The Lutherans (ELCA) have now okayed gay clergy who are in "committed" relationships, and endorsed "chaste, monogamous and lifelong" same-sex relationships. But as Terry Mattingly observes, there has been no real public discussion about just what "monogamy" means when it comes to gays. TMatt writes:
As a visiting gay theologian once told me during a conference at Iliff, very few gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians have what he called a "twin rocking chairs forever" definition of monogamy. That was just too restricting, he said. Most gays, he said, believe that it is possible to be "faithful" to one partner and, thus, "monogamous," while continuing to have sexual experiences with others.
TMatt says there are three general schools when it comes to monogamy and the gay experience:
First of all, there are gay theologians whose definition of this term is very traditional, arguing that gay unions are forever and that those taking vows must remain sexually faithful to one another. Twin rocking chairs forever."Then, there are those who, in effect, say that "monogamy" essentially means serial monogamy (this, of course, is the definition used by most heterosexuals today in a culture rooted in easy divorce). In other words, things happen and relationships break up. However, partners are supposed to be sexually faithful to one another while the relationship lasts. Twin rocking chairs for right now.
Finally, some say that gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians can be "emotionally" faithful to a partner, while having sexual experiences with other people -- secondary relationships that do not threaten the primary, "monogamous" relationship. The twin rocking chairs are symbolic.
There are, of course, lesbigay theologians who reject monogamy and almost all other traditional limits on sexual experience. Take, for example, the trailblazing Episcopal priest and seminary professor Carter Heyward, author of books such as "Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God.
As TMatt and Fr. Kendall Harmon note, leading gay-rights advocates like Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage hold to a rather flexible view of monogamy. Here's a quote from Sullivan:
Dan [Savage] and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy - especially in marriages - is often the best policy. Momogamy [sic] is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see [Erica] Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation - those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution - both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards. An acceptance of mild hypocrisy as essential social and marital glue is not a revolutionary statement. It's a post-revolutionary one. As is, I'd say, my generation as a whole.
Well, I'm in Andrew's generation, and if what he describes is Christian, or even tolerable within a marriage of integrity, then the kids are not alright. This position is not compatible with Christian sexual morality. Period. There is and should be theological guidelines for how to repair relationships broken by adultery, but an authority no less than Jesus Christ, in the Gospel of Matthew, said that adultery is the only grounds for ending a marriage. Fidelity is the uncompromising standard. N.B., Jimmy Akin points out that this same discourse as reported in the other Gospels attributes to Christ an even stricter standard, which disallows divorce at all. Obviously the church has over time worked out ways of handling the situations people find themselves in, while trying to be faithful to the spirit of the Lord's teaching. The point is, though, that it is impossible to argue from Scripture or tradition that monogamous commitment within a Christian context considers it "perfectly acceptable" to have sex outside of marriage.
There's more from Sullivan at Fr. Harmon's website. TMatt's focus is not so much theological as it is journalistic, namely, shouldn't the media, in covering the Lutheran situation and similar debates in other churches, ask what, exactly, the understanding of "monogamy" is within the church? Is there a commonly shared definition? Is there more difference here than many, even within the church, are aware of?
These are important questions. It is often argued by those who favor same-sex marriage that the institution of marriage will transform same-sex relationships, and make them more committed and monogamous. But what if same-sex relationships, if they are guided by this corrupt definition of monogamy, serve actually to undermine the church's traditional understanding of monogamy? That's one reason why the answer to this question is so important.
It's also important that I once again exhort readers from both sides (all sides?) of this controversy to conduct the combox dialogue dispassionately. I will delete comments that bring more heat than light to this discussion.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Re: Don't a lot of alcoholics find it easier to be totally 'on the wagon' than to try to drink 'moderately'.
Alcohol is something one can live without. Human beings are not meant to live without love. Some few of us are called to be the especial beloved of God, and thus choose celibacy in fidelity to Him. But that is an uncommon chrism. The rest of us are to love and be loved by others.
Re: Wasn't Protestant acceptance of divorce and remarriage a rather major change in Christian understanding of monogamy?
No. Because Eastern Christendom had always had some limited tolerance of divorce and remarriage. Indeed, I suspect the "Gaelic marriages" mentioned above hark back to a more general Christian understanding of such things when the West was Orthodox too. Yes I know, some people will complain about that-- but Rome really was the innovator in a lot of things, from excluding women from the diaconnate to priestly celibacy and on its blanket ban on divorce too. (That said, I do wish the Orthodox Church would be a bit stricter in this area. All too many bishops simply rubber stamp remarriages these days, and that was not the point of our oikonomia.)
Now, on the larger topic, I find the question itself rather odd. I've certainly encountered arguments bashing monogamy and the institution of marriage in general: radical feminists and some radical gay ideologues are noted for these. But I've never encountered anyone who had a significantly different idea of what monogamy was all about. The only arguments I've seen there are whether serial monogamy (after divorce) is licit, and perhaps I should include the odd Mormon notion of Eternal Marriage as something different. And yes, I've known people who cheat in their relationships, and they have clever ways of justifying it, but they don't call cheating "monogamy". They acknowledge it's an exception to the rule, but they think their own acts are justifiable.
Re: Not even the ELCA heterosexuals are expected to really be in "committed relationships", so why is everyone worked up about trying to define this?
A relationship can be committed, and have a lot of good things in it, even if it isn't lifelong. I would assume that Mr. Dreher's relationship with whatever Protestant church he began his life in, was a fruitful one from which he and his church both benefited, even though he is no longer a Protestant.
I'm not aware that the ELCA, or for that matter the Episcopal Church, considers divorce a good thing. (NB: tolerance for divorce was traditionally limited to American Episcopalians- the Church of England would not remarry divorced people in church until an ill-advised change of policy in, I believe, 2003.) They consider it an evil which in our fallen world is sometimes the lesser of two evils, and they don't share the Roman Catholic viewpoint about to what extent to allow remarried people to participate in the life of the church, but that doesn't equate to endorsing the practice wholesale.
To me the big problem with divorce isn't that it constitutes a nonmarital sex act- it's that it constitutes the breach of a promise to one's spouse and to God, weakens other people's marriages, and often harms women and especially, children.
Charles Foster Kane,
It's true that rules about sex and marriage have changed, and will continue to change. The early church forbade the kind of Natural Family Planning that even the Catholic church endorses today, and apparently a good number of early Christian thinkers forbade the remarriage of widows. The Spirit is continuing to teach us, including about sexual morality. Nevertheless there are some overarching basic guidelines which are the same in all ages. The task of moral reasoning is to try and determine just what these basic guidelines are. I don't think that one will ever be able to justify concurrent sexual relationships (i.e. 'cheating on one's partner', by 'consent' or not) in a Christian moral framework.
Cecelia, thanks for the reference!
Here in Canada ; after several years of legal same-sex marriage, it is apparent that there's been no impact whatsoever on society or traditional marriage. That doesn't mean there is universal acceptance of this change. The religious right would turn back the clock in a heartbeat. but , I am firmly convinced that marriage wasn't the real issue to conservatives. It simply gave them a more acceptable and diplomatic vehicle with which to further their agenda. The overriding issue has always been as it will always be : a relentless opposition to the very existence of homosexual persons.
Well, from my personal experience, I think Rod may be right.
Some men I have had sex with have cut off the sex when they found boyfriends (only to start the fun up again when the relationship ended).
Other men I have had sex with continued to have sex with me even after they found a boyfriend. Sometimes. I was invited to join in with the man AND his boyfriend.
Needless to day, I have since washed my hands entirely of this kind of behavior.
I'm a lesbian. I married my partner. We are monogamous in the strictest sense of the word and intend to remain that way. I have met a few couples (gay and straight) who think monogamy is optional. Frankly, most I know don't and look down on that kind of thing. I think it is a mistake to confuse the self-appointed voices for the gay community with the experience of actual people on the ground. Gay people aren't some alien species. They are products of the larger community (their families, their churches, etc).