behavior if public education receives a part of the proceeds? Or what if churches hold bingo parties to raise money for their operation? Even if gambling is an inferior sort of activity, may we not reuse the old phrase, “The devil’s water being used to turn the Lord’s mill”?
I countered these rationales with a central argument: the essence of the act is chance, and in this way lies outside the Christian’s understanding of careful stewardship of resources. I noted that James Wall, editor of the widely–read periodical, “Christian Century,” had been decrying the increase of gambling, a practice he found inimical to the tradition of the Christian faith and one that exploited the human temptation to greed.
I also argued that other human behavior that involves chance, such as climbing a mountain, involves all sorts of prudential, cautionary preparation. In gambling, all caution goes out the window, unless of course it involves “smart money” which is unethical on the part of the gambler.
In 1964, the State of New Hampshire introduced the public lottery to gain public revenue. Since then almost all states have fallen in line, many with inter–state lotteries. In New Hampshire, the state’s road signs once read, “A lottery ticket is an ideal Christmas gift.”
Is not the institution of state–sponsored gambling, with its increase in addictive behavior, one sign of a disintegrating civilization? And a practice enhancing such decline? And if a public service is worth supporting why not ask for it in the out–front mode of progressive taxes, rather than subtly out of the back pocket of weaker citizens?
Alas, the horse is out of the barn. Even to speak and write in the above manner seems quaint, does it not?
The Gay Affair
In the Spring of 1978, in my seventh year as minister in Pullman, Washington, I undertook to bring to the Sunday morning pulpit four post–Easter messages on current social issues—gambling, abortion, homosexuality, and war. Nothing controversial about those, eh?
As it happened, the message on homosexuality fell on Father’s Day. I am sure I noticed that. Convinced that human sexual activity and procreation go hand in hand, I saw no reason to shift the topic to another date. One woman in the congregation found herself quite upset that the subject matter coincided with the celebration of the male parent.
In a few words, let me summarize what I said from the pulpit. I began with allusions to a few of the scripture texts which reference the subject: Gen 19:1–29; Lev 18:12, 20:13, and Rom 1:18–28. I noted, too, those texts that lift up heterosexual relationships: Gen 1:23 (male and female in creation), John 2:1–11 (wedding in Cana), and Eph 5:22–33 (analogy on unity in the church to unity in male/female marriage).
I spent extra time with Rom 1:18–28. Paul’s topic is idolatry. He asserts that those who bow to untrue Gods produce a darkening of minds. The turn to same–sex behavior becomes one of the expressions of some persons caught up in an idolatrous society. In this way, Paul seems to offer an implicit explanation as to why many homosexual persons do not feel this inclination is a matter of choice. Paul seems to speak of behavior modification by cultural influence.
I then turned to the arena of experience, though much, for better or worse, remained closeted in 1978. I referred to two persons. I mentioned Rev. Malcom Boyd, an Episcopal priest and writer, who had “outed” himself, noting that his book, Are You Running With Me Jesus?, had much good to say. I then quoted Rev. Nathaniel Guptill, then the UCC Conference Minister in Connecticut, who in public remarks, had argued that the aversion many people have to homosexual behavior probably should not be exorcised, “since it is a part of a system of sexual inhibitions that protects children from molestation by their parents and also sisters from their brothers, making intimate family life possible.”9
I then began to become persuasive through reason. I argued for the civil rights of homosexual persons, without moving to the approval of the lifestyle. Loving elements appearing in gay and adulterous relationships need not lead to approval.
I appealed to folk to “test the spirits,” so not to become swept along in tides of public opinion. I offered a quotation, growing out of what I called an “unfaithful spirit,” from a passage in Sally Gearhart and William Johnson, Loving Men/Loving Women:
As long as the church is able to perpetuate the belief that marriage and the family are the highest forms of human relationship it will be able to perpetuate itself as a heterosexual family–oriented institution . . . Heterosexual relationships and marriage as traditionally experienced are basically unhealthy.10
Under the “test the spirits” rubric, I referenced Thomas Maurer, a UCC minister and counselor, who argued that one’s sexual choices should be viewed as no more value weighted than one’s choice of cuisine.
I concluded with several propositions:
• First, the need “to confess the fallen aspects of our own sexual imaginations and practices . . . seeking to bring them into conformity with the mind of Christ.”
• Second, in civil society we need to oppose oppression and seek justice. In church we need to receive all persons on the basis of their Christian confession.
• Third, when it comes to the blessing or performing of same–sex unions in the life of the church, “we will decline courteously and firmly,” regarding this not as a civil matter but a consideration subject to Christian discretion.
The denomination into which I was ordained in 1968, the United Church of Christ, drew me in part on the basis of its history of social activism, its defense of the powerless. In the past couple of decades, the epigram, “God is still speaking” (alleged to have been first uttered by that great theologian, Gracie Allen), appeared as the sum of the denomination’s theories. In relation to the homosexual question, this meant that seven biblical passages, the natural law tradition and the advice of the historic church were inferior guidelines to the will of God when compared with the contemporary zeitgeist.
Once upon a time, I picked up the phone and called the UCC headquarters office in Cleveland, Ohio. I asked for the LGBT office. In a few seconds a male voice responded. We spoke courteously. Then I asked, “If I had called the UCC offices and asked for the office of traditional marriage, where would I have been referred?” He did not know. Now one should ask for LGBTQ, in order to be politically correct.
The UCC has prided itself on being the foremost mainline denomination in advocacy of the gay rights movement. A steep price has been paid. In 1957–1958 the UCC body came into being listing 2.4 million members. Now the claim is to 900,000 or so. The denomination’s leadership has been willing to jettison its members not on the LGBT bandwagon. Its small new member growth in recent years, to a significant extent, came through accession of members from the Metropolitan Church, the gay/lesbian dominant denomination. Even this has not prevented the most momentous membership decline among the major Protestant denominations. And as time goes by, there’s an effort to push the envelope. For example, now all sexuality education from cradle to grave is carried out jointly with the Unitarian–Universalist denomination.
Once, while Interim Minister at Bethel Church, I sat my confirmation class down to see a UCC produced film on the Amistad Incident, in which Congregationalists had played a virtuous and courageous Christian role. Much to my consternation, toward the close of the film there came a bit about the continual role of the UCC in its pursuit of peace and justice, including the gay rights movement in church and state.
As a matter of fact, the UCC denomination has gained a foothold on the pedestal it has chosen. If people hear of the UCC they think, “Oh, that’s the gay rights church.”
In 1998, four denominations approved a Formula of Agreement which enabled clergy in all four denominations to receive each other’s ministers without much problem. As I write, three of those denominations—Lutheran ELCA, Presbyterian USA, and the UCC, have experienced horrendous internal spasms over the ordination of practicing gay and lesbian persons, the approval of which has caused massive loss of churches and members. The other body,