IGF CultureWatch

As you probably already know, on August 11 a churchwide assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) approved by a vote of 528 to 431 a resolution that "prays, urges, and encourages" its bishops to refrain from disciplining gay and lesbian clergy known to be in same-sex relationships.

The resolution did not prohibit anti-gay bishops from bringing disciplinary action against clergy in gay relationships, but it gives more or less official permission to gay-supportive bishops who decline to discipline gay clergy to continue what many have already been doing for several years. And it surely sends a signal to bishops who may be uncertain or undecided about what action to take in such cases.

The ostensible reason for the resolution was that a church task force is involved in producing a long-delayed "social statement" on human sexuality and the resolution merely urges bishops not to take any action until the statement is issued in 2009. It is possible that there may have been signals from within the task force that it would recommend a more permissive policy. Certainly if no change were anticipated, the resolution would not have any point. But it is also possible that the resolution was meant as a signal to the task force by church leaders about what direction to take.

This is obviously a step forward for the Lutherans and in a way for all mainstream Protestants. It signals a shift in sentiment by clergy and church leaders in favor of non-celibate gay clergy. But it may not be immediately obvious just how remarkable a resolution this is. Consider several implications.

One was pointed out by the Rev. Bradley Schmeling, a pastor who was recently defrocked after telling his congregation and bishop that he is in a gay relationship. Schmeling told the New York Times, "For the first time, the church is saying that there are partnered gay and lesbian pastors who are serving faithfully and well in our church." True enough, and apparently his congregation agrees because they plan to keep him as their pastor anyway, frock or no frock.

In addition the resolution places the ELCA in the position of embracing some apparent contradictions. For one thing it says that formal church policy forbids sexually active gay clergy, but bishops can cheerfully ignore church policy if they like.

For another, the resolution applies only to gays and lesbians who are already ordained clergy; it does not apply to sexually active gay seminarians who wish to be ordained. No doubt some bishops will take the resolution as not forbidding the ordination of gay applicants, but technically the resolution says if you are already a pastor in a gay relationship you can stay, but if you are not yet a pastor we won't let you in.

This is not an unusual way for large organizations to make policy changes. You plant a contradiction or a new line of thinking somewhere in the system and wait for it to be formally taken account of sometime in the future when conditions are favorable for change. Nor is the technique unknown among Supreme Court justices.

The resolution certainly takes the long view. Every year public opinion about gays and the legitimacy of gay sexuality moves an average of one-half to one percent in a pro-gay direction. Nor are Lutheran church leaders immune to experiencing those changes themselves. So with every year that passes, the chances for a gay-affirmative position improve.

Underneath the conflict between pro- and anti-gay positions, the church is having to decide between Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Jesus as he is presented in the four gospels issued no condemnation of homosexuality although he was eloquent in his condemnation of some other behavior. In addition he often revised, corrected and disobeyed ancient Jewish law.

By contrast, Paul never met Jesus, never heard him preach, didn't know his teachings, and had no knowledge of the gospels (which had not been written yet). The only aspect of Jesus Paul cared about was his supposed resurrection which as a Pharisee he was predisposed to believe anyway. So with his rabbinical training in the early Hebrew texts, he often harkened back to the Hebrew moral codes, including their condemnation of homosexuality, and added them back into early Christianity.

Whether the Lutherans consciously recognize the conflict in these terms or not, they seem to have some sense of what the fundamental issue is. The New York Times quoted Emily Eastwood, head of the gay-supportive Lutherans Concerned, as saying, "The dam of discrimination has been broken. ... The church is on the road to acceptance."