Like many mainstream denominations, the Lutheran church in the United States is grappling with sexuality issues, including how to deal with homosexual clergy.
“Our current policy is that if a pastor or other rostered [lay] leader is homosexual, he or she is not expected to be in a relationship. It’s the same policy as for heterosexual, not married, individuals,” said Bob Fisher. He’s the communications director for the Norristown-based Southeastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
In 2007, after considering several proposals on the issue, a national Lutheran assembly voted not to change church policy. At that time, the assembly encouraged regional bishops to use their discretion in situations like [David] Wagner’s.
The national church expects to tackle issues involving sexuality ”” including homosexuality ”” at its 2009 general assembly. Wagner said church leaders could agree to the status quo or ban homosexuals in relationships from the ministry.
Wagner said he grew up in Minnesota in a conservative community that never allowed for differences. By age 11 or 12, he recalled that he knew he was “different.” It wasn’t the kind of thing you admitted, so he decided to repress his emerging attraction to males.
Wagner also had a deep love of God and a desire to preach the Gospel to others. He attended Gustavus Adolphus College south of Minneapolis-St. Paul. That’s where he decided to enter the ministry and where he was ordained 34 years ago.
He also married and had two children, whom he dotes on. Twenty-five years after his marriage and just before he took over at God’s Love, he finally admitted to his wife that he was gay. He moved to Newtown alone, but said he has remained close to his former wife and his children.
Some in this church might want to review the ECUSA/TEC situation a bit more closely………………..
He should have kept his mouth shut; but, no, he had to brag.
I see a pattern here: gay clergy who leave their wives when they decide the climate is right to come out of the closet. Where is the morality in this? This behavior would be regarded as immoral by every ethical standard or ethical tradition known.
“He also married and had two children, whom he dotes on. Twenty-five years after his marriage and just before he took over at God’s Love, he finally admitted to his wife that he was gay.”
Sounds a lot like VGR; i.e., even though I’ve created a family, my libido and erotic love comes before my love for my family, so now I’m leaving to pursue that course. Lovely example for a man of the cloth.
From the first comment underneath the story, it sounds like this is an issue that goes beyond the homosexuality per se to similar issues of Biblical interpretation that we are seeing in ECUSA.
[blockquote]Like many mainstream denominations, the Lutheran church in the United States is grappling with sexuality issues, [/blockquote]
Only part of the Lutheran church – the LCMS and WELS are having no such problems!
“He also married and had two children, whom he dotes on”.
“A Christmas tree towered over the sitting area and Piccoli’s teen-age children (he shares custody with his ex-wife), bustled in, carrying packages”.
Note how so many come out AFTER they have taken life vows to a woman and had children with them(thus, the “act” DID work with the opposite sex, too). I don’t find that to be much of a Christian example.
Metropolitan Kyrill, foreign minister of the Russain Orthodox Church has expressed the Church’s position well: “The Bible calls it a sin. But we do not condemn these people. The church is opposed to these people being persecuted or offended. But why should sin be propagated? The gay parade is a blatant display of sodomy. In that case, we might as well promote other sins, as has long been the case on television. This degenerates public morality.â€
#7 Geek in Dallas: “Note how so many come out AFTER they have taken life vows to a woman and had children with them(thus, the “act†DID work with the opposite sex, too). I don’t find that to be much of a Christian example.”
One could certainly point fingers at heterosexuals who do this, as well.
IMHO the psychological and spiritual imperative is honesty; coming out is the final step, once one has been honest with oneself as to the true nature of one’s being. It may or may not have anything to do with erotic desire for a specific person — n.b. that +VGR had not even met his future Mark when he divorced.
Alluding that either man took their original vows lightly is a very serious charge, and really quite disappointing.
#7. Just curious, could you point fingers at a heterosexual bishop who does this? The fact that you think psychological and spiritual honesty as to one’s true nature is more important than honoring one’s vows is typical of the difference between us. Liberals think being true to one’s self trumps being true to others. It’s all about “me.” Whatever happened to self-sacrifice in order to do what’s right?
Oops. Make that addressed to #9, PadreWayne.
#9: “One could certainly point fingers at heterosexuals who do this, as well.”
Do *what, exactly? Adultery? Are you justifying that?
Is it not obvious that Robinson, having lived within Christian marriage, decided to abandon it to follow homosexual impulses? What is Christ-honoring about that?
BTW,
We in the ELCA will probably see more of this now that our national assembly passed a resolution asking Bishops to show restraint when implementing the policies of “Vision and Expectations.”
Camel nose under the tent seems to apply …
Brian
PadreWayne, your attempt at mixing apples and oranges falls short. I don’t condone heterosexual adultery any more than I believe taking life vows in heterosexual(even if you’re not heterosexual) Christian marriage before you supposedly understand your “truth” is a Christian example.
If you like, share your opinion with the wife and several children I know whose husband/father only came clean about his “truth” when he was caught with his pants down with another man in an adult bookstore. However, I don’t think it will help them much with their devastation.
You got it, Alli, it is all about “me”. And I also can’t understand why one cannot engage in “psychological and spiritual honesty” BEFORE making vows.
Food for thought, and I really don’t care if it’s “disappointing”…
#10-14, two comments:
1 It is not a question of being “all about me,” but a question of living a life of integrity. There are many reasons a homosexual man or woman might choose a heterosexual marriage (societal pressure, feelings of shame, fear, desire for children, a desire to “change”), and yes, certainly, the other person in the marriage will be hurt — sometimes devastatingly so. But when one decides to come out, it is a step in a journey toward wholeness. Becoming the true self God has made him/her to be.
Alli #10, My point is that there are plenty of examples of divorced heterosexuals whose former spouses were hurt [i]plenty[/i]. A redaction of the comment on which I was commenting would be, “Note how many divorced AFTER they have taken life vows and had children…” In other words, it isn’t helpful to single out homosexual people who feel called to end a marriage.
I agree with another poster: The Church does a LOUSY job of promoting [i]and then supporting[/i] marriage. Our theology of marriage is rather weak — simply saying “one man, one woman, one lifetime” is not enough. We too often encourage marriage without a rigorous framework; clergy too often perform marriages without adequately knowing the people involved; clergy too often try to counsel in-trouble couples without referring them to someone who might actually know what they’re talking about. But it all starts with our theology of marriage. IMHO.
One point I haven’t seen mentioned…
the man resigned rather than having his sexual orientation become the focus of the ministry. I perceive this as an act of integrity on his part.
Catharine
1 “It is not a question of being “all about me,†but a question of living a life of integrity. There are many reasons a homosexual man or woman might choose a heterosexual marriage (societal pressure, feelings of shame, fear, desire for children, a desire to “change”), and yes, certainly, the other person in the marriage will be hurt—sometimes devastatingly so. But when one decides to come out, it is a step in a journey toward wholeness. Becoming the true self God has made him/her to be.”
I’m sorry, but I think this is complete baloney. This may make sense to you, and I’m sorry that it does. It does not make sense to most people. Wholeness is not abandoning your commitments, vows, and people you supposedly love so that you can engage in sex with someone else. This is just selfishness, pure and simple. I think you’re trying to put lipstick on a pig here.
Yes, Alli B, it is lipstick on a pig. But, remember, it is very expensive lipstick so that makes it okay. The pig likes the taste much better. Having a 16 year marriage and family with 3 children under age 7 disrupted by this sort of “integrity”, I can testify to the developmental aspects usually ignored by those asserting their “honesty and integrity”. It is not the rose-colored spectacle the gay-agendites would have you believe it to be. It is entirely a “Yea, I’m ME!” event from start to complete familial disruption.
#16, Catharine: “One point I haven’t seen mentioned…
the man resigned rather than having his sexual orientation become the focus of the ministry. I perceive this as an act of integrity on his part.”
I would agree. If a parish were predicted to have considerable conflict upon receiving the news, it would be graceful to resign. Additionally, deep conversation with one’s bishop/canon to the ordinary/diocesan pastoral counselor would be an imperative [i]before[/i] making any sort of announcement.
#17, Alli, it would be helpful to speak only for yourself or someone you know (i.e., as opposed to “most people”). Be that as it may, I agree that wholeness and integrity both involve keeping one’s commitments and vows, treating those you love with respect. When one’s sense of self is in conflict with one’s commitments, however, it would seem spiritually prudent to revisit those commitments, prayerfully discerning which may stay and which must go in order to present a whole person to God and community. There undoubtedly are people who are willing to “abandon” their commitments “so that you can engage in sex with someone else.” It happens all the time among both straight and gay people. There are also, though, people who undergo a prayerful discernment process, fully understanding that there will be pain, anger, and confusion, but holding on to a thread of faith that with God all shall be well.
To relegate such to “selfishness, pure and simple,” lacks compassion, IMHO. And to “lipstick the pig” analogize lacks any desire to listen with one’s heart.
Please know that I do [i]not[/i] minimize the disruption of lives, the pain of the spouse or children [i]at all[/i]. One might wish to consider the societal forces that have caused too many families to be devastated this way, forces that have caused the gay spouse to “pass” as straight, with the eventual harm done.
Back to #16, sorry…If it were my decision to make (which it is not), I would [i]require[/i] that the person have conversation with his/her bishop, and if I were the bishop (TBTG that is [i]not[/i] going to happen!) I would [i]require[/i] a period of counseling for the entire congregation. (Well, those who were even 25% willing…)
Lipstick on a pig is analogy, Wayne. It means trying to take something ugly and superficially make it beautiful. And, ah, compassion. But compassion for whom? Regardless of what you say, you actually are minimizing the abandoned people’s pain because you are saying it’s necessary for the person who’s gay to hurt people in order to be true to themselves. Spiritually prudent? You really are trying to justify something that is unable to be justified. And I say “most” people because I believe that is very safe to say in this regard.
[i] This is becoming a decidedly 2 way conversation. [/i]
“But when one decides to come out, it is a step in a journey toward wholeness. Becoming the true self God has made him/her to be”.
This sounds nice, but I don’t think it would sound so nice to the spouse who gets shafted. The majority of my point is that a SIGNIFICANT effort should be made regarding a “journey toward wholeness” prior to people making marriage vows. This ties in to the above points outlining what, in the church world, can be a huge lack of premaritial preparation; whether by the clergy, therapists, or “parties” getting married.
How lightly or seriously are people taking their vows if they’re breaking them? I think that’s a fair question. I also fully realize that divorce NEVER occurs in a vacuum.
I’ll admit up front that my viewpoint is rather jaundiced. Along with the above example I mentioned, one of my friends, a serious, Christian woman, had two sons. Right after the second one’s birth, her husband starting verbally and emotionally abusing her. It was bad. She could not understand this, and worked very hard to hang in there and save the marriage. Just before she was successful at dragging her husband to counseling after ~two years of this nonsense, he “came out”, refused the counseling, and basically admitted to her that all he wanted to do was use her as a breeder. SHE has successfully put her life back together, but it remains to be seen what all this will do to the boys. I think they’ll be lucky if their little brains and hearts don’t end up scrambled eggs.
I guess an egg donor would have been too expensive, so he decided to do it the “legal” way, unbeknownst to his wife. Repugnant…
By no means am I saying that people should never get divorced. And I’ve no doubt that there’s just as much heterosexual sin out there as homosexual. But the EXAMPLE outlined in Scripture regarding marriage is not “our theology”, it’s Jesus’s. And I don’t believe that it should be changed or “opened” solely for the sake of an earthly, human, “validate me”.
Just because many of us can fall short of the standard, that does not mean the standard itself is wrong and should automatically change.
Ok, off my soapbox…
🙂
#23 Geek in Dallas, I basically agree with you. There’s too little counseling — or what is done is far too light-hearted. I keep trying to hone my own pre-marital counseling with the following:
Using a “mutual awareness” questionnaire which can (and has) red-flag areas where the people don’t really know each other;
Advising them that although [i]three[/i] meetings is the requirement, I have been known to ask for more (and once delayed the marriage) or to refer couples to counselors with more professional expertise before I agree to actually offer God’s (and the church’s) blessing;
Putting off planning the wedding until the very last session (assuming there’s time — and if there isn’t, I ask, “Why?”).
I certainly can’t guarantee these points insure the marriage’s longevity, but they at least show the couple that I take my responsibility [i]and[/i] marriage (or blessing of SSUs) very, very seriously.
Now…how can we incorporate Jesus’ counseling into our own?
Wayne, I am very glad you take any marriage counseling seriously, my spouse also does the same. He routinely refers couples to other, more in-depth counseling if need be, and, if the counselor puts the nix on the nuptials or advises against them, he won’t do the ceremony. Luckily there’s only had to be one wedding in ten years of ministry that he has outright refused.
I don’t think it’s hard for us to incorporate Jesus’s counseling into our own, but, unfortunately, humans are famous for human mistakes and not making, many times, much effort to get along.
Jesus said nothing about SSU’s or SSM; I see that as a human addendum with which I don’t Scripturally agree.