LGBT Pastoral Ethics in a Baptist Tradition

LGBT Pastoral Ethics in a Baptist Tradition
By Cody J. Sanders, PhD Student,
   Brite Divinity School, Fort Worth, TX.

            If this article’s title provokes confusion, it may be because the letters LGBT are noticeably missing from the lexicon of moderate Baptist life. For those unfamiliar with the acronym, the letters stand for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. If the acronym is relatively unknown among Baptists, it is perhaps because the words behind the letters are steadily avoided as anxiety-producing and divisive terms. It is clear, however, that moderate Baptists cannot forever avoid the issue of sexual orientation. This was made even clearer by Broadway Baptist Church’s recent ousting from the Southern Baptist Convention. Both our sister denominations and the culture at large have faced LGBT issues head on for decades now and, with the exception of a few sweeping proclamations from denominational bodies (including the Southern Baptist Convention), Baptists have largely been content to keep silent (some might say “in the closet”) on issues of sexual orientation. It is time for Baptists, particularly those of the moderate persuasion, to engage in serious, prayerful and intelligent discussion about sexual orientation.

An Issue for Congregations

            If for no other reason, sexual orientation is an issue for the congregation by virtue of simple statistics. Social science research suggests that around four percent of the population of the U.S. is of a non-heterosexual orientation. If a local congregation is a microcosm of the surrounding society, that means that for a church of 100 individuals, approximately four persons are of a non-heterosexual orientation. Add to this the startling reality reported by The National Institutes of Health that 30% of all youth suicides are committed by gay or lesbian youth,[1] sexual orientation seems an issue that congregations cannot afford to ignore. For most of these youth there exists an extreme lack of supportive relationships with understanding adults. These statistics challenge us to alter our question from “Is this an issue for our congregation?” to “How will our congregation respond to the reality in which we live?”

            Even in the face of this reality it is tempting to concede to a collective fear of divisiveness and disunity and doggedly avoid the subject of sexual orientation in the congregation. Ignoring an issue of such importance will not create a climate of genuine unity, nor has such a head-in-the-sand posture any hope of speaking a prophetic witness to the culture at large. As we take our lead from the prophetic ministry of Jesus, who regularly acted on behalf of the outcast, David Gushee rightly calls for “the complete recognition that when Jesus calls us to love our neighbors, that includes especially our homosexual neighbors, because the more a group is hated, the more they need Christ’s love through us.”[2] Surely no genuine love or Christian embrace can be extended until there is honesty, openness and a commitment to unity amid diversity within the local congregation and among the wider body of Baptists. That unity cannot be forged in silence.

Reframing the Questions: A Pastoral Ethical Approach

            Approaching dialogue on an issue garnering such intensity of emotion requires a sense of purpose that reaches beyond merely arriving upon a definitive “answer” to the complex multitude of questions raised by sexual orientation. Rather, for such a risky endeavor of congregational inquiry to take place, we must have in our sights the human beings affected not only by the outcome of our discussions but the content and methodology we use in such a dialogue. Many who tackle LGBT issues from a congregational perspective do so with the intent of arriving upon a moral answer that can be promulgated as the congregation’s “position” on sexuality. This quest often takes place with the guidance of the seven scriptures in the Old and New Testaments thought to speak of homosexual activity. David Lull, however, suggests that if our congregational conversation is limited to the hermeneutical or interpretative questions of scripture then “the church will be stuck in the gridlock created by two mutually exclusive and irreconcilable approaches to the interpretation of Scripture.”[3] While keeping one’s attention fixed on the text of scripture seems appropriate in a congregational context, one misses the importance of the “living human document” brought to prominence by Anton Boisen, founder of the Clinical Pastoral Education movement. In addition, we should all have our hermeneutical assurances tempered by the diversity of interpretative conclusions derived by individuals and churches across the theological spectrum on issues of sexuality.

            Providing what seems a more complete frame for a discussion of LGBT issues, Stassen and Gushee ask, “What shall we say to, and about, men and women who (a) experience their sexual desire as being insistently directed to members of the same sex; and (b) desire to bond with a member of the same sex in the same kind of permanent faithful monogamy that some heterosexuals enjoy?”[4] Notice the directionality of this question. What do we say to, not just about, LGBT persons? While “saying about” seems purely ethical in its intent, “saying to” ventures into the realm of the pastoral. The melding of these to foci requires us to cling a little less exclusively to the answers derived from an interpretation of the written text alone, driving us into the complexity of the living human document with which we must continually dialogue.

            While the written text of scripture may suffice for a more distant, comfortable, and safe discussion of LGBT issues, the voice of pastoral theology helps us to face with intellectual and spiritual integrity the complexity of the human situation that is inextricably involved. Once again reframing the focus of our dialogue on LGBT issues in a pastoral ethical light, John Cobb suggests, “Instead of putting matters in purely moral terms, the Christian church should ask a different question. What does it recommend as a lifestyle to those whose sexual attractions are for members of their own sex?”[5] Such a question demands more from us than putting down in print a cold proclamation about sexuality to present to those interested enough to read it. Rather than a “word about,” it requires that we speak a “word to” LGBT persons and the congregations charged with their care. This venture is what David Switzer describes as going “into situations that may be frightening, the out of the way places, to talk with ‘foreigners,’ to those of whom many of our church members do not approve, often when we have something else to do . . . when we are very tired, when we feel anxious, when we are not sure how we are going to respond helpfully.”[6] Such a conversation is a risky venture indeed.

Why Being Baptist Makes a Difference

            Being Baptist makes several contributions to our discussion of LGBT issues, some liabilities and some assets. The first is that we are already a bit behind in the conversation regarding sexual orientation. Other denominations and the wider American culture have openly explored LGBT issues for some decades now and moderate Baptists have much ground to cover in order to even be up to speed. Another issue with which many Baptist congregations must contend is a latent suspicion, perhaps even distrust, of the scientific and psychological fields. Pastoral theology and the field of ethics have much to gain from a dialogue with the biological and social sciences. In no case is this truer than in matters of sexual orientation. Whether we shut ourselves off from these modes of inquiry or open ourselves to their valuable voices will largely depend upon the congregation’s willingness to put these fields into conversation with theological and biblical material.

            What moderate Baptists have going for them, however, far outweighs these potential setbacks. The first of our assets in dealing faithfully with LGBT issues is the historic Baptist principle of the autonomy of the local congregation. Whereas our sister denominations are often bound to toe the official denominational line on issues of sexuality, Baptists have the privilege of engaging in dialogue at a congregational level. While this provides great freedom of inquiry for each congregation, there exists a fear that is kindled anew with each passing year of being removed from associational or convention rosters for falling too far outside of an “orthodox” position on any given hot-button issue, perhaps especially sexual orientation.

            Gradually moving away from our temptation toward exclusion, we might hope to rediscover the beauty that exists in the freedom of each congregation to cooperate with diverse sister congregations in the missio Dei (the Mission of God) without need for doctrinal conformity. Wherever our dialogue may lead us, let us be true to the Baptist principle that each soul is competent to prayerfully and faithfully engage in the ever-expanding search for God’s truth wherever it may present itself. And may we be humbled by the acknowledgement that in whatever diversity of ways our search may lead us, we may all be wrong. Thus, engaging in genuine dialogue on LGBT issues asks us to take a posture of openness in which there remains the possibility of having our minds changed.

            Finally, our recent history as Baptists in the South exists as both liability and asset. We are emerging from a precarious history that imbues our collective memory with the pain and divisiveness created when issues of controversy are used as weapons against others for the sake of forced unity or the acquisition of power. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, no issue stands a greater chance of replacing the inerrancy issue of the past than that of sexual orientation. We must maintain an awareness of those who would seek to use LGBT issues for political gain, bludgeons against “heretics,” or litmus tests for orthodoxy and strive to say outside of those ranks. While our history holds the potential for repetition, our past can also serve as a great asset if we are open to learning from its valuable lessons.