Comments for Jim Other sermons.                 

I am often surprised by what upsets me and doesn’t seem to bother other people. Conversely, I am often surprised by what other people get upset about that doesn’t seem to bother me at all. I’ve learned that it is not good to be blasé about what others get upset over. Yet, I think that one can reflect on important matters from a spirit of "What’s the big fuss about?" and take seriously the disagreement of others. That is the spirit of my sermon title and, I hope, this sermon.

If one starts from the assumption that gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender people are fine – that is to say: good, whole, created in the image of God without qualification, lacking nothing that makes one human, fully capable to entering into healthy relationships of love and commitment and sexuality, then how could one not reach the conclusion that marriage between two people of the same gender should be seen as right and acceptable? Why not? Speaking for myself, I start with that assumption and I reach that conclusion. The essence of being an "Open and Affirming" Church in the United Church of Christ is that we are open to and affirming of people who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender, not in spite of the fact that there is something wrong with them, but precisely because they are okay in all the ways that really matter. Different from the majority in sexual orientation? Yes, of course. Unacceptable because of these differences? No, I don’t believe that.

I am stressing this basic assumption because when dealing with seemingly divisive, hot-button, contentious issues, disagreements get complicated. But it is important to be clear about what one is disagreeing with. I say let’s keep it uncomplicated. I believe that opposition to gay marriage is ultimately rooted in the assumption that there is something not right about who gay people are and/or their sexual behavior. I don’t think that’s right.

The recent decision by the American Episcopal Church to consecrate the first out of the closet gay bishop and offer a kind of qualified approval of a sacred rite for marriage for same gender couples has obviously stirred up a hornet’s nest of controversy. And this – hot on the heels of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding consensual sexuality. Behind the controversy are a whole host of important issues about which people inside and outside religious communities are arguing. Having stated the assumption I start with, I’d like to take a brief look at some of these issues - speaking for myself, of course. Forgive me for being a bit rambling and unsystematic. Consider this musing out loud and, of course, muse with me or back at me. I speak for myself.

First, biblical authority and church tradition. It is confidently asserted by many that it is God’s word that marriage be seen solely as between a man and a woman, and that sex between people of the same gender is always an abomination. I don’t think that is necessarily so. One can say that the Bible assumes that these are outside the norm, that’s all. The Old Testament seems to have lumped same-gender relationships into the catch-all category of all things associated with pagan or enemy practices, particularly in cultic worship. Actually there are relatively few references to homosexuality in the body of Jewish law. The Law pays much more attention to strict dietary codes and proper religious ritual – most of it irrelevant for us today, even some things, long ago, labeled as "abominations." And, as the Mormons of the nineteenth century pointed out, the Old Testament, while assuming hetero-sexual marriage, also affirmed a thorough-going polygamy for those who could afford it. There are even fewer references to homosexuality in the New Testament and it is never singled out for special concern. And, of course, Jesus is totally silent on the subject. In the matter of law and authority, when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he replied that the First and the Second Commandment were inseparable, "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength. And the second is like it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." But Jesus’ words were not just about love, but also about the nature of divine authority – "On these two depend all the law and the prophets." Jesus is saying, indeed warning, that every law, every rule, every tradition, is trumped by the law of love. Rules can be used to hurt, to do wrong, and to oppress if our motive is not love. Every rule and regulation must be seen in light of love of God and neighbor. St. Paul states it beautifully in I Corinthians 13 where he says that I can be the most righteous and wonderful person in the world, but without love I am nothing. Indeed, some of the most hateful things have been done in the name of God’s righteousness.

Where does hate come from? It comes from fear – especially fear of the other. That which we don’t understand, we fear. That which we fear, we hate. But the whole focus of love in the Bible is on accepting the outsider – the other, the one who is different. Why? Because God has accepted them. Historically, while gender customs vary widely in many societies, gay and lesbian people have been in the minority in every society that we really know of. That will likely always be the case. A straight person can honestly say, "I don’t understand how someone can be attracted to someone else of the same gender." That’s fair. But it is quite something else to say, "And since I don’t understand how others can have such feelings, they are wrong." I do not regard gay marriage a personal threat to me, or my marriage, or my relationship with God. And I assume that exactly the same desire to come together in a relationship of love motivates people of the same gender as others.

Yet the matter of the "otherness" of alternative sexual orientation and behavior is a big problem for Christians in particular. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that, of all the world’s great religions, none has such hang-ups with sexuality as we do. Regarding sex we are attracted and repelled, casual and obsessed. Why is that? Biblical authority is often completely misused and confused. In Genesis we read that God created the human race, male and female, God created them, and they were told to be fruitful and multiply, and to fill the earth and subdue it. That is supposedly God’s immutable word. Well, we sure did. Been there, done that. Today, the survival of life on earth may have to do with being less fruitful in our multiplication, and subduing, not the earth, but our greedy destruction of the environment. Can we really blame God for that? God’s call to rampant procreation may have made sense "in the beginning" and for a struggling little tribe of Hebrews, but not now. The other side of the coin has been with the church’s obsession with celibacy. When you think about it, celibacy is an alternative style of behavior. Celibacy has always been voluntary, a feely chosen life-style. But the staggering revelations about sexual misconduct by supposedly celibate clergy has been another indication of how confused, hypocritical, and even cynical are our attitudes toward sexuality. Instead to self-righteously imposing our own attitudes regarding sexual orientation and conduct on others who are outside the norm, the Church, especially the Church, should look more humbly into its own history of confusion, misconduct, hatred and oppression, and humbly admit that sexuality is a gift from God that everybody (gay and straight alike) needs to handle with great care, fear, and trembling.

Which brings me to the Church. One of the more interesting revelations from the polls that have been taken since the Episcopal Church hit the news on this subject, is that a majority of people who go to church rarely, if at all, while more open to supporting legal civil unions between people of the same gender, stoutly oppose churches performing such ceremonies. People in this category, agree with the fairness of society giving the same rights to gay couples as to straight married couples, but strongly oppose church weddings for gays. That struck me as curious. So here is a very personal statement. The only thing I professionally do as an ordained minister in which I act on behalf of the government (the State of Maryland) is perform weddings. After the ceremony, I sign an official state issued document. I have always been amused by the fact that no one elected me to do that (like a justice of the peace), yet here I am acting as a representative of the state. I think it would be better if in this matter church and state were separated here as they are in many European countries. If you want a religious wedding, go to the church. But to be legally married, go to the courthouse. The two-ceremony approach is the norm in many places. I’d be very happy with that. For one reason, many people might think a lot harder about the spiritual basis of their relationship than they do. In the context of discussions about gay marriage, I think it would be better for the church to decide on their own and in their own traditions, how to deal with this. Which is what the Episcopalians have been doing, and arousing much debate among non-Episcopalians, even non-religious people.

I doubt that the total separation of church and state on this subject will ever take place. For now, let the churches think through the matter of gay marriage. But even as we do, we need to be wise, thoughtful, and careful. In the Old Testament scripture this morning, we hear the story of Solomon asking God for guidance at the outset of his reign. Supposedly the wisest man who ever lived, it is striking to me how humble Solomon is. Behind him he has the law, the statutes, the traditions of Israel. Yet he asks God for a wise and discerning mind. He says to God, "Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil;..And it pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this."

Let us, as churches, reflect wisely and carefully on this matter. Let’s not leave this to the opinion polls, the op ed columnists, or the politicians. We must be clear and humble in our understandings of the mysteries of human sexuality. We must be careful and modest theologians. And we must expect this to be a very contentious area. I was proud of my former state of Vermont when its legislature acted to approve civil unions for gays. And I was saddened and somewhat shocked when the backlash against that decision set in. Some good people have hurt some other good people in the process. At least that is how I would like to see it. While being as clear as we are able among ourselves, within the church (which for me goes back to the first basic assumption that I began with), we also need to be careful in the political realm. Here more than any place else, we must be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. There is no doubt in my mind that there are people on the religious and political right who see the issue of gay marriage as a ready made "winner" to run with. If we are committed to a stance of "Open and Affirming" in the church, then we must also strategically address the political issues of justice for gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgender people in our society. How do we keep moving forward and not be set back? That is the hard and careful task before a truly open and affirming group of Christians. Amen.

Return to CCC Home Page