3
Publisher
Mark Bowman
Interim Editor
Chris Glaser
Designer
In Print—Jan Graves
Program Coordinators
Mark Bowman
Reconciling Congregation
Program, Inc. (UMC)
3801 N. Keeler Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
773/736-5526
www.rcp.org
Allen V. Harris
Open & Affirming Minstries
(Disciples)
1010 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10028
http://pilot.msu.edu/user/
laceyj/
Ann B. Day
Open and Affirming
Program (UCC)
P.O. Box 403
Holden, MA 01520
508/856-9316
www.coalition.simplenet.com
Bob Gibeling
Reconciling in Christ
Program (Lutheran)
2466 Sharondale Drive
Atlanta, GA 30305
404/266-9615
www.lcna.org
Dick Lundy
More Light Churches
Network (PCUSA)
5525 Timber Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
612/470-0093
http://www.mlcn.org
Brenda J. Moulton
Welcoming & Affirming
Baptists (ABC/USA)
P.O. Box 2596
Attleboro Falls, MA 02763
508/226-1945
http://users.aol.com/
wabaptists
Editorial Advisory Committee
Howard Bess, W&A
Ann Marie Coleman, ONA
Dick Hasbany, MLCN
Bobbi Hargleroad, MLCN
Dorothy Klefstad, RIC
Susan Laurie, RCP
Samuel E. Loliger, ONA
Tim Phillips, W&A
Lisa Ann Pierce, SCN
Dick Poole, RIC
Caroline Presnell, RCP
Paul Santillán, RCP
Margarita Suaréz, ONA
Stuart Wright, RIC
RCP
Movement News ..................................... 30
Welcoming Communities ....................... 30
Selected Resources .................................. 32
Next Issue:
BISEXUALITY
What Makes ‘Good Sex’ Good?
Developing a Gay-Positive Sex Ethic 18
MARVIN M. ELLISON
Creating an ethic that embraces rather than singles out
sexuality.
A Sexual Desiderata 20
JIM WOLFE
“There can be too little but never too much love.”
Sexual Ethics Without Religion 21
DANIEL A. HELMINIAK
A sexual ethic for a new and secular millennium.
Giving a Future to a Present Love 23
MARGARET A. FARLEY
Why love prompts commitment.
MINISTRIES
Worship
Signs of God - Making Banners in Worship 24
JAN GRAVES
Outreach
Why March in Gay Pride? Just Peace! 24
CHARLES A. WOLFE
Connections
An Open Letter from African-American Clergy and Laity 25
NATIONAL BLACK PRESBYTERIAN CAUCAS
Children
For the Sake of Children Like Me 26
SOL KELLEY-JONES
Campus
A Work of God 27
BROOKE ROLSTON
Leadership
The Trial of Jimmy Creech 28
MARK BOWMAN
SUSTAINING THE SPIRIT
Prayers of the Body 29
NANCY A. HARDESTY, MELINDA MCLAIN, DOUGLAS SAYLOR,
ALEXA SMITH, TIM TYNER
4 Open Hands
Treasure in Earthen Vessels may describe
not only our spirituality, as in
1 Corinthians 4:7, but our sexuality as
well. The image affirms the rich resource
that our God-given sexuality is.
In times past, it has been an embarrassment
of riches; that is, something not
to be spoken of publicly. But, as Jesus
once said of the gospel, what is spoken
in whispers will be shouted from rooftops.
What is most private and personal—
sexual union— is celebrated in
the most public and holy way with family
and friends in church: a wedding.
Jesus himself adds to our merriment by
turning water to wine, just as the sensual
god Dionysus was said to have done
in the temples of his cult on the very
day when the Christian calendar remembers
Jesus’ first miracle at the wedding
in Cana.
The movement in theological circles
of late has been to reclaim our bodies
as good and as capable of revealing the
sacred. God shaped our bodies and redeemed
them in the body and Body of
Christ, in whom our bodies have been
reclaimed to do as Christ would do, and
in whom our bodies will be resurrected.
Body theologians have reminded us that
agape and eros are not at odds; rather,
to divorce them is at the peril of a
disembodied spirituality or a despiritualized
sexuality. Both sexuality and
spirituality drink from the same well:
eros, that passion for union with
another, whether with God in prayermaking
or with the beloved in lovemaking.
But, since we have this treasure
in earthen vessels— vulnerable,
fragile, fallible—eros must dance with
agape, that benevolent love that, for the
follower of Jesus, wishes the best for the
other.
The pages of Open Hands have focused
on sexuality before. It seems especially
timely now. First, in the chronology
of the magazine. Our last issue
dealt with “Now That We’re Welcoming—
Now What?” One of those “whats”
is that all of us— straight, lesbian, gay,
bisexual— may reflect on sexual ethics
together. We who are lesbian and gay,
who have often fulfilled our calling of
reminding the church to deal honestly
with its sexuality, have much to offer
our congregations in this dialogue. And
heterosexuals have much to offer us
from their experience. In that conversation,
bisexual people offer unique
insights and challenges; and so, our next
issue will focus on bisexuality.
Second, the issue of sexual ethics is
timely given the current national dialogue
on everything from gay marriage
to sex in the workplace. A twice-divorced
and thrice-married representative
in Congress (alas, from Georgia)
introduces the “Defense of Marriage
Act” into Congress which a President
accused of sexual infidelity signs into
law. Does it make heterosexual marriage
more binding? No, it rejects the legal
rights of gay people to marry! Meanwhile,
growing awareness of sexual harassment
in the workplace and sexual
misconduct by helping professionals
reveals a host of victims, requiring
therapeutic care, costly litigation, and
stricter regulations that have the unfortunate
byproduct of sending a chill
throughout human interactions.
Finally, sexual ethics is being discussed
as never before in the gay community.
With some bemusement I witness
the debate among gay male writers
that sets Michelangelo Signorelli and
Gabriel Rotello (who argue that the days
are over for “anything goes”) over
against Eric Rofes and the group Sex
Panic! (who resist sexual regulations as
sex-negative). Though this conversation
is seen as something new, we in the gay
religious community have been having
this dialogue for decades! And the lesbian
community, religious or not, has
long voiced concern about ethical sexuality,
probably growing out of women’s
experience as the usual victims (along
with children) of sexual misbehavior
and abuse.
John Rechy’s famous 1977 book, The
Sexual Outlaw, named the experience of
many of us who came out years ago.
We were sexual outlaws simply because
of who we were. We were not welcome
to participate as equals in the dialogue
on sexual ethics in mainstream culture,
let alone the church. We had to find
our own “in-laws,” that is our own sense
of a spiritual/sexual center that stayed
us in our sexual relationships, our own
sexual guidelines. We made mistakes
along the way, but we also made startling
discoveries about the sacred nature
of human sexuality. Many of us
bought into the church’s duality that
segregated sexuality and spirituality and
felt compelled to make a choice between
our sexuality and the church.
Those of us who didn’t and remained
within the church found ourselves spiritually
abused even for our most ethically
correct choices. Small wonder,
then, that we might resist when the
church begins discussing our sexual
ethics.
The Welcoming Congregations
movement may be the only place where
straight and gay and lesbian and bisexual
Christians may dialogue about
human sexuality as equals. Dialogue
comes from words meaning “through
the word” and connotes finding common
ground—shared meaning and purpose.
When it comes to either sexuality
or spirituality, too often we end up
in a discussion, a term derived from
words that mean “breaking things up”
and connotes analysis, having a polarizing
effect. Instead, a dialogue on
sexual ethics may
bring us together
on common ground
upon which to build
a shared approach
to human sexuality.
What follows may
further that dialogue.
▼
Chris Glaser, Interim Editor
Atlanta, Georgia
OUTLAWS AND “INLAWS”
Spring 1998 5
A parishioner bounced into church
one Sunday saying that she was happy
to be there because church was the only
place where no one talked about sex.
How tragic and how often this is
true! We have come to expect the
church to speak volumes on “spiritual”
matters and to remain silent about issues
of human sexuality, as though to
be spiritual is to be sexless. The reality
is that people who are whole are wholly
sexual and wholly spiritual.
Spirituality and sexuality are very
close to the heart of human life. They
are so deeply intertwined, I don’t think
we can separate them completely, for
they both have a common denominator
of love— pure, unadulterated love,
and they are means of learning to live
out our lives in love. I believe that the
highest form of responding to God’s
love is to fully embrace our sexual nature
and our spiritual nature.
The attitude that spirituality is pulpit
material and sexuality is a private
matter is not helpful to our era. When
something is viewed solely as private,
to the point of secrecy, we may resist
God’s desire to enter into that aspect of
our lives to bless us, and thus we may
become laden with guilt and doubts. So
uncomfortable we become talking of
our sexuality that we mask our sexual
fears and doubts with general questions
like: “Does God love me?” “Does God
love me as I really am?” “Does God
understand the real me?” “Do you think
I’m a good person? I don’t think you
would if you really knew me.”
That people mask important concerns
about their sexuality in such oblique
ways tells me that thinking of sex
as a private, secret matter is not helpful.
God loves us emphatically, and
there should be no doubt of this! I think
we would be happier and more confident
as Christians if we considered sexuality
a personal and yet public matter
for dialogue. If we can talk about it with
one another, then talking about it with
God seems more possible: after all,
where two or three are gathered in dialogue
or prayer, God is surely present.
Sexuality is personal because it is
integral to who I am as a person. I cannot
live life apart from my sexuality. It
has been a part of me since I was born
and will be part of my life until I die. It
is not my total being, but it molds and
shapes me, energizes and enlivens me.
Sexuality is public because what I do
with my sexuality affects others. If I
have children, which are the results of
my sexuality, they will attend schools
funded by taxes from those who may
not have children themselves. If I have
unsafe sex that leads to a sexually transmitted
disease, I will rely on health insurance
or public health programs for
medical care that others have supported
through premiums or taxes.
Sexual ethics begins with personal
acceptance of our sexuality and public
dialogue about how we integrate sexuality
into our lives. Just as we begin our
faith journey by accepting our spirituality
and dialoguing with others about
its relationship to the whole of life, so
we should have opportunities to dialogue
with others about how sexuality
relates to the whole of life.
In our faith tradition, part of that
dialogue is with members of our spiritual
community in the Bible. The Creation
stories in Genesis 1 and 2 affirm
the goodness of human sexuality and
of us, created in the image of God for
intimate communion with one another
and with God. Our very maleness and
femaleness are reflections of God’s self.
The goodness of our sexual passion is
eloquently lifted up in The Song of
Solomon. The loyalty of Ruth and
Naomi and the fidelity of David and
Jonathan demonstrate the growth of
healthy relationships. The stories of
Vashti and Tamar are windows to understanding
sexual exploitation. The
story of the Ethiopian eunuch proclaims
God’s open arms to those whom society
excludes for sexual reasons. The stories
of Jesus and the woman accused of
adultery and the woman at the well
married five times demonstrate the
compassion of God in regard to human
sexuality.
We need to be clear about the goodness
of human sexuality because negative
images of sex have dominated the
church’s recent history, making people
uncomfortable with themselves. Of
course, with every good gift of God
come challenges and responsibilities.
The Bible’s cautionary wisdom is helpful.
Breaking our promises (adultery),
desiring a person already in a committed
relationship (coveting), and demeaning
one’s self or another person
(violence) are major ethical prohibitions
offered in scripture.
As we proceed in our sexual journeys,
we become aware of who and what
completes us, and this helps us find a
complementary companion. For most
people, it is just this exploration and
curiosity which lead us to self-understanding
and maturity in developing
future lasting relationships. We are often
hard on ourselves at this stage of
growth. It is well to remember that God
is as gracious to us as we learn about
our sexuality as God is when we learned
to walk and talk. We need to be just as
gracious to ourselves and others.
God is a great Lover. God created us
to be great lovers, too. We have been
given the gifts of spirituality and sexuality
with which to express love and
discover fulfillment. As with everything
God has created, God has called both
gifts good.
To the woman who felt relief that
church was a sanctuary from sex, I had
to say, “I think you’ve come to the right
place. We have much to talk about!” ▼
John Springl (a pseudonym) is a United
Methodist pastor. He lives with his wife
and children in rural Pennsylvania.
SEX IN CHURCH
Can We Talk?
John Springl
God is as gracious to us as we learn about our sexuality
as God is when we learned to walk and talk.
We need to be just as gracious.
6 Open Hands
We live in a century in which myth
has come to mean falsehood, and science
reigns supreme. Science itself has
become the myth from which our society
gains its self-understanding. Where
once the moon and stars were the subject
of poets, philosophers and theologians,
now they are destinations for our
surveying teams. Within the next few
years, the Human Genome Project will
complete the mapping of all human
DNA. Yet with all of our scientific
knowledge, how much better do we
actually grasp the mystery of life? In a
culture that seems to grow coarser every
year, there is little evidence that
demythologizing the world has resulted
in greater meaning being extended into
daily life. Often the opposite seems true.
Something parallel has happened
with human sexuality. During the past
century or so, sexuality has increasingly
become an object of scientific— specifically,
medical— study. Sexuality is reduced
to behaviors to be categorized,
and love is investigated by endocrinologists
studying hormone levels. In our
clinical view of life, sexuality has become
a matter about which we increasingly
consult experts to expand our skill
at performing or to identify our reasons
for feeling unfulfilled. Sexuality seems
to have become just another product
or advertising device.
It is not surprising that we experience
sexuality itself as increasingly degraded.
When everything becomes a
subject of scientific knowing, the mystery
of life becomes a challenge to be
mastered rather than a wonder to be
contemplated. And sexuality seems less
at home in our churches than in movie
theaters and mouthwash ads. In times
like these, it is important to understand
that this is not the way humans have
always experienced our sexuality.
In 1989, when I began serving on the
(ill-fated) Evangelical Lutheran Church
Task Force on Human Sexuality, an
early speaker addressing the panel noted
that it was ironic that sex was so painful
for Christians to deal with because
for us “sex is not sacred.” He meant, I
gathered, that as opposed to other spiritual
traditions in which sex was connected
with the Divine, for Christians
sex was not a matter of salvation.
How true is this?
Ancient people in agricultural societies
seemed to grasp the power and
mystery of sexuality. Life was understood
to be inherently fragile and uncertain.
Humankind was surrounded by
forces invisible and poorly understood.
In this context, intercourse with the
divine through ritual sex (the cult of
Baal in ancient Canaan, for instance)
became a way of assuring fertility, harmony
and wholeness.1
In the East, particularly in Tantric
(“Body”) traditions, the divine was seen
as polarized between female and male,
shakti and shiva. Maithuna rituals involving
sexual union between the participants
were seen as a “holy right of
obligation.” In making love, the human
couple became participants in the divine.
The joining of male and female
sexual energies together is a manifestation
of divine unity. This experience of
sexual power was seen as transformative.
Tantra has on occasion been referred
to as the “lightening path to enlightenment”
because of the manner in
which it harnesses this creative and generative
energy.
Mythologies in classical Mediterranean
Europe also sought to explore the
sacredness of sexuality and love. Interestingly,
most of the Greek and Roman
deities of the ages— Dionysus (Bacchus
in Roman literature), Venus (Aphrodite
in Rome), Amor (Latin word for love and
used as a synonym for Cupid, the Roman
Eros)— can be understood as androgynous.
2 Dionysus was not a traditional
fertility god, but rather the avatar
of arousal, frenzy and ecstasy. According
to some mythic traditions, he was
pursued by women whom he had
cursed and was torn to bits by them. It
is here that we find a close association
between eros and thanatos, between
sexual ecstasy and death.3
Judaism was the first of the Canaanite
religions to eschew a sexual god. In
differentiating itself and evolving its
own unique identity, ritual sex and the
sacred marriage rights of other religions
were forbidden— although these rites
evidently maintained a hold of sorts on
the people, to the vexation of Moses.
Still, sexuality and spirituality remained
in close connection, such as abstinence
during menstrual periods and rituals
like bathing that may be understood as
emphasizing the holiness of the sexual
union which would follow.4
Early Christianity broke from this
tradition. Evolving as it did in the Greek
world, it found itself reacting to the
Dionysian ecstasy. The opposite world
view—identified with the god Apollo—
emphasized self-mastery instead of ecstasy.
This apollonian view exalted the
spirit and stressed mortification of all
flesh. Augustine, most influential of the
early church leaders, was fascinated by
the mind and by the need for purity,
seeing sex as inherently polluted.
Though some medieval Christian writings,
especially by women religious,
witnessed body and soul inextricably
woven together and celebrated the sensual,
describing God and even Jesus in
male and female imagery, the Reformers
viewed the body in opposition to
spiritual purity and masculinized God.5
The Christian understanding/myth
of the incarnation of Jesus has always
been a puzzle when it came to understanding
the relationship of body and
spirit. One obvious implication—that
Jesus was a sexual being—has been especially
vexing. Docetism (the belief
that Jesus had only the appearance of a
human body) was both the first heresy
and the most common to face the
church. Other theologies evolved (the
virgin birth, the immaculate conception
of Mary) which further reinforced the
wall of separation between the sacred
and the sexual. Yet, returning to the
biblical story itself, one is confronted
with a Savior who permitted physical
intimacy with the beloved disciple at
the Last Supper as well as an outcast
woman who sensually bathed his feet
with her tears, dried them with her hair,
AND
SEXUALITY
MYTH,
MYSTERY
John R. Ballew HUMAN
Spring 1998 7
and kissed them with her lips.
Though descended from a nonmarried
Founder who defended sexual
outcasts and eunuchs and rejected divorce,
modern Christian theology has
evolved a biased sexual ethic that allows
heterosexual marriage alone while permitting
heterosexual divorce! I call it
sacred heterosexuality. To lesbian and
gay Christians, it can seem to be the
great organizing principle of contemporary
Christendom, as we witness the
very unity of our denominations, as well
as that of the National Council of
Churches (U.S.), dependent upon agreement
on this point. Gay sexuality is not
only theologically important, it has frequently
seemed to be the Church’s overriding
obsession. Gay women and men
find our intimate sexual relationships
described as unholy, unchaste, “intrinsically
disordered,” not because of how
these relationships find expression, but
by virtue of the gender of the partners.
Sacred heterosexuality cultists demand
strict adherence. Lutheran pastors
have been defrocked for daring to love
outside of the bounds of heterosexuality;
United Methodist and Episcopalian
clergy have been put on trial for heresy
for blessing same-sex unions; and Presbyterians
have recently reaffirmed that
only married heterosexuals and celibates
have a vocation within their
church. This view ordains majority secular
and ecclesiastical authority as identical
with divine intention. Carter
Heyward identifies this heterosexist
world view as “sacred contempt” for
both women and for gay folk.6
Our world has suffered from the diminishing
of a mythological cosmology
in which the actions of humankind are
seen as part of a larger context. We live
in a largely secularized world. While
some may welcome “liberation” from
ancient forms, the contemporary world
in many ways has suffered from the resulting
mix of too much information
and too little meaning. This is particularly
evident in human sexuality and
relationships, where the result is often
harsh and coarse. What is called for is
“re-sacralizing” creation and returning
to a sense of wonder and creativity.7
Resacralizing sexuality, in this sense,
could offer us a way out of our obsessive
need to break the world down into
smaller, more easily understood, parts.
Instead of obsessing about ear differences
between lesbians and heterosexual
women and hypothalamus sizes
between gay men and straight men, we
could simply stand before one another
as awesome mysteries of creation.
In Care of the Soul, Thomas Moore
claims that attempting to understand
sexuality primarily through scientific
means is destructive to the soul-building
power of love.8 Love requires mystery.
Contemporary North American
Christians resist such counsel.
Christians have it within our ability
to liberate sexuality from the scientific
laboratory and resacralize it, to reunite
sexuality with both the mystery of creation
and the divinity of all love. The
mythological import of a sexuality created
for at-one-ment between two human
beings and of a spirituality intended
to bring at-one-ment between
the divine and the human could heal
the brokenness not only of Christ’s
body but of our own. ▼
John Ballew, M.S.,
L.P.C., is a professional
counselor and massage
therapist in private
practice in Atlanta. A
Lutheran layperson, he
is a member of the
American Counseling
Association and, he notes with some irony,
the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.
He can be reached by email at
jballew@mindspring.com.
Notes
1 Karen Armstrong, A History of God. (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), 11.
2Michael Jordan, An Encyclopedia of Gods.
(New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1993), 67.
3Georg Feuerstein, Sacred Sexuality. (Los
Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1992), 84-85.
4Armstrong, 77.
5James B. Nelson, The Intimate Connection
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1988), 23-4.
6Carter Heyward, Touching Our Strength: The
Erotic as Power and the Love of God. (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1989), 61 ff.
7Matthew Fox, Creation Spirituality. (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 90.
8Thomas Moore, Care of the Soul. (New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, 1992), 82.
Ads
8 Open Hands
I grew up living in five different countries,
and moving so often gave me two
basic perspectives on life: people are not
the same everywhere, and my way of
life is not the only and best possible
lifestyle. As an American in the Middle
East and in South America, I was a member
of a minority in terms of language,
skin color, economic status, and place
of origin. As a diplomat’s child in the
United States, other children thought I
was weird when my stories of growing
up began, “When we lived in Peru…”
From these experiences I learned that
I needed to listen first and to learn about
others if I was going to fit in and make
friends. These lessons (people are different;
I am not always right) have
served me well in studying cultural anthropology,
and I have turned my lifelong
experience bridging cultures into
a professional pursuit.
These life lessons also served me well
when I came out as a lesbian, because I
accepted that people are different everywhere
and that being a lesbian is just
another way to be in the world. Not just
my personal experience, but one hundred
years of research in cultural anthropology
illustrate that there is a great
variety of sexual behavior, gender identity,
and emotional relationships among
the world’s peoples.
The anthropological perspective is
akin to the American Indian proverb
that to know another wholly one must
walk a mile in her moccasins. Anthropologists
try to live in others’ houses,
eat their food, speak as they speak, become
members of their families, and
spend time on what they think is important.
The ultimate goal of anthropology
is twofold: to fully understand
and appreciate experience in different
human communities, and to see ourselves
and our own lives in relationship
to the whole of humanity as one variation
on the great themes of human existence:
relationships to the divine, relationships
to other persons, what gives
life meaning, what are worthwhile ways
to spend our time, and where we find
joy, comfort, and hope.
In the past thirty years anthropologists
have focused more research on the
full cross-cultural expression of personal
identity, including gender identity,
sexual orientation, same-sex emotional
relationships, and heterosexual
experience outside of the behavior
which produces children. The following
illustrations from recent research
offer us perspective on our own limited
understanding of human sexuality.
Other cultures’ experience may help l/
g/b/t people in America feel less isolated,
as well as challenge people who
happen to fit into the American sexual
mainstream to see their feelings of “normality”
as based in our particular culture,
not in some universally-experienced
human nature.
Two Native American Cultures
Because Native American religions
place considerable emphasis
on the belief that everything
that exists comes from the spirit
world, if a person varies from the
average person then that implies
that the spirits must have paid
particular attention to making
that person the way he or she is.
It follows, therefore, that such a
person would have an especially
close connection to the spirit
world. Accordingly, two-spirit
persons are often viewed as sacred
people, spiritually gifted individuals
who can aid others with their
spiritual needs. In many tribes,
such persons are often shamans
or sacred people who work closely
with shamans.1
The Kaska Indians of Canada and the
Mojave Indians of the United States
both have socially valued roles for persons
who feel themselves and are recognized
by others to act differently from
the usual behaviors for women and men
in these societies. These persons see
themselves and are viewed as having
both female and male spirits, and in
both cultures these persons are encouraged
to assume alternative gender roles
and thus find culturally appropriate
ways to contribute to the welfare of their
families and societies.2
Among the Kaska, hunter-gatherers
in the subarctic, hunting is a main
source of food, and usually only men
hunt. However, some women are interested
in masculine tasks, and in a
nuclear family with no sons, these
women especially are encouraged to
learn to hunt. The parents perform a
ceremony to transform this daughter
into a son. This girl then grows up to
hunt with men, and to marry another
woman. The wife, who follows a traditional
female role, has children by a
man that the two married women select,
but the woman hunter is considered
that child’s true father.3
Boys in Mojave culture also could
name the identity of being two-spirited
through a ceremony that their parents
performed, in which a child could express
his desires to become a transvestite.
The anthropologist Gilbert Herdt
summarizes the meaning of this identity:
The two spirit was the product of
a long cultural history that involved
myth and ceremonial initiation.
The ceremonies were sacred
and of such importance that
their official charter was established
in the origin myths of the
tribe, known from time immemorial…[
Even before birth]
mothers had dreams that their
sons would grow up to become
two spirits. No doubt this spiritual
sign helped to lend religious
support for the ceremony. At any
rate these signs of gender change
[refusing male toys and tasks]
were said by the Mojave to express
the “true” intentions of the
child to change into a manwoman…
Clearly, the child was
beginning to act on desires that
transgressed his role and required
GETTING SEXUALITY IN PERSPECTIVE
CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS
Stephanie S. Spencer
Spring 1998 9
an adjustment, through ritual, to
a new kind of being and social
status in the culture.4
Tahiti
In Tahitian culture, there also is a culturally
recognized role for men who
desire to take on the tasks and appearance
of women. A mahu is considered
created by God and involves the adoption
of a gender identity which is distinct
from being either a man or a
woman. Even from an early age a boy’s
interest in wearing women’s clothes and
doing women’s work shows that he is a
mahu. The mahu, however, are not the
only men in the culture who have
sexual interest in other men. According
to interviews with both mahu and
non-mahu men, men whose gender
identity is exclusively male and who
marry women also have sexual relationships
with mahu. In addition, unlike the
two-spirit women in the Kaska example,
mahu in Tahiti do not marry someone
of the same sex.5
Although there is a social category
for men who cross-dress, and have public
identities as mahu, there is not such
a category for women in Tahiti. However,
there is evidence from interviews
with Tahitians of frequent sexual relationships
between women, while these
women usually also have relationships
with men.6
Africa and New Guinea
Further examples of variations in gender
and sexual identity come from Lesotho,
in southern Africa, and from the Sambia
culture in New Guinea. In both of these
societies, there are no “third-gender” roles,
but sexual relationships with members of
the same gender are seen as normal and
necessary parts of growing up to be full
adults. In both of these cultures, age is a
very important aspect of social status, and
relationships between people of different
age groups is an important way to learn
appropriate gender roles while young.
In contemporary Lesotho, women
have “romantic and sexual
friendships [with each other,
which] seemed to model the kind
of courting and, later, marital relations
the women might find
with men. The women referred to
each other with the English terms
mummies (older) and babies
(younger), a form of fictive kinship
that ensured social support
and cultural validation of desires
and affections…The older woman
took on the responsible role in the
relationship, and she provided
her younger partner with gifts and
advice. The latter was important
because it prepared the young girl
for future relationships with men,
most significantly her future husband….”
7
In parts of New Guinea, the New
Hebrides and Australian aboriginal cultures,
age also is important in social status,
and, in some of these cultures,
sexual relationships between mature
men and adolescent boys is a necessary
and culturally valued part of initiating
boys to adult male status. These relationships
do not occur between boys
or men of the same age; this is inconceivable
to men in the Sambia ethnic
group, for example. And, as in Lesotho,
these relationships end when mature
men marry women, and become fathers,
which are part of the definition
of a normal adult man.8
In both of these cases, same-gender
sexual relationships are culturally valued
and accepted experiences that most
or all people have as a normal part of
growing up. In societies with these
kinds of relationships, gender identity
is not fluid, but sexual relationships are
seen as naturally changing over an
individual’s lifespan.
Sexuality as Multiple Choice
Rather Than Either/Or
These examples reveal variation among
cultures in aspects of human life which
we tend to think of as inherent in being
human or as rooted in biology, such
as gender or sexual orientation. They
further illustrate that the cultural connections
between gender roles, sexual
relationships, and religious beliefs vary
in different societies.
This leaves us with unanswered questions
which nonetheless open us to the
possibility of multiple answers rather
than either-or responses.
• If not everyone in every culture is
considered to be either a man or a
woman, then what are “normal”
genders for human beings?
• If most people in some cultures have
heterosexual marriages, but also
have same-sex relationships before
or while they are married, are the categories
heterosexual and homosexual
relevant?
• Why does our culture put such importance
on determining which
sexual orientation a person has?
• Does sexual identity really change
over a lifetime, or do people act on
different sexual desires at different
times in their lives?
• Do you see yourself in these examples,
or do you see others differently with
these examples in mind? ▼
Stephanie S. Spencer (r.) is a cultural anthropologist,
working on her Ph.D. from
Boston University. She has conducted research
on multicultural education in Boston-
area schools and, most recently, in
rural Java, Indonesia, for nineteen months,
on junior high school students’ experiences
of citizenship as members of a nation with
over 200 ethnic groups. She also has worked
with local community, school, and religious
organizations to develop multicultural
education programs. Stephanie
makes her home in Cleveland with her
partner, Arlene Nehring (l.).
Notes
1Ritch C. Savin-Williams and Kenneth M.
Cohen, eds., The Lives of Lesbians, Gays, and
Bisexuals, Children to Adults (Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace, 1996), 418.
2Ibid.
3Ibid., 418-419.
4Gilbert Herdt, Same Sex, Different Cultures.
Gays and Lesbians Across Cultures (Oxford:
Westford Press, 1997), 124.
5Robert I. Levy, Tahitians. Mind and Experience
in the Society Islands (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1973), 130-138.
6Ibid., 140-141.
7Herdt, 79-80.
8Ibid., 81-84.
10 Open Hands
Most Christian sexual ethics, until
some new voices began to be heard in
the last 15 years, are at least latently
procreationist. That is, sexuality is
deemed moral when and only when it
is expressed in relationships that are
open to the possibility of procreation.
If, as Christians, we know there are additional
or more important criteria for
“good sex,” we must address Scripture
and tradition, attempting innovation in
what it means to be faithful. And this
will be tricky, because the Holiness
Code is a major source of sexual ethics,
some of which is supportable and some
of which we have, I thank God, ignored.
When Christians do social ethics, which
includes sexual ethics, we have several
authorities. Always we must attend to
these: Scripture, tradition of the church,
sciences, reason, and contemporary
experience. There are no sharp lines
between these authorities, because we
appropriate one of them through the
lenses offered by the others. Nevertheless
sometimes they conflict, and when
they do, we seek “emergent coherence”
among these authorities. In seeking this
emergent coherence, no one authority
always trumps the others.
The Holiness Code prohibits incest
(Lev. 18), and also prohibits intercourse
with a woman during her menstrual
period. It prohibits sex with animals,
and also “lying with a male as with a
woman”—a prohibition against homosexual
intercourse? It prohibits making
one’s daughter a prostitute, but it also
prohibits wearing a garment of cloth
made of two kinds of stuff (Lev. 19). In
order to do sexual ethics for contemporary
Christians, many theologians
have suggested it’s good to stay far away
from the sexual ethics in the Bible, particularly
the Holiness Code. The most
biblical perspective on sexuality will
come from texts in the Bible other than
the ones on sexuality. Why?
Because biblical sexual ethics in the
Holiness Code is controlled by concerns
about purity and protection of property.
Purity is opposed to pollution, and the
priests, the writers of the Holiness Code,
played the role of declaring what was
clean (pure), and what was unclean.
The priestly writers (and priestly editors,
designated “P” in biblical scholarship),
the writers of the Holiness Code,
were members of the ruling class. Their
duties included being butchers of sacrifices,
taboo specialists, artists, scribes,
lawyers, judges, counselors, prophets,
and warriors.1 An important function of
the priests was to make sharp distinctions
between the clean and the unclean.
In making these distinctions, the
priests defined social relations. People
who were “unclean” were socially inferior
to those who were “clean.”
The priests used their right to distinguish
what was holy or common to
sanction their privileged access to meat.
Only the best of the herd could be sacrificed
at the altar, and, through the sacrifices
of animals at the temple, priests
gave themselves access to large quantities
of good meat. This was an extraordinary
privilege in the ancient Eastern
Mediterranean, as it would be today.
The entire ritual system—or pollution
system, if you will— sanctioned the
priests’ class privileges.
In the Covenant with Abraham, P
wrote the stipulation regarding circumcision
and wrote in a role for the priests
in directing the proper control of the
discharge of blood. Priest-controlled
blood discharge was deemed clean.
Blood not controlled by the priests was
unclean, as in murder or menstrual flow.
Women’s normal menstrual flow and
flow after childbearing marked them as
unclean and therefore untouchable.
Clearly, in a pollution system controlled
by men women don’t fare very
well. Nor do they do well when the concern
is primarily to protect property, for
in this patriarchal culture women as
wives and as daughters were seen as
property. Their social status mitigated
their status as property, but the Patriarch
was the owner of the whole household,
including animals and servants.
The purity code found in Torah
probably reached its final form by the
5th century B.C.E., and to this day subtly
influences our thinking regarding
right and wrong. Pollution systems are
one way religion institutionalizes injustice,
in a sense, rendering it less visible
and more palatable. At a very deep level,
wealthy people are perceived by the
whole society as deserving their wealth
because they are clean. Poor people
deserve their poverty because they are
dirty. Purity codes organize and justify
the unequal distribution of wealth and
social prestige.
Jesus of Nazareth tried to undo the
purity code. For him sin was not to be
unclean. Sin refers to the motivation to
do someone harm. Christians are not
bound by purity codes and in the secular
society we don’t use the language of
clean/unclean in our public debate
about economics. But it is still very powerfully
present in debates about certain
controversial issues. If you listen carefully,
you can hear concerns about pollution
in debate about immigration
policy (whether to let in the hordes of
the unwashed); welfare reform (whether
the society at large should support
women who at some basic level are
tainted); and rights for gay and lesbian
people (whether gay and lesbian people
can be Christian, and whether they can
model the Christian life to their con-
SEXUAL ETHICS IN AN OVERPOPULATED WORLD
Pollution, Purity, Property, and Procreation
Carol Robb
Adapted from a presentation to the Restoring Creation Conference,
Ghost Ranch Conference Center, Abiquiu, New Mexico, June 24-28, 1996.
Spring 1998 11
gregations if ordained to the ministry
of word and sacrament). These are economic
matters. They are about who
should have access to the social wealth.
Purity codes continue to function and
are deep in our social psyches.
The four evangelists reject physical
purity as a necessary condition for relationship
to God. The concern for purity
that remains in the Gospels relates
to purity of intentions and motivations,
concern for whether persons by their
thoughts and actions intend harm or
are motivated by care and compassion.
Sexual acts are only rendered impure
by the intent to harm.2 So the New Testament
sexual code indicates all sexual
acts may be genuinely wrong where
they involve an offense against equality
of women and men, or a substitution
of sex for the reign of justice as the
goal of human existence.
Paul similarly used the term “uncleanness”
as an equivalent for greed,
referring to the private vice of lust and
the social vice of wanting to have more
than another or what rightfully belongs
to another. But, like the writers of the
Gospels, Paul refrained from identifying
physical impurity with sin. Physical
purity is not for Paul a prerequisite
of salvation or of membership in the
Christian community.3
As in economic ethics, sexual ethics
should have these criteria: a) a vision
of community, b) marked by protection
of the vulnerable, c) sharing risks and
benefits of life together, and d) human
responsibility for the quality of economic
relations as central to faithful living.
This vision provides ethical criteria
for us now, and it helps us to
interpret the Bible and apply our interpretations.
That is why I say what is authoritative
for contemporary
sexual ethics in the Holiness
Code, or any other part of Scripture,
are the portions that are
motivated by a vision of how
to share the risks and benefits
of life together, how to ensure
that people can always provide
for themselves and their families.
Bracket other portions of
the Code that are motivated by
a pollution system or assume
that some persons are the property
of others. Jesus of Nazareth pointed
to this moral vision in the Mosaic Law,
criticizing all the hierarchical relationships
in the Mosaic Code, while at the
same time teaching the leveling provisions
of that Code. This is why women
were drawn to the Jesus movement.
Mark 5:24-34 tells the familiar story
of such a woman who reached out to
Jesus. The woman, who had had a flow
of blood for twelve years, seems to have
been alone in the crowd; we see no indication
anyone was with her to support
or protect her. We surmise she once
had some finances, because they had
been drained by physicians to no avail.
She was unclean, by virtue of her flow
of blood, and she touched a man (one
called Rabbi, no less) who was clean.4
Yet Jesus, instead of claiming the
privilege that was due him by the pollution
system, stood in solidarity with
the unclean woman. This story is an illustration
of why women numbered
plenty in the Jesus movement and in
the early house churches. The egalitarianism
of life in the Spirit had political
and social implications for them.
And now, even today, the egalitarianism
of life in the Spirit has political
and social implications for us. If we take
into account every human being as well
as every earthly creature, we must have
concern for human impact on the
earth’s life support systems. For the
overdeveloped world, consumption and
production patterns are the main way
we are making earth’s life support systems
fragile. Precisely because of the
impact of human life in the industrialized
world, population is a moral issue.
In addition, fertility rates in the twothirds
world is an issue for the ecology,
though the dynamics there are also
complicated by political and economic
projects of elites. We must not fool ourselves
that there is really no problem
with the exponentially increasing human
population.
We must get our heads around the
notion that the primary purpose of
sexual relations is no longer reproduction.
The primary purpose of sexual relations
from this time forward is pleasure,
pleasure within relationships of
responsibility and mutuality.5 That
makes sense because it’s mainly in the
context of responsible and mutual relationships
that sexual relationships are
pleasurable. In a full world, responsibility
means accountability for personal
decisions about having children to others
in our web of life.
I believe the contemporary conservative
obsession with matters pertaining
to abortion and sexuality is a substitute
for our deep concern about
economic security. Ethicist Gerard
Fourez finds an analogue in the nineteenth
century’s Victorian focus on
sexual ethics, while industrialization
was depriving people of basic economic
security. At a time such as this, an obsession
with sex diverts attention to
peripheral elements rather than the central
one of a society’s structures and
practices, making it possible to conceal
problems these structures and practices
have created.6
Today national boundaries are melting
away in the face of treaties supporting
the free flow of transnational corporate
capital. These economic giants
are rarely held accountable for the
12 Open Hands
effects of their investment and disinvestment
activities on peoples, land, air,
and water—yet the Surgeon General of
the United States was fired for acknowledging
that masturbation, a way of
learning about one’s own body and
what gives it pleasure, should be discussed
in sex education programs. This
is clearly an era when major economic
dislocation is occurring. But the churchgoing
public’s attention has been diverted
from these major economic developments
onto issues related to
sexuality.
I’m aware that well-meaning people
oppose the civil rights and vocational
calls of sexual minorities on the grounds
that these minority peoples threaten
family stability. Mark my words. Families
in the over-developed world as well
as families in the sustainable and excluded
worlds are threatened. But they
are threatened by economic forces outside
our control. When men don’t have
access to reasonably-paying jobs, they
don’t marry the women they get pregnant.
Poor young women rationally
calculate their chances of getting jobs
with diplomas from their inner-city
high schools, and decide they have
more economic security getting public
assistance than in the paid labor force.
Men who can get no paying jobs in
Mexico leave their families for work in
el norte. The women they leave behind
may well begin other relationships, as
do the migrant workers. Mothers and
fathers in Thailand sell their daughters
into sexual slavery for the use of Japanese
and German businessmen who like
them young, to avoid HIV infection.
Families all over the globe are threatened
because their governments have
made decisions to “develop” their
economies in the image of north-Atlantic
free markets. The threat to all these
families is not gay and lesbian people,
many of whom are trying to support
their own families. The threat is from
economic players who are accountable
only to their boards of directors. This is
why sexual ethics are vacuous without
the capacity of local communities to enforce
their economic ethics.
Our economics today must affect our
sexual ethics in a different way than it
did our biblical ancestors. Our sexual
ethics must no longer view women as
property, no longer allow elites to control
what’s pure and impure, no longer
require sexuality to always procreate to
populate our world. Rather, our sexual
ethics furthers economic justice by
guiding our sexuality toward pleasure
within relationships of mutuality and
responsibility. Instead of a goal, procreation
becomes a servant of our broader
stewardship of the planet. ▼
Carol S. Robb is the Margaret S. Dollar
Professor of Christian Social Ethics at San
Francisco Theological Seminary and at the
Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley.
Her most recent book, Equal Value: An
Ethical Approach to Economics and Sex
(Beacon Press, 1995), brings together sexual
and economic ethics.
Notes
1Robert E. Coote and David Robert Ord, In the Beginning: Creation and the Priestly History
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 31.
2William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex—Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications
For Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
3Ibid.
4I am indebted to Mary Foskett for this interpretation of the Mark passage, shared during a
lecture at San Francisco Theological Seminary in February, 1996.
5For a full theological and theoretical exposition of this thesis see Christine Gudorf, Body, Sex,
and Pleasure (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1994).
6Gerard Fourez, Liberation Ethics (Philadelphia: Temple University, 1982), 111.
AD
Spring 1998 13
14 Open Hands
In a sense, ethics is the defining logic
by which we make our moral decisions.
Our ethics usually come by way of culture
and tradition based on heterosexual-
centric values. Thus sexual minorities
(g/l/b/t and celibates) are
unincorporated. We have had to forge
our own models of ethics and morality.
What empowers us to develop and
maintain with authority an ethical standard
for our own lives? With religion
opting out of this discussion (insisting
on abstinence rather than dialogue), the
responsibility has been relegated to us
as individuals. Like many Christians, I
look to the Bible for empowerment and
authority, particularly the Christian
Testament. Two texts from Matthew
empower me to construct my ethical
praxis from Jesus Christ.
Matthew 19:11-12
The phrases “for there are eunuchs who
have been so from birth” and “let anyone
except this who can” taken in the
greater context of the Gospel of Matthew
let me know that Jesus has spoken
particularly of gays and lesbians.
Not only that, but he has blessed us and
offers us our way to heaven.1 This is
done by interpreting this saying of Jesus
in light of Isaiah 56:4-5, “For thus says
the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my
Sabbaths, who choose the things that
please me and hold fast my covenant, I
will give, in my house and within my
walls, a monument and a name better
than sons and daughters.”
As I examined the Greek meaning of
the word translated as eunuch in the
Christian Testament, I discovered, from
sources as varied as works by Aristophanes2
(circa 400 B.C.E.) and an exegesis
of the Matthew text by the followers
of Basilides3 (circa 100 CE), that
they understood the word as a euphemism
for people associated with samegender
sexual relations as well as nonpropagating
persons. Other examples
can be cited as well.4 The point is that
Jesus did refer to sexual minorities, not
just generally, but those who expressed
themselves through same-gender sexual
relations, and Jesus honored them.
Matthew 8:5-13
In this text, a Centurion comes to Jesus
asking that he cure his pais. Heterosexual-
centric translations are misleading.
A more accurate understanding of
pais is “adopted son or brother” or “inheritor
of my property.” The relationship
becomes clearer when we look at
Luke and John. In Luke’s gospel (7:1-
10), the object of the centurion’s concern
is his dear, or honored, servant. It
is misleading to call him the master’s
highly valued servant. It makes the centurion
seem to be a slaver whom Jesus
honors. In John’s gospel (4:46-53), he
is called the royal official’s son. With
the additional knowledge, gained by
John Boswell’s research, that Roman
men of prestige adopted males whom
they loved and counted as their mates
for the purpose of sharing their property,
5 we can see the true relationship
between the centurion and his adopted
son. (There is not necessarily an age difference
implied by the adoption.) The
added perspectives of Luke and John
may lead us to the conclusion that the
adopted son in Matthew was once the
centurion’s servant whom he now loves
as his partner, and whom he has virtually
married for love.
Conclusion
Empowerment is the first step toward
responsible living. The ministry of Jesus
Christ was one of empowering the disfranchised,
including sexual minorities,
such as women and non-propagating
persons. What do we do with that
knowledge? I make the next step by
looking for the guidance Jesus would
give those who now know we are
blessed: oppress no one. Our relationships
should be mutual, communal,
egalitarian, and supportive. Relationships
with other human beings are to
be ends in themselves, not means to an
end. Relationships are to be based on
love and its healing nature. This requires
a balanced life: balanced in our use of
resources for our needs, healing our instinct
for greed; balanced in our requirement
for emotional support, healing
our egocentrism; and balanced in our
relationships, healing our instinct for
power over others. Empowered as we
are, we offer a prophetic voice from the
margins of church and society.
Until the church and society are able
to see as we do, we must trust our own
authority derived from our unique insights
into Christ’s gospel, bearing witness
to that light in our words and
deeds. In the biblical tradition, the
marginalized and disfranchised often
find themselves closer to the understanding
of God’s truth as the keepers
of the flame of righteousness. ▼
Thomas Ziegert is an M.Div. student at
the Claremont School of Theology and a
“bidenominational” candidate for ministry
in both the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) and United Methodist Church. A
member of United University Church in
Los Angeles, he serves as Coordinator of
Affirmation Los Angeles.
He is presently
working on Eunoeo
Theology, a theology
of well-being from a
gay perspective.
Notes
1I work out the details in my paper “For there
are eunuchs...an exegesis.” It is unpublished
but you can request it free by e-mail from
me at TZdla@aol.com
2See Aristophones: “The Acharnians,” “The
Wasps,” and “The Knights.”
3John Ernest Leonard Oulton & Henry
Chadwick (translators), Alexandrian Christianity,
Vol.2, (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1954) p.40.
4See G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon,
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961) p.572,
under eunuchos.
5John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern
Europe (New York: Villard Books, 1994), 98-
99.
BLESSED AND CHALLENGED BY JESUS
Where We Get the Chutzpah to Do Our Own Ethics
Thomas C. Ziegert
Spring 1998 15
A SEXUAL ETHIC OF ‘LEAST HARM’
Marie Fortune
With the publication of Sexual Violence: The Unmentionable
Sin (1983), I suggested that Christian sexual ethics would
be very different if we took the reality of sexual violence seriously.
I am even more convinced of this assertion today. Traditional
sexual ethics have been shaped by patriarchal values
which emphasize male property rights and attempt simple
answers and directives to increasingly complex problems. A
process of discernment based on non-patriarchal values, such
as justice, respect, bodily integrity, consent, reciprocity, and
fidelity, requires daily effort in an intimate relationship and
can reward us with integrity, authentic intimacy, and the eroticization
of equality.
What Is Sexual Sin?
Traditional Christian sexual ethics rest primarily on the prohibition
of sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage.
Such ethics are patriarchal in nature because this prohibition
in the Bible was intended to protect male property rights, control
women’s sexuality, and insure the paternity of offspring.
I believe this confuses the true nature of sexual sin. It is time
to shift the concept of sexual sin to that of sexual violence.
Sexual ethics then becomes a different enterprise.
Adultery, Marriage, and Homosexuality
There have been three primary stands in traditional Christian
sexual ethics: condemnation of adultery, heterosexual marriage
as normative, and opposition to homosexuality. All appear
to arise from a concern for the integrity of heterosexual
marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But
this is not the case.
The biblical teachings regarding adultery in Hebrew scripture
focused on male property rights. The commandment to
not commit adultery (Deuteronomy 5:18) forbade “sexual
intercourse between a man and a married woman. The Hebrew
male did not sin against his own marriage by his extramarital
sexual activity; rather he sinned against the marriage
of another Israelite [male]. Thus the commandment did not
forbid a sexual liaison between an Israelite [male] and a woman
taken in war or a prostitute.”1 There is little evidence of ethical
concern for the well-being of the woman herself in marriage,
“taken in war,” or as a prostitute.
The passages in Deuteronomy (22:23-29) which supposedly
dealt with the rape of women were also based on male
property rights. The sexual assault of a woman is a property
crime against her husband or father to whom she “belonged.”
There is no recognition of the rights of women to be free from
bodily harm nor any sense that the woman in these instances
of rape is a victim. Her well-being is not the ethical issue.
Adultery is not considered a violation of the relationship
between the two sexual partners having to do with broken
promises, deception, or faithlessness. Neither is rape considered
a sin against the victim. Rather rules governing both adultery
and rape emphasize safeguarding a male’s control over
his property. The contemporary application of this narrow
ethical approach supports the male prerogative of sexual access
to women with no sanction except to avoid women who
are clearly some other man’s property.
The emphasis in Christian sexual ethics on heterosexual
marriage as normative has rested on a concern for the public
form of the interaction (i.e. are a man and woman legally
married before they engage in genital sexual activity?) more
than on the private quality of the interaction (how do they
treat each other in the relationship?) The implication of this
standard is that whatever occurs sexually within heterosexual
marriage is morally acceptable and whatever occurs sexually
outside this context is morally unacceptable. For example, if a
man forces a woman to whom he is not married to perform
fellatio on him, this is legally considered rape in most states
in the U.S.; if he engages in the exact same behavior two weeks
after a marriage certificate is signed, this is not legally considered
rape in a number of states. Once again the absence of
concern for women’s bodily integrity and choice within heterosexual
marriage is startling. There is still little recognition
of marital rape, the battering of women, or the denial of reproductive
choice as sexual ethical issues.
The primary sexual concern of organized Christian bodies
in recent decades has been the standard of heterosexual marriage
and prohibition of same-sex sexual contact. The United
Methodist rule for its clergy summarizes this concern succinctly:
“Fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness.” This
supposed affirmation of marriage has in fact been a cover for
the church’s homophobic obsession with homosexuality, particularly
the question of whether lesbians and gay men should
be ordained. Many denominations in the United States have
spent thousands of dollars and many hours debating, studying,
reporting, and voting on these issues.
The Sexual Confusion
The reliance on patriarchal values (primarily male control of
property) as the foundation of sexual ethics has clouded the
church’s understanding of these questions: What is the central
ethical problem in sexual ethics? What is the fundamental
violation? What is sexual sin? The persistent confusion
about these questions has distorted most efforts to provide
useful guidance in sexual matters within our churches in recent
years.
Sexual ethics within many mainline denominations which
permit sexual activity only in heterosexual marriage have been
maintained alongside a conscious effort to ignore the reality
of sexual violence. The disclosures by women and men of
sexual abuse, rape, and sexual harassment have revealed the
reality that the majority of church members have experienced
some form of sexual abuse. The church all but ignored these
disclosures (other than to respond pastorally to some indi16
Open Hands
vidual victims) until allegations against clergy began to surface.
The problem of sexual abuse by clergy in pastoral or
supervisory relationships now appears to be widespread and
to cross all denominational lines. As a result of this institutional
crisis, the reality of sexual abuse is slowly being acknowledged.
Some still see it as an administrative problem,
but others are beginning to understand that it is the central
ethical issue in sexual ethics.
What has created this skewed sense of priorities where, for
example, it has been more important to keep gays and lesbians
out of ministry than it has been to remove clergy who are
sexually abusing children and adults? The problem has been
confusion about the nature of sexual sin.
If sexual sin is understood as the violation of the precept
that sexual activity should only take place within heterosexual
marriage, then ethical questions about consent, bodily integrity,
choice, power and vulnerability are never asked. If sexual
sin is understood as the violation of the bodily integrity of
another person through sexual coercion, abuse or assault, then
questions about consent, bodily integrity, choice, power and
vulnerability take center stage.
Sexual Violence
The sin of sexual violence is a violation of the victim her/
himself which causes physical and emotional harm. Why is it
unethical to violate the sexual boundaries of another person?
• Sexual violence is a violation of bodily integrity which denies
a person the choice to determine her/his own boundaries
and activities.
• Sexual violence is a violation of personhood because it objectifies
the other, making them a non-person.
• Sexual violence creates a victim, that is, renders a person
powerless by taking away her/his resources and sense of
self.
• Sexual violence distorts and misuses sexuality.
• Sexual violence destroys trust and violates relationship.
• Sexual violence destroys community because it creates an
atmosphere of fear and distrust among family, friends, and
acquaintances.
In a relationship in which there is an inequality of power,
like a relationship between parent and child, teacher and student,
pastor and congregant, etc., there are additional dimensions
to the violation:
• Sexual violence violates the adult role vis a vis the child,
which is to protect and provide for the child’s welfare.
• Sexual violence misuses power and authority.
• Sexual violence takes advantage of vulnerability.
• Sexual violence denies authentic consent.
In sum, sexual violence is a sin because it causes harm to
another person and brings suffering which contradicts God’s
purpose as stated by Jesus in John’s gospel: “The thief comes
only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have
life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).
If we are to find our way out of our confusion about the
nature of sexual sin, we need not begin with the question of,
to use James Nelson’s phrase, the right organ in the right orifice
with the right person (i.e. heterosexual marriage), but with
a different question altogether. Paul brings together the teachings
of Judaism and Christianity to focus an ethical mandate:
Owe no one anything except to love one another; for
the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The
commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You
shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not
covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up
in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love
does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling
of the law. (Romans 13:8-10 NRSV)
If I am seeking to love another person, I can best begin by
seeking not to do harm to that person or to myself. To do
harm is to sin, to cause suffering and brokenness in our relationship
as persons. This is where our Christian sexual ethics
should begin.
Asking the Right Questions
If we take seriously the reality of sexual violence and the ethical
questions which it presents, what would our sexual ethics
look like? We would begin with Paul’s formulation: “Love
does no wrong to a neighbor” and we would affirm the bodily
integrity of self and partner and strive to insure that each person
be free from bodily harm within an intimate relationship.
Our sexual ethics would then address both personal and social
dimensions. Four assumptions should support our discernment
process:
1. Most people live in relationships of varying degrees of intimacy
and most would prefer to do this with integrity.
2. Both women and men are moral agents and both possess
the capacity and responsibility for ethical decision-making
and action, though our perceptions of our options are likely
to be shaped by our gender, race, sexual orientation, age,
experiences, etc.
3. No particular gender or relational configuration is assumed.
4. Healthy intimate relationships are only possible in the open
and in community. Secrecy encourages shame and isolation
which make it very difficult to discern ethical choices.
If doing least harm is our goal in relationship to others,
what guidelines might assist us in doing least harm? Guidelines
provide a short cut to decision-making. Once we have
arrived at guidelines which reflect our original principle, we
can refer to them quickly in our discernment process and more
readily make our choices. The development of guidelines or
parameters is an ongoing process and is best carried out in
community so that we can test our own ideas against others’
experiences and concerns.
But what is the difference between guidelines and rules?
Rules are externally imposed requirements which may or may
not have a reasonable basis. They sometimes represent the
common concerns (or prejudices) of society. They may be
necessary to sustain the common good and protect those who
are vulnerable, for example marital rape laws, or they may be
counterproductive, such as sodomy laws. But rules and laws
Spring 1998 17
are not adequate to guide our actions as moral agents. Guidelines,
rather, serve as an internal anchor which informs one’s
decision-making. Ask yourself:
1. Is my choice of intimate partner a peer, i.e. someone
whose power is relatively equal to mine? With this guideline,
we recognize that power is always an issue in an intimate
relationship and that when power is relatively equal we have
the best opportunity to experience authentic consent and
choice in a relationship. If there are differences in power due
to physical realities such as size or socially constructed realities
such as gender, then it is wise to consciously consider how to
minimize the impact of those differences on a relationship. For
example, a couple can discuss ways they want to relate so that
one person’s physical size and strength will not be used to in
any way intimidate the partner. This might mean agreeing to
remain seated during heated or conflictual discussions so that
the larger person does not loom over the smaller person.
We will certainly experience sexual feelings towards persons
who have significantly more power than we or significantly
less power than we, but whether we pursue those feelings
is always a choice. Pursuing such a relationship means
that we run a high risk of either being taken advantage of
(where we have less power, as a client vis a vis a therapist) or
of taking advantage of the other person’s vulnerability (where
we have more power, as a doctor vis a vis a patient). The possibility
of harm is great in either case.
2. Are both my partner and I authentically consenting to
our sexual interaction? Both of us must have information,
awareness, equal power and the option to say “no” without
being punished as well as the option to say “yes.” Consent
should never be confused with submitting, going along, or
acquiescing.
Consent is an alien concept to persons whose life experience
has been that sex is something someone does to them—
in other words, they feel that they have never had any say in
the matter. In sexual interaction, authentic consent requires
communication and agreement that “no” means no, “yes”
means yes and “maybe” means maybe. “No” will not be punished
by withdrawal or more overt coercive tactics. “Maybe”
requires waiting for “yes,” not cajoling and pushing.
3. Do I take responsibility for protecting myself and my
partner against sexually transmitted diseases and to insure
reproductive choice? Does my community support me in
gaining information about and treatment for sexually transmitted
diseases, as well as information and access to contraception
and reproductive options, including abortion? This is
a question of stewardship (the wise care for and management
of the gift of sexuality) and anticipating the literal consequences
of sexual activity. This question takes on even more
urgency with the possibility of infection with HIV or the possibility
of unwanted pregnancy.
My partner and I need to have open communication
about sexuality, our sexual histories (including
STD’s), appropriate contraception and safer sex. In
other words, we need to know each other well before
we can make good decisions about a sexual encounter.
These are not decisions to be made lightly, under
the influence of alcohol or drugs, or on the spur of
the moment. These are decisions best made in the context of
a relationship which is built over time and in which trust and
communication are priorities.
This is the best argument against one-night-stands. Having
sex with someone you just met means having sex with someone
who may be violent, who may have a sexually transmitted
disease, and who may be untrustworthy. Why take that
chance?
4. Am I committed to sharing pleasure and intimacy in my
relationship? My concern should be both for my own needs
and those of my partner. The Song of Solomon in Hebrew
scripture describes a non-marital sexual relationship without
procreative purpose in which erotic longing and pleasure and
intimacy are mutually enjoyed. As Christians, if we genuinely
live out an incarnational theology, then we must affirm that
our bodily selves are good gifts from God and that sexual pleasure
is also good.
5. Am I faithful to my promises and commitments? Whatever
the nature of a commitment to one’s partner and whatever
the duration of that commitment, fidelity requires truthfulness,
promise-keeping, attention, and the absence of
violence. These are aspects of a relationship which require
daily effort. Change in an individual may mean a change in
the commitment which should be pursued through open and
honest communication.
Deep, Abiding Sexual Values
Any effort to shift the discussion of sexual ethics in the Christian
community towards the values of justice, respect, bodily
integrity, consent, reciprocity, and fidelity definitely stimulates
resistance in some quarters. There are those who still
quickly look for the litmus questions: what about abortion,
adultery, homosexuality, and masturbation (in alphabetical
order)? If we are to utilize Paul’s ethical insight as outlined
earlier, then these are no longer the defining questions. If we
are to affirm and promote the eroticization of equality in intimate
relationships, these are no longer the defining questions.
The values which undergird the five guidelines suggested here
encourage us not to meet our own sexual needs at the expense
of someone else. These values are also far more stringent than
traditional patriarchal sexual ethics. They recognize that there
are no simple answers and no permanent resolutions but rather
a constant process of ethical discernment if we are to do least
harm to those we love the most. ▼
Marie Fortune is the founding director of the Center for the Prevention
of Sexual and Domestic Violence. Located in Seattle, the
Center serves as a training resource to religious communities in
the United States and Canada. (See page 31 for address and phone.)
A graduate of Yale University Divinity School and a minister in
the United Church of Christ, she is the author and co-author of
nine books, including Love Does No Harm: Sexual Ethics
for the Rest of Us (The Continuum Publishing Company,
New York, 1995), in which the concepts in this article are
fully developed.
Note
1Raymond F. Collins, Christian Morality: Biblical Foundations
(Notre Dame: 1986), 58.
18 Open Hands
Is the term “gay sexual ethic” an oxymoron
similar to other nonsensical
terms, such as “diet chocolate” and
“military music”? Many people inside
the church and outside think so because
they routinely associate gayness with
sexual immorality. Interestingly, many
queer folks also express reservations,
but for different reasons.
Many people in the g/l/b/t community
object to establishing any normative
sexual ethic because “morality” is
so often used to persecute and place
queer people at risk. Prescribing morals
is seen as a repressive project, using
fear, shame, and ultimately violence to
control those who deviate visibly, publicly
from the married heterosexual
norm. A fixed, rule-bound code of sanctions
only further alienates gay people
from loving their bodies and from sharing
with others the pleasures of sexual
intimacy. Setting up a code, gay or otherwise,
to regulate sexuality is terribly
misguided and likely doomed from the
start.
Others, gay and non-gay alike, are
simply confused about sexual morality
and find themselves wondering if it’s
best to keep their own views private and
“live and let live.” The dedication of a
book on teen sexuality puts the dilemma
well: “To the youth of America
who must struggle to find their way to
sexual health and sanity while the media
screams, ‘Always say yes,’ most parents
say ‘Just say no,’ and the majority
just say nothing.”
I agree that conventional morality,
including traditional Christian sexual
ethics, has by and large been sex-negative,
rigid, and hostile to the g/l/b/t
community. As a gay man and Christian
ethicist, I also believe deep-down
that gay people have significant moral
wisdom to share about body-love and
body-justice, born of our ongoing
struggles for survival and self-respect in
the face of oppression and more recently
the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As carriers
of this culture’s discomfort with
body and sensuality, gay men and lesbians,
as well as bisexual and transgendered
people, know something
about the joy and responsibility of
erotic power as intimate touching. We
also know something about what’s required
to sustain bonds of affection and
care under adverse conditions, a moral
knowing we share with other oppressed
communities.
Developing a gay sexual ethic is
worthwhile, in my judgment, because
the ongoing, never-ending process of
reflecting on our values and conduct
strengthens our community. Thinking
self-critically, as well as with imagination
and good humor, about who we
are (character) and what we do (conduct)
develops in us “habits of the
heart” that can deepen our self-respect,
enhance our care of others,
and alert
us to whatever
puts body or spirit in danger.
Nonetheless, ethics-making is to be
undertaken with a measure of precaution.
In his 1855 preface to Leaves of
Grass, Walt Whitman gave this good
advice: “Reexamine all you have been
told at school or church or in any book,
dismiss whatever insults your own soul,
and your very flesh shall be a great
poem…in every motion and joint of
your body.”
The moral question that intrigues me
is, what makes “good sex” good? Conventional
sex ethics limits responsible
sexuality to only two options: on the
one hand, celibacy (abstinence) for
singles and gays, and on the other hand,
heterosexual marriage that in principle
is procreative and monogamous. However,
on each score there is good reason
to question and dissent. For example,
some single persons choose celibacy
for sex-phobic and, therefore,
highly problematic reasons. In addition,
marital rape and abuse take place in too
many heterosexual unions to give marriage
a blanket blessing. Finally, many
sexually active single persons, including
many gay and lesbian people, lead
loving, responsible, and faithful lives.
Making ethical judgments on the basis
of social status or category is woefully
inadequate. Therefore, we’re still left
with deciding, what makes sex morally
good, and how can we determine that?
About this question, I suspect there’s
no one right and finally definitive answer.
A variety of responses may appeal
to our hearts and minds, as
well as open
us to further
explorations about our
lives, our conflicts, our hopes, and our
fears. We stand a better chance of sharpening
our moral sensibilities if we take
other viewpoints into account as we
frame our ethic. Along these lines, lesbian-
feminist theologian Mary Hunt
suggests that we may do best on moral
matters when “we engage in creative listening,
sketch some general directions,
and leave the rest up to the good sense
of faithful people.”
My own answer, briefly stated, about
an ethical eroticism is that good sex is
the kind of body-touching that is, at one
and the same time, both powerful to
the senses (erotically “charged”) and
ethically principled. Sex is not doing
something to someone else, but rather
a mutual process of being with and feeling
with another person. Persons, not
merely body parts, meet and touch.
Therefore, an ethical eroticism requires
WHAT MAKES ‘GOOD SEX’ GOOD?
Developing a Gay-Positive Sex Ethic
Marvin M. Ellison
“Reexamine all you have been told at school or church
or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul,
and your very flesh shall be a great poem...” Walt Whitman
Spring 1998 19
paying attention to that other person,
as well as to oneself. Both parties must
show up, be listened to and taken seriously,
and be accountable for what happens,
together.
I’ve written elsewhere about four
basic commitments that in my judgment
properly focus ethical concern.
Our moral interest should be in eroticizing
mutual respect and pleasure as
moral goods to be desired in all relations,
both sexual and non-sexual.
These core commitments include honoring
the goodness of the body (and of
diverse bodies), granting every person’s
entitlement to bodily integrity and
moral self-direction, insisting on mutual
consent and respect even if love is
not (yet) present, and valuing a fidelity
grounded in honesty and the willingness
to change.
During my own explorations
about these matters, I’ve reached
a somewhat surprising conclusion.
As an ethicist, I’ve become
convinced that we simply do not
need a separate sex ethic to control
our sexuality or regulate our
sexual conduct. In fact, such an
ethic may do more harm than
good. In saying this, I am not arguing
for a moral free-for-all.
Rather, what I am departing from
is the legacy of a patriarchal church
and culture that fears erotic desire, devalues
the body, and seeks to keep men
“safe” and in charge by containing
women’s lives and women’s bodies
within a complex set of male-controlled
institutions, most especially male-dominant
marriage. It is patriarchy that promulgates
the need for special controls
on sex, including harsh punishments
for sex outside patriarchal marriage, as
well as the stigmatizing of those who
fail to conform to sexist, racist, and elitist
notions of proper male and female
roles. Gay people, of course, are the
prime cultural exemplars of sexual nonconformists.
By definition, we are “sex
outlaws” and moral deviants from the
perspective of patriarchal law and order.
Patriarchy, should we forget, is in
force whenever control is the watchword
about sex, uppity women and gays
are objects of worry, and the pressing
agenda is to preserve male gender privilege,
especially for males who are white
and affluent.
Here I must add a particular word to
myself and my gay, bisexual, and
transgendered brothers. I fear that too
many of us still try to mimic the dominant
male culture’s norm of masculinity
as a way to “pass” as real men and,
therefore, be accepted as “one of the
boys.” We have learned how to control
without guilt, become hardened and cut
off from our feelings (but more importantly,
be oblivious to the feelings of
others), and refuse to be responsible for
how our relative power affects others
and the earth for good or ill. Together
we must become more courageous in
our male gender non-conformity, because
even when patriarchy is “bent,”
it is patriarchy nonetheless! By learning
how to resist the force of masculinization
in our lives, we stand every
chance of becoming more humanized
and, therefore, appropriately vulnerable,
accountable, and passionate about
relations of equality and mutual respect.
A sign of our humanizing as men will
be our capacity to “turn on” to justice
in our bedrooms and throughout the
social order.
If, as I am arguing, special controls
on sexuality are not necessary, and if
our safety and well-being are not dependent
on fear-based strategies to restrain
erotic power and keep things orderly,
then is there a place for any kind
of sex ethic?
My own answer is a qualified yes.
Although we don’t need a specialized
code that regards sex as dangerous,
dirty, and/or chaotic and, therefore,
singles out sex for regulation, we can
benefit from an adequate life ethic that
is able to fully incorporate the erotic as
an essential dimension of our humanity.
Eroticism is an indispensable human
power, one that—contrary to patriarchal
fears— we are able to direct
with wisdom and compassion. This
more comprehensive life ethic honors
the moral goodness of respectful touching,
but refuses to single out genital
touching as especially worrisome or
morally significant. Instead, this
ethical approach values, but does
not overly invest in sexual expression
between persons to the exclusion
or detriment of other
modes of communication. Its primary
focus is the quality of respect
and care in relationships, the distribution
and use of power, and
protecting vulnerable persons
from abuse, exploitation, and neglect.
Such an ethic, at long last, allows
us to give sex its due and, at the same
time, break with patriarchy’s fear and
disquietude with all things sexual. Sexuality
is an important, even treasured
aspect of our lives, but we can acknowledge
its place in our lives without reinforcing
racist patriarchal culture’s genital
fixation. The moral focus properly
belongs on issues of power and safety,
including maintaining health and
avoiding unintended pregnancy. Such
an ethic does not seek to control people,
but rather empowers them for exercising
responsible freedom and moral selfdirection.
An emancipatory ethic supports
any and all efforts to help people
learn to negotiate fairly and also gain
both confidence and skills at receiving
others as friends and intimates.
A patriarchal sex ethic denies l/g/b/t
people our right to be. However, when
our existence can no longer be doubted,
the fall-back position tells us to “be, but
don’t do.” Fortunately, an egalitarian,
sex-positive ethic endorses our moral
20 Open Hands
right to love and be loved. It also appreciates
how the systematic devaluing
of embodied love, along with the denial
of sexual pleasure and its perversion
into domination and control, are
particularly cruel, as well as effective,
forms of human oppression.
Gay moral wisdom about sex tells a
truth long-forbidden in our culture: justice-
making makes love more pleasurable.
By justice I mean the pursuit of
right relatedness in terms of mutual respect,
care, and the sharing of goods.
When we love justice passionately with
our whole minds, bodies, and spirits,
justice becomes more desirable in every
aspect of our lives.
Queer people are feared, in part, because
our animating moral passion is
to break the hold of every form of oppression.
The guardians of the status
quo know this and fear rightly that our
passion for justice-love may be catching.
The “gay agenda,” so feared and
trivialized by the Christian right, is
nothing less than to recruit as many
people as we can— of all colors, classes,
and sexualities— who along with us will
aspire to a morality that insists on each
person’s self-respect and seeks to rebuild
community by extending justice passionately.
In this sense, we are— and
should proudly be—a dangerous people,
brazenly inviting others to live dangerously,
too. We make a difference, in the
large and small places of our lives,
whenever we love fearlessly. ▼
Marvin M. Ellison has taught Christian
social ethics at Bangor Theological Seminary
since 1981 and is currently director
of the Seminary’s campus in Portland. He
received his Ph.D. from Union Theological
Seminary in New York and is an ordained
minister in the Presbyterian Church
(USA). He writes and speaks nationally on
a variety of issues, including human sexuality,
economic justice, and health care
ethics. He co-chairs Maine’s Religious Coalition
Against Discrimination and is a
member of the Board of Directors of the
Maine Bioethics Network.
His most recent
book is Erotic Justice:
A Liberating Ethic of
Sexuality (Westminster/
John Knox Press, 1996).
Jim Wolfe
A prostitute crashes a dinner party and lavishes herself on Jesus, anointing
his head with spices and washing his feet with her tears. The highly moral
host (a Pharisee) is outraged and says that Jesus would not allow this if he
knew what kind of woman this is. But he is wrong. Jesus knows. And guess
what? It doesn’t make any difference to him! It is a loving and beautiful thing
that this woman has done. She has loved perhaps not wisely and perhaps too
well. She may have entered her profession out of desperation to make ends
meet and has been exploited. Maybe she has found some pleasure in her
work. But now she has heard that a prophet is in town who is inviting everyone
into the company of God; she also knows that he is in trouble with the
authorities and that his days are numbered. She does not hold back until an
appropriate time but bursts in impulsively. She anoints Jesus as if for burial
and shows hospitality by washing his feet (which the good host had neglected
to do). She does not focus on herself and her sins; she does not
repent in the usual sense; she puts her tears into the service of love. Without
her asking, Jesus tells the woman that her sins are forgiven, and he tells the
Pharisee that she is forgiven much because she has loved much. The answer
for the woman who has loved too much is not penitence but yet more love.
There can be too little but never be too much love. That is our sexual ethic.
Are there guidelines that would help lesbians, gay men, transgenders,
bisexuals and straights to practice a love that does least harm and most good?
Sure. It is wrong to hurt people (married or not) and good to respect and
help. Sex is a gift from God to be received with gratitude and used responsibly
and responsively as good stewards. It is wrong to be preoccupied with sex
and good to be alive to the erotic in all relationships. It is a shame to hurry
love and good to be sensual as well as sexual and to paint in all the colors of
love from mania (purple) to storge (slow burning, comfortable green). Do
not give anything but love; take precautions against unwanted pregnancy
and spreading or catching sexually transmitted diseases. Do not score. Avoid
exploitation, the strong preying on the weak, the mature on the immature,
the economically well off on the destitute. Make sure consent and pleasure
are mutual. Make commitments and change them mutually. Breakup amicably.
Sex means more with a person with whom one shares a long-term relationship
and means less with strangers. Do not have children until you have
the means and readiness to care for them. Provide children with parenting.
Through sex one becomes one flesh with spouse, partner or prostitute, so
treat your body as a temple in which God’s Spirit dwells. An anthem prays:
“Come, Spirit, come, our hearts control. Our spirits long to be made whole.
Let inward love guide every deed. By this we worship and are freed.”
Jim Wolfe is a professor, poet, preacher, and programmer.
He holds a Ph.D. in Religion and Society and teaches
sociology at Butler University. This essay grew from teaching
Mary Jo Osterman’s course “Claiming the Promise” at
St. Andrew Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis.
A SEXUAL DESIDERATA
Spring 1998 21
In the popular mind, ethics is linked
to religion. Religion teaches that God
determines right and wrong and that
doing what religion teaches is following
God’s will. That is true in some way,
but it is not straightforward.
We come to know right and wrong
only gropingly. Especially when new
issues arise—like genetic engineering or
chemical contraception or sexual orientation—
we struggle to decide what is
the right response. When we finally
decide, if we have acted honestly and
in good will, we say that our decision,
such-and-such, is the will of God. For
surely what is good, as best we can determine,
is what God would want.
But attributing ethical conclusions
directly to God does not guarantee that
they are correct. And imposing them on
others in the name of God may be the
ultimate abuse of power.
With the advent of gay liberation,
and for absolutely valid reasons, many
lesbians and gays rejected the religions
that formed and bound them. In the
process, some rejected not only the
sexual ethics they were taught but also
the very notion of valid sexual ethics.
The problem of linking ethics with religion
is that when the one goes, so does
the other. When experience makes clear
that religious requirements must be
wrong, all requirements go out the window,
and sexual expression becomes a
free-for-all.
The fact of the matter is that ethics
is built right into human nature. Our
very minds demand that we only affirm
what is true— and you cannot dispute
this point without confirming it in your
very arguing. Similarly, our minds demand
that we do only what is good—
what is positive, upbuilding, enhancing,
what opens onto growth.
In the depths of our hearts is a spiritual
core. We are geared to embrace the
universe, so we spontaneously marvel
at beauty, and we long to love and be
loved. The lasting fulfillment we desire,
of course, always eludes us, but our very
desire leads us ever more deeply into
the experience of life.
Still, only goodness has a future;
falsehood and evil inevitably self-destruct.
Only what squares with the nature
of things can hope to survive longterm.
Our spirits sense this fact, so they
flee the disorder that is evil, and they
gravitate toward the harmony of the
good. Experience of this inner movement
is called conscience. We ourselves,
the very structure of our being, are the
source of ethics. Our inherent desire to
live ever more deeply urges us to choose
what brings richer life.
Thus, the ethics that cultures and
religions propose is only the goodwilled
application to specific issues of
the spiritual longing for fulfillment that
is built into the human heart. Doing
what is right means genuinely serving
our own best interests. It might have
nothing to do with God and heaven,
for what is right must be equally right
for the agnostic as for the believer.
Then the general ethical question is
simply, What contributes to the good?
What furthers ongoing growth? What
makes for lasting satisfaction? These
questions also govern sexual matters.
But sex in human beings is complicated.
Former thinking— built on Stoic
philosophy and funneled into Christianity
through St. Augustine— held
that, animal-like, sex equated with procreation.
But human sex includes not
just physical response and biological
function. It also entails emotional entanglements.
And even more than that,
it opens onto the spiritual in us so that
making love seduces lovers into dreaming
dreams and making promises. Sex
in humans opens onto the meaning of
life and a universe of shared experience.
This is the way human sex is. So “what
furthers ongoing growth” in sex must
respect all these dimensions.
That broader understanding implies
that sexual sharing can be completely
ethical even outside the confines of
heterosexual, child-bearing marriage—
as long as, to some degree, as appropriate
in each case, the sexual sharing unleashes
its life-enhancing potential.
Thus, allowing pleasure, fostering bonding,
and triggering shared visions and
virtues, lesbian and gay relationships,
though biologically non-procreative,
might express the essential and distinctive
nature of human sexual experience
as much as heterosexual relationships
might. There is no inherent reason why
gay and lesbian relationships cannot be
fully ethical— which is to say, loving,
constructive, life-giving, upbuilding,
growth-producing, fruitful, productive.
Such broad understanding of sexual
intimacy differs from other commonly
heard opinions. Some myopically limit
sex to the physical. They argue that pleasure
is sovereign and it legitimates any
sexual experience. Others, more subtle
but still narrow, move on the emotional
plane. They insist on being “in love” or
at least having feelings for someone
before engaging in sex.
In fact, both those emphases are on
target, and they are acceptable—but
only if they are incorporated into the
broader picture. Once incorporated,
they get nuanced. Not any pleasure, not
any emotional bonding and delight, but
only those that truly serve ongoing
growth are allowed. Only those respect
the full nature of human sex, and only
those are genuinely fulfilling: we are
more than bodies and emotions; the
human spirit also requires its due.
With that understanding, basic ethical
rules fall easily into place—not come
down from heaven, not imposed by
parents, society, or religion—but built
right into our own sexual natures and
interpersonal relationships. No disease.
No physical harm. No unwanted pregnancy.
No coercion or manipulation.
No abuse of the immature and naive.
No emotional harm. No violation of
commitments. No betrayal of personal
values. These negatives are there because
violation of them is destructive.
Positively, human sexual sharing requires
honesty, trustworthiness, mutual
enjoyment, mutual support—some degree
of concern and commitment.
These requirements may seem restrictive,
and in some ways they lead to the
same kind of behavior that religion at
SEXUAL ETHICS WITHOUT RELIGION
Daniel A. Helminiak
22 Open Hands
its best traditionally advocated. Yet
these requirements are also more freeing
than the traditional.
If they require concern and commitment,
they do not stipulate eternal
vows. The nature of each relationship
will specify how much concern and
commitment is possible and necessary
for the relationship actually to be loving,
not only in the present moment
but also in its long-term effects. It is
certainly possible that a passing sexual
encounter could respect all these requirements
and really be for the overall
good of the people involved. It is also
possible that a relationship might involve
more than two people, whether
in sexual intimacy itself or in some configuration
of interweaving relationships,
and really be for the common
good. The “open relationship,” the
ménage a trois, and the mistress or gay
lover alongside a heterosexual marriage
are typical examples. All are possibly
ethical, but all are questionable. Real
relationship tends to break down in
these cases. Almost inevitably someone
gets badly hurt. But then again, people
inevitably get hurt in any relationship.
Everything human is messy.
Whether or not those involvements
are actually good is the telling question.
Answering this question is not always
easy, and imposing blanket answers is
not helpful. Being willing to ask the
ethical question and to follow the required
answer in each case— this is what
makes people and their behavior ethical.
And again, the honest answers will
usually fall right where traditional morality
placed them.
A key complexity of human sex is
that it is not just a physical encounter.
Humans are persons. In addition to
bodies, we have emotions and we have
spirits. This is what it means to be a person.
So human sex is an interpersonal
enterprise. The interpersonal dimension
of human sexuality is entwined with the
ethical requirements. Indeed, ethical,
personal, and interpersonal begin to
sound like synonyms.
Ethical requirements are not simply
a matter of altruism, of being concerned
about others. This simplistic me-versusyou
view of morality is totally
misguided. Ethical requirements are a
matter of wholesome self-serving that
is inextricably entwined with the good
of others.
Our whole constitution is outgoing.
The horniness in our loins, the longing
of our emotions, the dreams and promises
of our spirits— all impel us unrelentingly
outside ourselves. We fulfill ourselves
through interaction with what is
beyond us. And when we fulfill ourselves
in the good, we actually become
that good even as we share it with others.
What we are and what they are in
honest and loving living becomes one
and the same. All talk of selfishness versus
altruism is a bugaboo.
The sexual act symbolizes this distinctively
human state of affairs: when
sexual sharing proceeds well, what is
good for me is good for you, and vice
versa. The physical pleasure, the emotional
bliss, and the spiritual self-transcendence—
yours and mine— are mutually
enhancing. It’s a win-win situation.
We are social animals. We live in and
with one another. Human sex cannot
be extricated from a social context. Even
solo-sex usually involves fantasies,
memories, and longings about others.
Then it is insane to protest, “My body
is my own,” “No one has a claim on
my life,” and “I have the right to do
with myself whatever I please.” Such
claims for a new “ethics” are appearing
of late in the gay community.
Weary of the restriction on free-forall
sex that the AIDS epidemic sanely
imposed, some free spirits are mounting
a campaign to restore the irresponsible
days of yore when gay liberation
was struggling to be born and desperately
threw off all restraints. They claim
that physical pleasure is the meaning
of sex. They claim the right to high risk
behavior in the pursuit of pleasure.
Fetishizing HIV, they use risk of infection
to heighten the excitement of sex.
They claim the right, with consenting
partners, to do whatever they wish.
Under many circumstances, they
certainly can do whatever they wish.
After all, there’s truth in the standard
schoolyard protest, “It’s a free country.”
But that they have the right is mistaken.
And the matter is not worth discussing
in these terms. The language of rights
is part of the bugaboo of me-versus-you.
This cut-off-my-nose-to-spite-myface
mentality misunderstands the
nature of human beings and of society,
for both coincide. This mentality mistakenly
thinks laws and morality are
restrictions imposed from without and
fails to see that valid ethics arise from,
and serve, our own selves. We are not
always sure what the valid ethics are,
but pretending there are no ethical requirements
in life is not the solution.
No one belongs solely to themselves.
Family, teachers, neighbors— all have an
investment in us. The extreme example
is the GI, who is “government issue,”
property of the state. He or she will be
punished for self-destructive behavior
since it costs the military money. Similarly,
family, friends, and society at large
pay the price for irresponsible sex that
results in HIV infection. It is an illusion
that the sex of consenting adults is
solely their own business. The notions
of adultery, infidelity, and sacred vows
have long expressed other societal implications
of sex.
Like it or not, human sexuality is a
social reality. Its inherent ethical nature
has social implications built right into
it. People may kick against the goad and
refuse to accept the human state. But
such refusal is simple stupidity. One can
only lose. Religions call that refusal sin
and relate it to God.
Understanding what the religions
were attempting to do and taking up
the task in their place or as a part of
them—for the task is really our own—
will provide a new ethics that actually
meets current needs as we enter the
third millennium. Then we might also
hope to see a fourth millennium—and
heaven, ultimate fulfillment, as well. ▼
Daniel Helminiak is a
psychotherapist and
educator at the Pittsburgh
Pastoral Institute
in Pennsylvania. Having
ministered as a Roman
Catholic priest, he
has authored the bestselling
What the Bible Really Says About
Homosexuality (Alamo Square Press,
1994) and more recently has published The
Human Core of Spirituality: Mind as
Psyche and Spirit (1996) and Religion
and the Human Sciences: An Approach
via Spirituality (1998), both from State
University of New York Press.
Spring 1998 23
Why should I want commitment if love rises spontaneously, and if I can identify
with it by my freedom at every moment? Why should I promise to love if there are
risks to the love itself in making it a matter of obligation? Only something at the
heart of our experience of loving can explain this.
There are some loves whose very power in us moves us to commitment. “Love’s
reasons” for commitment are at last threefold, and they go something like this. First,
like all commitments, a commitment to love seeks to safeguard us against our own
inconsistencies, what we perceive to be our possibilities of failure. If we are not
naively confident that our love can never die, we sense the dangers of our forgetfulness,
the contradictions of intervening desires, the brokenness and fragmentation in
even our greatest loves. We sense, too, the powerful forces in our milieu—the social
and economic pressures that militate against as well as support our love. We need
and want a way to be held to the word of our deepest self, a way to prevent ourselves
from destroying everything in the inevitable moments when we are less than this.
To give to the one we love our word, to yield to her or him a claim over our love,
offers a way.
Love seek more than this, however. We know that freedom cannot once and for
all determine its future affirmation of love. No free choice can settle all future free
choices for the continuation of love. Yet sometimes we love in a way that makes us
yearn to gather up our whole future and place it in affirmation of the one we love.
Though we know it is impossible because our lives are stretched out in time, we long
to seal our love now and forever. By commitment to unconditional love we attempt
to make love irrevocable and to communicate it so. This is the one thing we can do:
initiate in the present a new form of relationship that will endure in the form of
fidelity or betrayal. We do this by giving a new law to our love. Kierkegaard points to
this when he says, “When we talk most solemnly we do not say of two friends ‘They love
one another’; we say ‘They pledged fidelity’ or ‘They pledged friendship to one another.’”1
Commitment is love’s way of being whole while it still grows into wholeness.
Finally, love sometimes desires commitment because love wants to express itself
as clearly as it can. Commitment is destructive if it aims to provide the only remedy
for distrust in a loving relationship. But it can be a ground for trust if its aim is
honesty about intention, communication of how great are the stakes if intention
fails. The decision to give my word about my future love can be part of converting
my heart, part of going out of myself truly to meet the one I love (not part of hardening
my heart because of excessive fear of sanctions if I break the law that I give to
my love). My promise, then, not only verbally assures the one I love of my desire for
constancy, but it helps to effect what it assures.2
* * * * *
Commitment is our way of trying to give a future to a present love. It depends
upon the power of the past (promise) to influence the present (fulfillment). It aims
to strengthen us, so that our love will endure through time; to assure us, so that we
may trust within time; to integrate love, so that one day’s fears do not threaten
another day’s desires, or one year’s weakness overwhelm another year’s strength.
Yet it is not immediately obvious whether commitment is, therefore, a way of resisting
time (of making love endure in spite of time, as if there were no time) or of
embracing time (giving love a history by giving it a future).
Clearly commitment can be related to time in more than one way. The manner of
its relationship probably depends to a great extent on how we think about it. If we
think of time as a threat to love, then we see our commitments as preserving love
against the ravages of time. If we think of time as an opportunity for love to grow, we
aim our commitments to ensure for love the time it needs. If we look upon time as
something to be spanned, we seek by our commitments to reach across it without
being touched. If we consider time as truly integral to commitment itself, then we
try to learn time’s mysteries and to prepare for its fruits.3 ▼
Margaret A. Farley, Ph.D., is professor of Christian ethics at Yale University Divinity
School. She has been widely published in journals of ethics and religion and is a leader in
the field of feminist ethics.
1Søren Kierkegaard, Works of
Love, trans. Howard and Edna
Hong (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1962), 45.
2Margaret A. Farley, Personal
Commitments - Beginning, Keeping,
Changing (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1986), 34-35.
3Farley, 40-41.
Margaret A. Farley
From Personal Commitments
Copyright © 1986
by Margaret A. Farley.
Used by permission.
GIVING
A
FUTURE
TO A
PRESENT
LOVE
24 Open Hands
SIGNS OF GOD
Making Banners for Worship
Jan Graves
“The sign of God is that we will be led where we did not plan
to go.” These words arise from a burning bush batiked on
ivory muslin. It’s the first thing most people see when they
enter our sanctuary for worship. The banner hangs on the
wall facing the main entrance and is a visual statement about
our relationship to God and the world. It makes an immediate
impression and is often the reason why people return. In
the 20 years since its making, the banner and its words have
become a slogan for our congregation, appearing on buttons
and t-shirts and quoted in sermons and at rallies. There are
also other banners representing justice issues, covenants, and
liturgical seasons. Without reading a single brochure or hearing
a single word, people entering our sanctuary know that
we are a Christian church, a Reconciling Congregation, a public
sanctuary, a justice-seeking church with multi-cultural interests,
and have an affinity for rainbows.
All worship spaces can benefit from visual
symbols like banners. With a little
planning, banners can be created by the
whole community in just one session using
materials people already have in their
homes. It can even be done without a sewing
machine or other special equipment.
First, get a planning group together to
brainstorm on design ideas. Think in
terms of visual symbols instead of words.
Focus on the purpose of the banner. Since
many people will be participating, try to
think of images that look good in groups—
leaves, handprints, flames, drops of water,
stones, puzzle pieces, or flowers. For
example, our church was planning a reunion.
Former members would be returning
to share their journeys and ministries.
How would we remember them and create
a lasting symbol at the event? We chose the theme “Where
Our Lights Shine.” “Lights” suggested yellow on a darker background.
Instead of stars, we selected arrows to convey journey
and action. Participants would have an arrow to decorate in a
way that represented their own shining light.
Next, determine the overall size and draw a general sketch
on graph paper. Select the main media— fabric or vinyl, and
issue a call for materials needed to complete the banner.
Prepare the background before the banner-making session.
Almost any material will do— sheets, bedspreads, linen or vinyl
tablecloths, vinyl wallpaper/canvas, 54 inch vinyl wall
covering, parachute material, felt, burlap, old drapes, and even
outdated or unused paraments. Edges can be frayed or they
can be folded over and stapled, glued, double-stick taped or
ironed flat with fusible webbing.* A broomstick can serve as a
hanging rod. I like to use 1/2" PVC plastic pipe. It’s lightweight,
can easily be cut with a hacksaw, and already has a tube to
thread the rope for hanging.
At the banner-making session, explain the purpose of the
banner and the procedure for its construction. Furnish a variety
of cloth remnants, trims, ribbons, glitter, yarn, markers,
paint pens, fabric paints, and glue. Give people a workspace
and let them go to it. If you’re using a vinyl background, contact
paper and tapes can be used for the attachments. For our
banner, we provided several cardboard arrow patterns so
people could trace and cut out their own arrow from the yellow
fabric. People didn’t limit themselves to the supplied materials.
They attached objects like buttons, ribbons and workplace
items to the arrows.
Have several people assist in the final assembly. In a wellventilated
area, apply spray adhesive to the back of individual
fabric pieces. Within a few moments, the adhesive becomes
tacky and creates a smooth, dry bond when attached to the
background surface. Use fabric glue for smaller pieces. If the
pieces are flat, back them with fusion webbing ahead of time
and iron into place. In less than an hour, a symbol of the
community of faith can be ready for display in a culminating
worship service.
I’m a big believer in the power of visual symbols. What did
you do first when you turned to this page? Did you look at the
picture or read the opening sentence?
*Fusion webbing, such as Wonder-Under®, available in fabric stores, can be
ironed onto a piece of material to create an appliqué or patch. When the
paper is removed, the appliqué can be attached to the background material
and ironed in place.
Jan Graves is the designer for Open Hands and
Claiming the Promise and is a member and
songleader of Wheadon United Methodist Church
in Evanston, Illinois. She facilitated the workshop
for the first communally-created banner of
the national Reconciling movement in 1987.
WHY MARCH IN GAY
PRIDE? JUST PEACE!
Charles A. Wolfe
When I became pastor of Plymouth Church in Wisconsin’s
capital city in 1987, the major task was to do the evangelism
needed to prevent a 250-member congregation from dying.
Deficit budgets and an aging congregation were the primary
concerns, not becoming an “Open and Affirming” congregation.
At my first annual meeting, a member introduced a motion
that we become a “Just Peace” congregation. The motion
passed without opposition and minimal discussion. Actively
supporting a homeless shelter and being part of the liberal
milieu of our state’s educational-political center, it was an easy
vote. Of course there should be peace with justice!
©1996 WHEADON UMC
Spring 1998 25
Pentecost Sunday, when ten teenagers were confirmed in our
church, an organization calling itself Wisconsin Christians
United picketed the church, carrying signs that read “Wolfe
in Sheep’s Clothing” and “Gays are an abomination to the
Lord.” It was an upsetting day; some of our members were
shouted at and received hateful looks as they entered for worship.
But it also created an opportunity for some who had
previously been silent to speak out with passion against such
bigotry.
The members of the confirmation class were shaken, asking,
“Why do they have to spoil our day?” “They can’t spoil
your day,” I responded. “What you are doing today means
something; it means something to join Plymouth Church—
you might as well know up front that being a Christian sometimes
has a cost.” When one of our members slipped out early
in the service carrying cups of coffee to offer the picketers, he
was rebuffed. “We’re not sure about your AIDS control standards,
so we won’t take any,” they told him. The whole incident
served as an occasion for thoughtful discussion and education
around family dinner tables.
Last year was one of the few in the past twelve that Plymouth
Church has increased its membership, and not only
with gays and lesbians. Others also say the welcoming of everyone
attracted them.
So why do we march in Madison’s Gay Pride March? It has
not only to do with being an Open and Affirming congregation:
we are also discovering what we meant when we became
a Just Peace congregation more than a decade ago!
Charles A. Wolfe, Ph.D., is in his twelfth year
as pastor of Plymouth Congregational United
Church of Christ in Madison, Wisconsin. His
advocacy has included testimony before a state
legislative committee to oppose legislation designed
primarily to offend and isolate gay and
lesbian citizens. He also chairs the partnership
between the Wisconsin UCC Conference and
the Diocese of San Cristobal de las Casas in Chiapas, Mexico.
An Open Letter From African-
American Clergy and Laity
Excerpts from a communication addressed to the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) in the context of the conflict over gays and lesbians
in the church, signed by 27 prominent church leaders and
issued by the office of the National Black Presbyterian Caucus.
It is out of our own historic struggle against Christian prejudice
and discrimination, and our distinctive experience of the
providence of God through Jesus Christ, as Liberator, that we
boldly make this urgent testimony of concern and challenge.
Black Presbyterians, from the earliest decades of the 19th
century to these closing years of the 20th, have led our Church
in justice action on behalf of people who have been objects of
Laura Stalder (left) and Rita Honnold
of Plymouth Congregational UCC
prepare the “Coming Out, Coming
Together” banner for the 1997 Gay
Pride March in Madison, Wisconsin.
Behind them is Plymouth’s own banner
held by other members.
Years later, in 1992, several events coincided. The Wisconsin
UCC Conference organized an educational program
through its Gay and Lesbian Coalition on how to become an
Open and Affirming Congregation. Our newly-elected moderator
of the congregation, Laura Stalder, attended. As a school
social worker in a Madison suburb, Laura had watched an
educator, whose skills she admired, hounded out of her school
district because of her sexual orientation. Laura was outraged
and told me that, during her term as moderator, Plymouth
would do some educational work and become and Open and
Affirming congregation. The process took longer than Laura
imagined, with less disruption than I had feared, and when
our Open and Affirming task force recommended a statement
to the congregation in 1996, it was approved— not unanimously—
but by far more than the two-thirds vote required.
The hard question for many in the congregation, and what
had delayed our vote, had not been whether we could be an
“Open” congregation— the opinion that gays and lesbians had
no place in the church was never expressed. The issue for
Plymouth’s largely working-class congregation was how Affirming
is “Affirming”? Does that mean advocating gay civil
rights? Marching in gay rights marches? Gay marriages? Contributing
to gay causes? The task force responded that it might
mean any or all of these things.
For a year before Plymouth became officially Open and
Affirming, Laura and I had been attending, as observers, meetings
of Coming Out, Coming Together (COCT), a coalition of
religious groups that sponsored semiannual interfaith services
for gays and lesbians and did advocacy work in the community.
COCT had been represented in Madison’s annual Gay
Pride March for the first time in 1995. Along with PFLAG (Parents
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), COCT hoped to present
a less radical contingent than the more flamboyant groups,
like Dykes on Bikes and the Lesbian Avengers.
In the spring of 1996, the coalition held one of its interfaith
worship services at Plymouth Church. COCT members
created the official Coming Out, Coming Together banner,
with much of the work being done at Plymouth. Part of that
interfaith group, it seemed logical that Plymouth should have
its own contingent in the Gay Pride March in the summer of
1996. Four of our members— all straight—marched that first
year, carrying the COCT banner. In 1997, six marched, two of
whom were Plymouth’s first “out” lesbian couple. And recently,
several teenagers from our congregation have expressed
a desire to be part of what we anticipate will be a larger body
of marchers in this year’s parade.
In the past year, we have received into membership seven
lesbian members, and this year we will celebrate the baptism
of the first baby of a lesbian family. There has not yet been a
union service at Plymouth, but that will surely come. Last
26 Open Hands
scorn, disenfranchisement, and marginalization in the church
and society because of race, class, culture, gender, and stigmas
that some attach to anyone who diverges from what others
consider the God-given norm.
We find it a sad irony that some Presbyterians would adopt
the legalistic strategies of those who oppose the remedial
measure of affirmative action, the reform of unjust criminal
justice codes, and the development of a more compassionate
system of public welfare. These Presbyterians, by using a strict
and inflexible interpretation of biblical texts and the constitution
of the church, seek to establish a hierarchy of sins by
which they can single out and exclude other sisters and brothers
from participation as full members of our church (Rom.
3:21-23). The modern creeds and constitutions of the Reformed
family of churches are open rather than closed interpretations
of Scripture and tradition. They focus upon the grace and mercy
of God through Christ. They discourage every form of extremism,
calling upon each of us to accept, as Christ did, those
who have been despised and cast out. They ask us to strive for
mutual respect and harmony with those who may disagree
with us, and to renounce personal defamation and humiliation
as weapons of Christian debate.
Because God through Christ loves us, as unlovable as we
are, we are bound to love others (1 Jn. 4:19), even those whose
sincere ethical choices, opinions, and behavior may be different
from our own…. In the confusion of norms and values the
greatest gift that each of us has to give or receive is love. The
greatest expressions of love, as we know it in Christ, are empathy,
compassion, understanding, and “standing with,”— as
Christ did—those who are rejected by the scribes and Pharisees.
African-American Presbyterians and other racial/ethnic
groups in our church have suffered for years from the absence
of such qualities and expressions of Christian agape. We know
the pain of separation, disparagement, and discrimination. We
cannot be neutral in the atmosphere of hostility which currently
seems to focus on those whose opinions, actions, sexual
orientations, or self-understandings may not be conventional
or sanctioned by many. Love demands that we accept and
respect each other in Christ, and set aside self-righteous scorn
and ridicule, political wrangling, and ecclesiastical terrorism.
Only so, can we come to the table of sisterhood and brotherhood
and strive for understanding and mutuality in order that
our true mission, which is to proclaim and demonstrate the
good news about Christ, may be advanced in our church and
around the world.
As African-American Presbyterians, we refuse to spiritualize
Christian unity with pious words about how much “we
love sinners, but hate their sin,” and how much we accept those
different from ourselves even as we effectively shut them out of
fellowship, church offices, and ministries. We know what it is
like to have our voice silenced in the congregations and courts
of the church. In the dark days of 1904–1906, we were sacrificed
in order that a false unity could be joined through the
merger of the Cumberland branch and the Northern branch
of American Presbyterianism. The latter acquiesced, over our
protests, to racially segregated presbyteries and synods.
Christian unity is more than a spiritual reality. It is also a
concrete, visible, and ethical reality in which we demonstrate
the unity of the Triune God by accommodation, incorporation,
and loving adhesion in and to each other by divine grace,
love, and forgiveness (Rom.14:10-12).
FOR THE SAKE OF
CHILDREN LIKE ME
“And a Little Child Shall Lead Them...”
Sol Kelley-Jones
A child’s testimony to the Wisconsin State Assembly Committee
on Children and Families considering an anti-same-sex marriage
bill, March 10, 1997.
I read the signs carried by some people who support this bill.
They say things like, “God hates gays and lesbians”—that our
family is bad. This is scarey for me. Once last year we went to
a church service where people were carrying these signs and
yelling at us outside. I woke up crying that night, because I
dreamed that these same people bombed our church and our
family was there. I don’t want to be afraid of these people and
others who support this bill and I don’t want them to be afraid
of me. I think we can all get along. We don’t have to be exactly
the same way.
In my history class in school, we’ve been studying about
the beginning of the Constitution of the United States. As legislators,
you know that it says that all people are created equal
and have the right for the pursuit of happiness and equal protection
under law. Well, I’ve been learning about Elizabeth
Freeman, who was an African-American slave owned by one
of the drafters of the Constitution. As a slave she didn’t have
any rights. Elizabeth Freeman couldn’t get legally married and
her kids could get taken away from her. Today, my parents
also can’t get legally married, and it’s scarey for me to know
that, if one of my parents died, I could be taken away from my
other parent.
Two hundred years ago, Elizabeth Freeman went to the
government and asked for her rights— like it said in the Constitution.
Some people hated or feared African-Americans so
much that they would have changed the Constitution rather
then allow Elizabeth Freeman her rights. They said terrible
things, like if African-American people were freed and had
equality under law, everything Americans believed in would
crumble. Elizabeth Freeman won her freedom, the right to
legally marry and to protect her children. And America didn’t
crumble, it got better.
I know that there are people here today who will say the
same kinds of things about my family that they were saying
about Elizabeth Freeman and her family. From studying history,
I’ve learned that our Constitution does not say that “all
people are equal, except for gay and lesbian people and their
children.” It says “all people.” As an elected official, it’s your
job to uphold the principles of the Constitution against hate
and fear. I’m sure it took a lot of courage for the legislators
Spring 1998 27
back then to give African-Americans the right to legally marry
and to protect their children. For my sake, and the sake of
hundreds of children like me, I trust you will have that kind
of courage today.
Sol Kelley-Jones, age 11, lives
with her two moms Sunshine
Jones (l.) and Joann Kelley (r.) in
Madison, Wisconsin. Her parents
have been in a marriage relationship
for 19 years. The three of
them are active in James Reeb
Unitarian Universalist Congregation.
Sol has courageously spoken
out about her family at four
different legislative hearings in
the last year. She has also done ongoing educational work on homophobia
in the public schools. She dreams that someday a bill
will be introduced that supports kids and adults in families like
hers rather than hurts them.
A WORK OF GOD
Brooke Rolston
Names in this article have been changed to protect the innocent.
I am learning that it’s important to try to show up in public
places at key moments.
This fall the University of Washington regents were considering
a policy that would open campus housing to domestic
partners. Conversation in the community was lively, and
most focused the debate on same-sex relations. I learned of a
public hearing and decided to go.
The room was filled. I went forward and found a long list
of speakers signed up ahead of me. I sat down at the end of a
row of students, and recognized one as Phil, a participant in a
Habitat for Humanity student work party the previous spring.
On a campus this large, a moment of recognition is a shared
grace. Phil introduced me to his friends.
Others began to speak. A state legislator identified himself
as a Christian and proceeded to tell the regents that if they
ventured in the “ungodly” direction of extending housing
privileges to domestic partners, they were acting against clear
biblical teaching as well as legal limits on the University’s powers.
A local church leader stood to say that older adult regents
were jeopardizing the souls of young students, promoting a
“gay agenda” among impressionable youth.
The students around me knew I was a pastor. What were
Phil and his friends anticipating? Did they imagine I would
join the damning chorus? I didn’t like waiting, wondering if
these students expected me to be another of their persecutors.
After half an hour, Phil had to leave for class. I would not have
the opportunity to offer another, a different, Christian witness
before he left.
Finally, I spoke. I offered a welcoming and affirming testimony
as a statement of faith from a campus pastor and as a
public policy that would not discriminate on the basis of orientation.
I just said what I’ve come to believe: that gays and
straights alike are made and blessed by God in our sexual identity
and in our expression of it. Shortly, the hearing adjourned.
As I started to leave, a woman student came up to me and
introduced herself as Janine. She told me she’d come to this
campus from half-way across the country to escape the confining
ideas and repressive people of her earlier years. She
also said, “I never thought I’d hear someone in the church say
what you said today. Thank you.”
Later that week I stopped at the campus office of the sexuality
concerns commission, a visit I try to make frequently.
This time, a pleasant surprise: I received a welcome hug from
Janine, and a smile from Phil, who had just been elected commission
chair. Further into the quarter we would all celebrate
the regents’ decision to affirm the open housing policy.
Janine and Phil, and many others, have felt they might
never hear words of hope from the church. I understand that
feeling. I thought I’d never find the congregation where I’m a
member, or the ministry which I serve as pastor—both open
to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.
It’s a sign of the times that my church is threatened with
being “disfellowshipped” (cut off from our regional body) over
our stance on sexual orientation issues, and that our campus
ministry is one of two in the region reprimanded for offering
open studies on the Bible and homosexuality. We’ve lost some
financial support, but found some friends. This is an exciting
time to be in the church.
It is also a frustrating time. This winter I met another student,
Regina, who, coming out as a lesbian, has been rejected
by family and church. She told me that her highest religious
experience came in her early teens at an Easter sunrise service.
She felt that God had stirred her life and spirit personally that
morning. And then she began learning who she was made to
be, spoke openly of her sexual identity, and was sent away.
She’s begun attending our fellowship. She likes the discussion
and camaraderie, but when we plan a time of worship,
she tells me, “I can’t do that yet. I don’t know if I can ever
believe in God again.”
I can’t find the words to express my pain at hearing how
her church cut her off from a young and vibrant faith. If I
can’t find my words, how hard it must be for her to find words
to express her many feelings and continue her search!
The marvel is that she is trying. I believe that her attempt
is— and that she is— a work of God.
Brooke Rolston is an ordained American
Baptist minister serving as campus
pastor at Covenant House/Campus
Christian Ministry at the University of
Washington. He is a member of University
Baptist Church in Seattle, a congregational
member of the Association
of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists.
28 Open Hands
The Trial of Jimmy Creech
Mark Bowman
Last summer two women attending First United Methodist
Church in Omaha, Nebraska, asked the Rev. Jimmy Creech to
officiate at a blessing of their relationship. He agreed, informing
his bishop and his church’s Staff-Parish Relations Committee.
As news of the impending ceremony began circulating
among members of First Omaha, the local daily newspaper
published several articles about it. The announcement that
the ceremony had occurred quietly on September 14, 1997,
provoked several United Methodists in Nebraska to file formal
complaints with the bishop’s office. Continued outcry
from a small but sizable band of dissidents at First Omaha
lead Bishop Joel Martinez to suspend Creech from pastoral
duties in early November. The Nebraska Conference Committee
on Investigation decided in mid-January to bring formal
charges against Creech for “disobedience to the Order
and Discipline of the church.” Creech then requested a church
trial.
The basis for the charges was an amendment to the UM
Social Principles adopted by the 1996 General Conference:
“Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be
conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our
churches.” The Social Principles are “intended to be instructive
and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit.” Creech
noted that no one had been tried for violating them.
Defense counsel Doug Williamson set a tone for the trial
when, during jury selection, he asked how many persons in
the jury pool had personal knowledge of a g/l/b person. More
than half raised their hands and told of poignant interactions
with parishioners, friends, family members, and even other
clergy.
The case presented by the church was clear-cut. Creech was
called to acknowledge that he had conducted the covenanting
ceremony between two women. Bishop Kenneth Hicks testified
that Social Principles were unequivocal, and that a pastor
must comply or leave the church.
Then came the defense. A co-pastor and three leaders of
Creech’s congregation testified that his ministry was effective
and supported by the church’s leadership. A gay man and the
mother of a gay man from the congregation witnessed to
Creech as a caring and affirming pastor. Creech testified
movingly about his journey as a pastor, his ministry with l/g/
b persons and their families, and his resolve that the biblical
foundations of his faith and his covenant as United Methodist
clergy compel him to offer pastoral services to all persons.
Dr. Phil Wogaman, pastor of Foundry UMC in Washington,
D.C., former ethics professor and General Conference
delegate, testified about the historical role of the Social Principles
as a teaching document.
After three hours of deliberation, the jury returned its decision
prefaced by this statement: “We have gathered in prayer,
in silence, and in respectful dialogue. Our vote reflects the
difficulty the general church has experienced with this issue.
We have struggled— no, agonized— together in a spirit of love.
Our hope is that United Methodists everywhere will receive
our verdict in the spirit of love and respect.” The vote was 8
guilty and 5 not guilty. Nine votes are required for a conviction,
so Creech was acquitted. Immediately after the verdict
was announced, Bishop Martinez released a statement saying
Creech would return to his appointment at First Omaha.
The trial and its verdict resounded through the religious
and secular media. About 25 print and broadcast journalists
and their accompanying crews had come to Kearney, Nebraska,
to cover the trial. Why did this attract so much attention?
What can we learn from this?
1) The trial verdict is a reflection of where mainline churches
are today, split with an antigay majority. It was fitting that
this trial occurred in the “heartland.”
2) Rational discourse can lead to greater openness, and at least
convinced some jury members not to discard a fine pastor,
nor to send a message of inhospitality to l/g/b persons and
their families.
3) It revealed how irrational some of our opposition is to believe
that our own message that “everyone is welcome at
God’s table” somehow excludes them.
4) The 75-100 Creech supporters reflected diversity— all ages,
sexual orientations, dress, and color. The 15-20 Creech opponents
were older, Anglo-European, and professionally
attired.
5) The convergence of media interest in spirituality/religion
and the hot issue of homosexuality offers a forum we can
utilize to proclaim our welcoming message.
6) Heterosexual allies are making great sacrifices and commitments
on behalf of l/g/b persons and their families. Rev.
Jimmy Creech, Rev. Doug Williamson, and attorney Mike
McClellan engaged the power structures of the church in
this trial as the defense team. They gave countless hours
and risked their careers to do so.
7) The immediate backlash against the verdict has been strong
and fierce. Emotions about marriage and family along with
pervasive homophobia combine to give our opposition fertile
soil to cultivate.
8) Finally, never underestimate the power of God’s Spirit.
Creech’s acquittal was unexpected. Yet as the trial unfolded,
some observers sensed that a larger force was at play. The
defense case drew upon biblical foundations. Our supporters
gathered daily for prayer, blessing, and singing to invoke
God’s Spirit. The prayer network across the U.S. in
support of Creech was massive. We shared
the confidence of the hymn that “God will
raise you up on eagle’s wings.”
Mark Bowman is the publisher of Open
Hands and the director of the Reconciling Congregation
Program.
Spring 1998 29
Sustaining
the Spirit
Oh God,
To have the courage of the bleeding woman—
Trembling, but still able to reach out for healing…
from shame and aloneness,
from pain and despair,
Without waiting for words.
Oh God,
To risk as did the bleeding woman—
Trembling, but still able to touch another,
beyond solitude and fear,
Without waiting for words.
Oh God,
Forgive my hesitant hands,
my short reach,
As your Spirit moves among us still…
Here to be grasped, not explained.
As close as the hand
of a bleeding sister,
a bloodied brother,
As real as the ache of my soul.
Alexa Smith
Prayers
of the Body
Moonlight crowns her head
spreading toward the earth
springing forth in warmth
from an epicenter of calm.
Her eyes are pools
of cool pearlized grey
which invite my soul
to drink in her care.
And yet beyond these lies
the grace of her touch,
light, but direct—
gentle, of calm purpose.
Now I begin to ponder
the joy in me to be released,
such ecstasy I can hardly comprehend:
What mysteries indeed shall I know?
Melinda Mclain
Thank you, Heavenly Lover,
for giving us love,
and making it a means of grace.
In each sharp sweet cut
of my boyfriend’s glance,
I know the intensity of your love for us.
Within every crushing hug
and scrape of stubbled chin on tender flesh,
I feel the power and sting of your claim on us.
By the chill on sweaty skin of his breath
blown over my shoulders,
I am quickened to the Spirit’s call.
Thank you, Heavenly Lover,
for giving us grace,
and making it a means of love. Amen.
Tim Tyner
Contributing to this page are gay, lesbian, and straight, HIV positive and negative, living and passed on, members and ministers of the United
Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, and the Metropolitan Community Church. Previously published in More
Light Prayers, the January, 1992 issue of the More Light Update the newsletter of Presbyterians for Lesbian & Gay Concerns. Used by permission
of the authors.
Let me nestle into your lap, Mother God,
as Phoebe curls in mine,
Limp with trust,
knowing that all is provided:
shelter, protection, food, and love.
Let me feel your hand stroking
my head, back, tummy, legs.
Gratitude overflows as a purr
deep from my center.
Rising and falling
with the breath of life,
let me rest in you,
Heartbeat of the Universe.
Nancy A. Hardesty
Oh Loving Universe,
I thank you today for the joys of friendship,
for those blessed ones who spend their time
curled up on the couch next to me,
or holding my hand at the movies when it gets scary,
or crying with me when I get bad news from the doctor.
Thanks for those beautiful ones who rub my neck
or give my tired feet a massage.
I am grateful for friends who talk
even when there isn’t much to say.
Universe, I praise and bless you
for the people in my life
who make me so glad to be alive.
Douglas Saylor
30 Open Hands
Movement
News
Welcoming
Communities
More Churches Declare Welcoming Stance
OPEN & AFFIRMING MINISTRIES
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
With this issue we welcome the Disciples of Christ as
ecumenical partners in Open Hands.
Chalice Christian Church
San Mateo, California
Named after the symbol for The Christian Church, Chalice
Christian Church emphasizes the importance of Communion
in the congregation’s life and the radical yet reconciling nature
of Christ’s table. A “Congregation In Formation” in the
Northern California–Nevada Region, this community came into
existence as a result of a church split in which religious freedom
was a major issue, specifically, the use of inclusive language
in worship. Such commitments led the congregation to
decide to publicly proclaim itself Open & Affirming. Pastor,
Steve Haley, writes, “We are committed to active witness and
service in the wider community through both community
organizing and hands-on service projects.”
OPEN AND AFFIRMING
United Church of Christ
New Community of Faith
San Jose, CA
The 60 members of this suburban congregation desire
to provide a strong sense of a “welcoming church family”
for all those coming to the church, regardless of background.
This hospitality is expressed in its ministries, which include
offering meeting space for a social/support group for transvestite
and transsexual persons in the community. In the coming
months, the congregation anticipates a time of remembrance
and renewal as, after 27 years, it prepares to say a
retirement “farewell” to its founding pastor, the Rev. Richard
Taylor.
North Congregational United Church of Christ
Columbus, OH
This vibrant, growing, diverse, metropolitan area congregation
of 375 is building a new wing to accommodate its church
life and expanding mission. Current outreach includes ministry
with homeless persons, low income families, and refugees
in need of resettlement. As part of its ONA witness, the church
has begun “Rainbow Women,” a fellowship group for lesbians
that involves women from the congregation and the Columbus
area. North Church is also part of planning for a retreat
for ONA churches in Ohio.
For an eyewitness account of United Methodist pastor Jimmy
Creech’s trial for blessing a same-gender marriage, see“Leadership.”
Baptists Struggle Over W&A Churches
Church of the Covenant in Palmer, Alaska, has been removed
from fellowship in the Alaska Association of American
Baptist Churches and Institutions because of their “commitment
to the gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in your congregation.”
It joins First Baptist of Granville, Ohio, and four
California churches that have been disfellowshipped by their
regional associations for their W&A stance. Because these
churches are not in violation of the “Covenant of Relationships”
for ABC churches, they currently remain in good standing
within the denomination.
A Commission on Denominational Unity, formed to develop
ways to deal with divisive matters like the disfellowshipping
of W&A congregations, has recommended 1) Common
Ground Conferences to foster greater understanding; 2)
acknowledgment that regions have the right to determine criteria
for their own membership, and that churches disfellowshipped
from one region may affiliate with another region; 3)
the maintenance of the two current denominational resolutions
on homosexuality—one declaring homosexual practice
“incompatible with Christian teaching,” the other recognizing
differences and calling for respect and dialogue. The report
will be voted on during the June meeting of the General Board.
Last November, the Northwest ABC Region Board took action
to refuse standing to gay clergy. At the same meeting, it
received bylaw changes, to be voted on in May, that would
make possible the dismissal of University Baptist Church and
Seattle First Baptist, its only W&A churches.
UCC ONA Churches Issues Challenge
All Open and Affirming (ONA) churches in the UCC have
been invited to take part in “ONA 2000: Do A New Thing!”
Inspired by Isaiah 43:19-21, this is to be a time of intentional
outreach to increase awareness of and commitment to our ONA
witness. Between February 1998 and the ecumenical “Welcome
2000” celebration in August of that year, each congregation is
asked to do one new, creative program or event. These will be
highlighted in the program’s newsletter, the ONA Communiqué.
MLCN and PLGC to Vote on Merger
The Steering Committee of the More Light Churches Network
and the Board of Directors of Presbyterian for Lesbian
and Gay Concerns have announced plans to merge the two organizations.
If approved by the annual meetings of both groups,
the new organization will be created on January 1, 1999. A
challenge grant has been given to MLCN and PLGC for the
employment of a staff person to help nurture new More Light
Churches and support networks for gays and lesbians in those
sections of the country in which the movement is less visible.
Spring 1998 31
RECONCILING CONGREGATIONS
The logo is absent here and on our masthead due to objections
from the United Methodist Church to our incorporation of its logo.
First United Methodist Church
Long Beach, California
First UMC, now 114 years old, was the old downtown church
with 3,000 members in the 1930s. Now the congregation, rebuilding
after a long period of decline, sits at the crossroads of
two very different urban worlds—a redeveloped professional
neighborhood and a barrio with active gangs. The 100-member
congregation is multi-ethnic and sponsors a large youth
program: 200 youth come to the church on Friday night for
dancing, 40 on Sundays for Bible study. The congregation’s
decision to become a Reconciling Congregation was a reflection
of who its members and community are.
First United Methodist Church
Santa Cruz, California
Celebrating its 150th anniversary this year, this 180-member
congregation is in transition from a largely older membership
to one mixed with younger members. It has initiated a
youth program in cooperation with another nearby church,
and participates in several mission projects, including staffing
a homeless shelter one night a week and providing food for a
food closet. Santa Cruz’s significant g/l population motivated
the church’s RCP discussion and decision, which had more
participation than any other recent project. The church hosts
a g/l square dancing group and co-sponsored a performance
of the musical drama “Caught in the Middle” this winter.
Trinity United Methodist Church
Seattle, Washington
Trinity UMC is located in the Ballard community of northern
Seattle, a community which was heavily Norwegian, but
now is home to many younger families of different backgrounds.
This intergenerational congregation of 140 active
members seeks to be a truly neighborhood church and is in a
period of renewal, recently welcoming nine new members—
all under the age of 40. Trinity’s large building complex provides
many opportunities for community ministry, including
a newly-initiated recreational program in its gymnasium. Trinity
has a long tradition of outreach and its members have been
involved in food and shelter ministries as part of the North
Seattle Cooperative Ministry. More recently, it has brought a
variety of arts into worship, including a music program with
both a traditional choir and a contemporary band. As the pastor
notes: “We want God to be accessible to everyone.”
University Temple United Methodist Church
Seattle, Washington
University Temple, with 450 members, is located in the
University district of Seattle, across the street from the University
of Washington. It dates to the turn of the century and has
been at its present site since the 1920s. The church hosts the
campus Wesley Foundation, and is involved in a variety of urban
ministries, including a needle exchange program, tutoring,
and a care team for persons with AIDS. A key aspect of the
church’s identity is its female leadership. University Temple
has an informal, family-oriented worship, as well as a more
traditional service, on Sunday morning. Its music program is
outstanding with a fine choir (which is preparing to perform
in Italy) and a concert organist. The congregation sponsors
Church of the Hi Fidelity, a monthly outreach to youth,
students, and g/l/b/t persons, and participates in a newlyformed
ecumenical dialogue of welcoming churches in the
Seattle area, presently focused on making churches more accessible
to teenagers.
RECONCILING IN CHRIST
Lutheran Church of Honolulu
Honolulu, Hawai‘i
This congregation of 375 members share the
theme, “Loved by God to Love the World” and will celebrate
the church’s centennial during the year 2000. Located in a
high-rise neighborhood two blocks from the University of
Hawai‘i, a half mile from Waikiki, and nine blocks from the
beach, the church is known for its fine worship, tracker organ,
Bach cantatas, children’s ministry, and social concerns. Its three
Sunday services reflect diversity: early morning Folk Contemporary
and Lord’s Supper, midmorning Choral Eucharist, and
evening Compline in Candlelight with Gregorian Chant.
MORE LIGHT
Presbyterian Church of the Apostles
Burnsville, Minnesota
Organized as a new church development in the late
’50s, the Church of the Apostles organizes its congregational
life around mission through participation in Apostle Groups.
Located in a suburb of Minneapolis, the congregation is a liberal
presence in its community, has a continuing ministry with
the mentally challenged, and is involved in the development
of transitional housing. The congregation’s study toward becoming
a More Light congregation was largely motivated by
interested laypeople.
Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence
936 North 34th Street, Suite 200; Seattle, WA 98103 USA phone
206/634-1903; fax 206/634-0115
e-mail cpsdv@cpsdv.seanet.com
Rev. Marie M. Fortune, Executive Director
An interreligious, educational ministry and training resource
for religious communities in the U.S. and Canada.
Upcoming Gatherings
(Check the Winter issue for previously listed summer gatherings.)
July 31-Aug. 2
Second National Gathering of Welcoming & Affirming
Baptists, Berkeley California. An event for members and
friends of W&A Congregations. Rev. Dr. Edwina Hunter,
preaching. Workshops include: Becoming a W&A Congregation,
Music as an Inclusive Ministry, Sexual Ethics, Same-
Sex Commitment Ceremonies, Ecumenical Connections,
Being an Out Pastor, and more. Contact Esther Hargis, First
Baptist Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley CA 94704-
2201, phone 510/848-5838, e-mail Ehargis@aol.com
QTY BACK ISSUES AVAILABLE
___ Be Ye Reconciled (Summer 1985)
___ A Matter of Justice (Winter 1986)
___ Our Families (Spring 1986)
___ Our Churches’ Policies (Summer 1986)
___ Images of Healing (Fall 1986)
___ Minorities within a Minority (Spring 1987)
___ Sexual Violence (Fall 1987)
___ Building Reconciling Ministries (Spring 1988)
___ Living and Loving with AIDS (Summer 1988)
___ Lesbian & Gay Men in the Religious Arts (Spring 1989)
___ The Closet Dilemma (Summer 1989)
___ Images of Family (Fall 1989)
___ Journeys toward Recovery and Wholeness (Spring 1990)
___ The “Holy Union” Controversy (Fall 1990)
___ Youth and Sexual Identity (Winter 1991)
___ Lesbian/Gay Reflections on Theology (Spring 1991)
___ The Lesbian Spirit (Summer 1991)
___ Our Spirituality: How Sexual Expression and Oppression
Shape It (Summer 1992)
___ Aging and Integrity (Fall 1992)
___ Reclaiming Pride (Summer 1994)
___ The God to Whom We Pray (Spring 1995)
___ Remembering…10th Anniversary (Summer 1995)
___ Untangling Prejudice and Privilege (Fall 1995)
___ Same-Sex Unions (Spring 1997)
___ Creating Sanctuary: All Youth Welcome Here! (Summer 1997)
___ From One Womb at One Table (Fall 1997)
___ We’re Welcoming, Now What? (Winter 1998)
❑ Please send me the back issues indicated ($6 each; 10+ @ $4).
❑ Send me Open Hands each quarter ($20/year; outside U.S.A. @ $25).
❑ Send Open Hands gift subscription(s) to name(s) attached.
Enclosed is my payment of $ _______ OR
Charge $ _____________ to my VISA MASTERCARD (Circle one)
# __________________________________________ Expiration _____/_____.
Name on Card ____________________________________________________
Signature ________________________________________________________
My Name ________________________________________________________
Address _________________________________________________________
City/State/Zip _____________________________________________________
Daytime Phone (______) _____________________
Local Church _____________________________________________________
Denomination _____________________________________________________
Send to: Open Hands, 3801 N. Keeler Avenue, Chicago, IL 60641
Phone: 773/736-5526 Fax: 773/736-5475
Published by the Reconciling Congregation
Program in conjunction
with More Light, Open and Affirming,
Reconciling in Christ, and Welcoming
& Affirming Baptist programs.
A Unique Resource on
Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual
Concerns in the Church for
Christian Education • Personal Reading
Research Projects • Worship Resources
Ministry & Outreach
Selected Resources
(Check authors’ bio’s for additional book listings.)
Biblical Ethics & Homosexuality - Listening to Scripture, edited by
Robert L. Brawley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1996. A collection of essays from nine contributors, three on
methodology of biblical ethics, six on the Bible and human
sexuality.
Body Theology by James B. Nelson. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1992. A gay-positive, feminist, straight author
explores body theology and human sexuality, with special
sections on male issues and medical issues.
Essential Guide to Lesbian and Gay Weddings, The, by Tess Ayers
and Paul Brown. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. A
secular guidebook to the details of having a same-gender
ceremony.
Equal Value: An Ethical Approach to Economics and Sex by Carol
S. Robb. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995. The interrelationship of
economic and sexual ethics.
Fierce Tenderness - A Feminist Theology of Friendship by Mary E.
Hunt. New York: Crossroad, 1992. A Catholic lesbian theologian
suggests friendship as the paradigm for all relationships,
including sexual ones.
Intimate Connection, The - Male Sexuality, Masculine Spirituality
by James B. Nelson. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988. Not
just for men, an exploration by one of the leading Christian
body theologians on how embodiment has shaped theology.
Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships
by Elizabeth Stuart. UK: Mowbray, 1995. An articulate
resource on theological bases for lesbian and gay relationships.
Love Between Women - Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism,
by Bernadette J. Brooten. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1996. Parallel in stature and rigorous academic
research to John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality, but ferreting out the ancient roots of female
relationships and why early Christians resisted them.
Love Does No Harm: Sexual Ethics for the Rest of Us by Marie
Fortune. New York: Continuum, 1995. A further amplification
of a sexual ethics of “least harm” delineated in the
author’s article in this issue of Open Hands.
Redefining Sexual Ethics: A Sourcebook of Essays, Stories, and Poems
edited by Susan E. Davies and Eleanor Haney. New York:
Pilgrim Press, 1991. A diverse collection of useful materials.
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell. New York:
Villard Books, 1994. Exciting discoveries of Christian liturgies
to unite same-gender partners that pre-date Christian
marriage.
Sexuality and the Sacred - Sources for Theological Reflection edited
by James B. Nelson and Sandra P. Longfellow. A collection of
intriguing and scholarly essays from a virtual “who’s who”
of thirty body theologians.
Touching Our Strength - The Erotic as Power and the Love of God
by Carter Heyward. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1989.
This best-selling book has become a classic in l/g/b body theology,
written by a lesbian feminist theologian, priest, and
professor.