Christianity Today: Is Schism Over Gay Issues Inevitable?

If history could get a copyright, the Episcopal Church (USA) could sue the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for plagiarism.

Fill in the blanks:

After years of passionate and bitter debate, the national [blank] of the [denomination here] voted to accept openly gay clergy and offer church blessing to same-sex unions.

As a result, several churches immediately left the [denomination.] A small but not insignificant group of pastors and lay leaders met to discuss the creation of a new [denomination]. Several African bishops offered support to the splinter group.

Within individual congregations, discussions and votes pushed individual members into uncomfortable positions. But at the moment, the majority of congregations and pastors support the decision made by the [denomination] national leadership.

If the year were 2003, you'd fill in the blanks with Episcopalian items. This year, the ELCA trod the same path with a vote approving ordination of gays and blessings for same-sex unions. (I've been following the Lutheran action on a blog hosted by a friend and former colleague who worked for the Lutherans for a while: Prettygoodlutherans.com. )

Yes, there are granular differences in the two stories, generally due to polity. And Pope Benedict XVI just tossed some particular poop in the punchbowl from an ECUSA perspective (as our own David Gibson has explained).

But the broad arc of the tale is so much the same for both groups. And similar arguments about homosexuality are going on – have been going on for years – in the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

One odd part of the recent Lutheran argument, to me, is how little media attention it's been getting. I say that as one who covered the Episcopal Church votes back in 2003 that ratified that denomination's first openly gay bishop and allowed for the blessing of same-sex partners.

I thought it was a bit odd back then that a denomination with so few members – about 2.3 million at the time – was getting so much attention. I'm even more puzzled that the ELCA – which claims more than 4.6 million members – is not getting more now.

Why should we care, if we aren't members of one of the denominations embroiled in the fight? Think "canary in the mineshaft." That's where Robin Lovin, ethics professor at Southern Methodist University and former dean of its school of theology, went when I asked him why it mattered. He drew parallels between our time and the way denominations split on slavery before the Civil War.

"I don't mean to get apocalyptic about this issue, but I've been reflecting lately that there are a lot of parallels between our current political and cultural stalemates and American history between, say, 1825 and 1860. I wouldn't expect the churches to be the cause of some similar national collapse, but I wouldn't expect them to rise above it, either."

So here's my question: Of all issues to divide large parts of Christendom, why is this The One these days?

At some level, its a theological argument about who gets to decide the proper interpretation for the will of God. But there are plenty of other sections of the Bible that could be the source of fierce debate.

The proper way to keep the Sabbath holy, for instance. Or what it means to care for widows and orphans (or, if you'd prefer, "the least of these"). That passage about "turn the other cheek" is pretty unambiguous, but you never see picketing at funerals with signs saying "God hates fighters!"

Once upon a time, after all, pure theology could inspire actual wars. As Martin Marty, one of the nation's preeminent religious historians (and a Lutheran), explains it:

"In the good old days Christian bodies fought over the Trinity, the Incarnation, Salvation, and Sacraments. In our epoch they and the media who cover them converge obsessively on issues of sex-and-gender, where contraception and abortion, 'women' and 'gays,' are the flame issues."

Why? I'll hazard a couple of guesses:

The few biblical passages about homosexuality really do look pretty unambiguous, which makes them an effective lever for those arguing for strong, literal, biblical authority. And those verses speak to the core of human identity – for both sides of the argument. If you believe in the Christian God and believe you were born straight or born gay, you believe that your identity is in the image of the Almighty.

For someone to say that you are wrong? That's a powerful trigger for battle.

Here is how that gets framed on the traditionalist side of the argument by Darrell Bock, a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and author of "Breaking the Da Vinci Code":

"This category involves an area of making a decision about cultural practices and moral standards that are deemed acceptable or not. No grays or spectrum exist. Those who see a moral line involved see little room for possible negotiation (It is seen as equivalent to approving murder or extortion)."

"In hierarchical denominations with an episcopal polity, organizational unity is expected, clergy are 'homogenized,' centrally trained, more influential denomination-wide, and thus possess more power over congregations. This gives dissenting clergy a greater ability to set off a schism."

Lovin basically agrees:

"Something like it is going to spread to all Protestant denominations that are mainline enough to encompass a wide spectrum of opinion on sexuality issues. The United Church of Christ will not experience this, because it has developed a consensus that is too liberal to be divided over same sex relationships. The Missouri Synod Lutherans, for example, will not experience it, because their consensus is too conservative. But I'm guessing that even Southern Baptists will not be immune to the controversy."

I predict there will be a Dirty Dancing contest at the Southern Baptists' annual convention before this becomes a serious issue there.

But Lovin put in a plug for unity in his home team, the Methodists:

"They haven't come as close to a resolution on the matter, but I think they're getting used to the idea of living with the conflict."

Again, maybe so. But if the Episcopalians -- a denomination forged in the cognitive dissonance of the Church of England -- couldn't keep it together, I'll be surprised if the Methodists manage it forever.

Imagine that our first visitors from another star include a religious historian who asks for a meeting with leaders of the Earth's faiths.

The visitor turns to the Christian leaders and addresses one group:

"I don't really understand homosexuality – my people bud from spores – but it's clear to me from reading about your recent history that this topic must occupy a huge section of your sacred texts. Will you please show that to me?"

The group shuffles uncomfortably and one member speaks up.

"Not really. There are only a couple of verses, and not long ones."

So the alien turns to a second group of Christian leaders sitting at some remove from the first.

"Ah, then surely those verses must be among the more obscure and harder to understand of your texts, with many centuries of multiple interpretations, given the level of disagreement between you and your co-religionists."

The second group shuffles uncomfortably and one member speaks up.

"Not really. Particularly in translation, those verses are pretty clear."

The alien raises its tendrils in its equivalent of a shrug.

As do I.