LIVING WITH TENSIONS. A position paper of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany [Lutheran] on the issue of "Homosexuality and the Church".

With regard to the question of whether practising homosexual people can exercise an ordained ministry in a Protestant church there is also a clash of contradictory opinions. Whereas it is unthinkable for some people even to attend worship led by a practising homosexual pastor, for others just raising the question constitutes unbearable discrimination or the expression of some unacceptable "special ethics"for ministers of the church. However, this controversy with its wealth of injuries and misunderstandings at least directs attention to the right issue, because it is finally a question whether the fact that a minister of the church is a practising homosexual contradicts the commission to preach or can be reconciled with it.

Here, it is therefore not a matter of "higher" ethical demands on ministers of the church (compared with "the laity") but of the credibility of the church's proclamation. In this connection, we can probably assume a consensus on two points. [1] The commission to preach cannot be separated from the way in which the minister lives, as if the one had nothing to do with the other. If his way of living, where there is public awareness of it, contradicts the content of the preaching, this restricts the credibility of the proclamation. [2] The life led by every ordained minister falls short in some way of what must be proclaimed as the will of God. The decisive thing, however, is that the difference between the will of God and one's own shortcomings is not denied or minimised. Recognising one's own inadequacies is itself an element of credibility in the church's proclamation.

On the basis of both of these statements, we can ask to what extent the question of the compatibility of the church's commission to preach with a homosexual way of life is admissible, meaningful and necessary. The question is whether this way of living and the form it takes limits the credibility of the commission to preach given at ordination. Therefore the question in this form only concerns ordained ministers of the church who are given the task of public proclamation. Although the question arises basically in the same way for ministers of the church with homosexual leanings as for all the others, it comprises a number of special aspects with the former. [1] The fact that the wording of a number of statements in the Bible describes homosexual practice as sin means that ministers with homosexual inclinations, who have been ordained in reference to the Bible, repeatedly face the question of how they can reconcile their preaching about these biblical passages with their understanding of the authority of Scripture, in a way which does not give rise to or convey that there is an untenable contradiction between their way of living and the message of the Bible. [2] The fact that ordained ministers not only have to conduct marriages in the context of their ministry as a rule, but are also expected generally to support marriage and the family and models, means that they are repeatedly faced with the question of how their own form of common life is related to these models, and whether they can stand up for them in a convincing way despite their own different form of common life. [3] Where these questions cannot be answered satisfactorily (and this can depend on the ministers and/or the members of the local church), there is a danger that the sexual inclination and form of common life of the minister may become of such importance that they have a negative effect on the exercise of the ministry and constitute a considerable burden both on the minister and on the congregation. This will be the canse if the "defence" of homosexual leanings and this form of common life become a content of the preaching or a major concern of the ministry. But, above all, it applies if preaching or the ministry are exploited in order, by word or deed, to propagate single-sex partnerships as a form of common life.

In this connection there is a further significant reservation. In the present situation, it is probable that practising homosexuals, who are consciouly trying to follow the difficult path into ministry, will seek and find the support of groups and organisations for their efforts. But in the process they may sometimes adopt the norms of such groups, especially the expectation that in the ministry they will then actively (in their preachign and style of life) take up the cause of homosexual people and of other minorities or fringe groups.

In response to all of these reservations and objections, the following arguments can be used. If that is or were to be the case, it is in fact only the consequence of a situation of exclusion and oppression which has been forced on homosexual people for centuries. Only when such exclusion (e.g. from the ministry) comes to an end can and will the minority mentality and tendency to talk aobut themselves gradually disappear and give way to a relaxed, "normal" attitude to their own sexuality.

This argument cannot be brushed aside, and it would be inappropriate on the church's side to demand a fundamental change in the situation before opening up the ministry to practising homosexuals. Admission to the ministry could itself be a factor in reducing the tension. However, nobody can provide reliable predictions about this.

In a situation of this kind, it is no acceptable for the ministry to be opened up generally for practising homosexuals. But it can be considered responsible to do this in individual cases after careful examination, namely where the homosexual way of living is expressed in an ethically responsible way and the following criteria are fulfilled.

Criteria for combining the homosexual way of life with the ordained ministry. The starting point for formulating such criteria in the case of the ordained ministry is to be found among the demand resulting from the church's task, and not primarily in relation to the question how people can responsibly shape and live their sexual inclinations. The ordained ministry is, after all, not only a matter of one's personal Christian life but also of an orderly appointment to public teacing, preaching and administration of the sacraments. Therefore it can be a responsible decision for a practising homosexual to refrain from trying to enter the ordained ministry for the sake of the church's task. The Protestant understanding of the ministry leads to three groups of criteria which can be described and understood as criteria for compatibility. Whether the criteria are fulfilled will determine in which individual cases it is possible to combine the ordained ministry with the homosexual way of life and in which it is not.

Compatibility with intimacy and a sense of tact. In the church's preaching and teaching, sexuality including homosexuality must be discussed; otherwise they wil not do justice to their educational task. In pastoral work as well, sexuality including homosexuality must be a subject that can be discussed openly; otherwise people would be deprived of something essential. However, at the same time it is true that intimacy is an essential characteristic of human sexuality. And this again applies equally to both homosexuality and heterosexuality. Human sexuality needs a protected, undisturbed framework in which it can be lived and can express itself. Sexual practice is not something for public view; it belongs to the private sphere. This has a number on implications for people who are aiming at or hold public office (like, e.g. the ordained ministry). [1] Nobody, and also no church board or church authority, has the right to demand information about the sex life of one of its office holders or to investigate it. [2] In contradicts to the commission of ministers of the church if they (in practice) make their sexual life an element in their appointment to office through their behaviour or in words, e.g. as part of the content of their preaching. [3] Ordained ministers who are practising homosexuals must be aware that many parents will be afraid they represent the danger of misleading or influencing their children as they grow up. This must be taken into account in dealings with children and young people. Ministers, church boards and church authorities must come to an agreement, where necessary, about the form of common life which is compatible with the ordained ministry, in this case about a single-sex partnership; but to go beyond that limit would be to violate the sphere of intimacy and the sense of tact. Such a reference to intimacy is often misinterpreted and decried as a demand for "hypocrisy" or for a "double morality". In the context of this document, it is evident that including the form of common life among the items to be clarified implies that this decisive point is precisely not being relegated to secrecy.

Compatibility with beliefs and teaching. One can expect of practising homosexuals who hold or wish to hold pastoral office (as one can of practising heterosexuals) that they accept the confessional and doctrinal basis of their church and represent it. With regard to practising homosexuals this implies a double demand. [1] It is to be expected that they have and can present an understanding of the biblical statements on homosexuality which makes clear how they reconcile their own homosexual form of common life with the normative authority of the Bible, i.e. in which way they can recognise the limits of the homosexual form of common life. [2] It is to be expected that they recognise the function of marriage and the family as models and they they will refrain from propagating single-sex partnerships as an equal or even superior model.

Compatibility within the church and in the ecumenical context. If in individual cases practising homosexuals are officially admitted to the ordained ministry, this means that a way is being followed which constitutes a break with what has been practised officially in the Christian churches for centuries and is still the norm without exception today in the teaching and official practice of a number of sister churches in the ecumenical context. Such a break could not be justified if it were to constitute a break with the doctrinal bases of the church in Scripture and the Confessions. But here, on the contrary, it is a matter only of breaking with a practice which needs changing, and it follows from a more comprehensive understanding of Scripture and the Confessions which inevitably also entails tensions. If a step of this kind is required for the sake of truth and love, it must be taken despite the risk. Naturally, such a step is responsible only if it supported by a broad consensus and taken after careful consideration and with great care. This also has two consequences which must be considered. [1] The admission of practising homosexuals to the ordained ministry in individual cases is possible only if, in addition to the criteria listed thus far, the further criterion of the common consent of all the bodies involved in the decision is fulfilled. Unlike unanimity, common consent cannot be defined precisely. But despite the imprecision involved it is a term which can be used, is suitable for ecclesiastical (doctrinal) decisions and it expresses the convinced agreement of at least the vast majority. Such common consent is also to be required within each of the bodies involved. In order to guarantee as far as possible that there really is a consensus, and that consent or rejection are not the outcome of pressure, the votes taken on this questions in the various bodies must be by ballot without exception. [2] When deciding on the compatibility of the ordained ministry with a homosexual form of common life, a consensus should be sought with sister churchs in the ecumenical context, especially with the churches with which full church fellowship has been declared. In relation to the latter, it must be clarified whether such a decision would endanger the existing church fellowship, e.g. because it might question "the common understanding of the Gospel". This might make more extensive doctrinal conversations necessary. With regard to sister churches in the ecumenical context with which no full church fellowship exists there is, however, also the need to make clear to what extent the admission of individual practising homosexuals is justified by Scripture and the Confessions as the bases of Protestant doctrine. If the Protestant church reaches a common insight into this question, it cannot grant other churches the right to object to it. But, for the sake of the fellowship of the churches for which it is working and hoping, it must listen attentively to the objections of other churches, consider them and respond to them. In the process, it will also be expecting the other churches to re-think their official practice in light of the Bible, in order to correct it where appropriate in line with better insights.

The special role of the pastor's house. One specific aspect of the problem is the question whether single-sex partnerships whouls be possible in pastors' houses. In order to express a conclusive opinion on this, it would be necessary to conduct basic analysis on the contemporary significance and influence of the pastor's residence. The outcome would most likely not be a uniform but a diverse picture, in which the differences between town and countryside and between large and small towns would probably play a part. In many rural or small town contexts, the pastor's house and the life led there still certainly have an ethical, cultural and social influence, whereas this influence has been almost completely lost in other settings. At present there is not reason to assume that the pastor's residence will regain importance in the future. Considering the extent of the realms in which one can assume an influence of the pastor's residence, the question which arises in connection with single-sex partnership is what effect these might have and whether this is desirable, or at least acceptable,in view of the church's task. In this context, references to a possible "incitement to homosexuality" must be mentioned and considered. If this is literally taken to mean leading minors astray, then it is a problem which hardly differs for heterosexually or homosexually inclined persons and is thus not specific. But if what is meant is exercising an influence with the aim and effect of changing the orientation of the feelings and behaviour of heterosexual persons, it must then be stated that, as far as we know today, such an influence is impossible -- a least in the case of psychologically stable adults. On the other hand, since the sexual leanings of young people evolve in the interplay between their disposition (which can be influenced) and their own decisions about their behaviour, the influential effect of socially recognised, educative authorities also become important. Reflection must also be given to the problem of an influence on bi-sexual persons. A person who supports the theory that different forms of common life are of equal value will see no danger in such an influence. But since that theory has been rejected here in favour of the function of marriage and the family as models, this problem must be taken seriously and included in reaching an assessment. Naturally, it must also be remembered that a single-sex partnership which is practised responsibly in the pastor's house would probablt have a positive function for people with homosexual leanings. But this does not rule out the reservations and objections mentioned. With regard to the decisions to be taken on individual cases, where in addition to the criteria mentioned [in this document] church authorities have to follow what is necessary and good for the fulfillment of the church's task, it has to be concluded that, as a whole, there are many arguments against the permitting of single-sex partnerships in pastors' houses. With thanks to my friend Christian

It should be noted that this document, while far from declaring a final solution, represents a considerable step forward for gay women and men seeking ordination in the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church in Germany. It is also noteworthy that the Evangelical Church is the State Church in Germany, which has very specific laws regarding discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. Thus, a pastor cannot be fired from his/her parish just for being gay.

*** *** *** *** ***



Our Rainbow World

Out-Cyclopedia: Who's Who and What's What

Scully's World of Pride Graphics

Gay? Christian? Unhappy with "mainline" denominations?
The Metropolitan Community Church
an all-inclusive faith community
might be able to help you.

God really does love us - Chi Rho Press tells all

You will find links to gay religious organizations on the Spirituality page.

A Place for Us

Your health questions answered at GayHealth.com

Human Rights Campaign: equal rights for us

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Gay.com: connecting the LGBT community

God loves fags

Gay? Gay-friendly? Gay-curious? You'll want to check out this site

Rainbow Icon Archive

A place for gay youth

Gay e-mail counseling
glamm@mail.millikin.edu


How Butch Are You?
Click the link and enjoy.

Click to subscribe to Gay-Spiritual-Living