Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, December 12, 1993 TAG: 9312090094
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cody Lowe
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
What church members would have gotten was an inspiring lesson in how people of faith can disagree without rancor, can argue with respect, can speak from the heart and listen with it at the same time.
The Roanoke College meeting - sponsored by the Virginia Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - was organized in response to the cry of anguish that went up in the denomination after the release of a task force report on sexuality in October.
People were distraught about the things they read in the newspaper from the report. Here was a church task force, they read, endorsing the performance of marriage ceremonies for homosexuals - something the denomination's council of bishops has specifically condemned.
The news account said the report endorsed masturbation, elevated the advocacy of condom use by sexually active teens to a moral imperative, condoned some sexual relations outside marriage.
And, the story said, the task force used the Bible to back up all its positions.
Many Lutherans - clergy and lay people alike - felt betrayed. Not only did this sound out of kilter with traditional, orthodox Lutheranism, but the committee didn't even have the decency to release the report to them before making a big media splash with it.
Bishops - including the Virginia Synod's Richard Bansemer - were immediately brought into the fire, attempting to limit the damage by encouraging ministers and parishioners to join in the study process, which included last week's meeting. This was, after all, merely a document for study - it was not an official pronouncement or position of the denomination.
Eventually, the 23-page report did get into the parishes. People read it. They talked about it some more. And they continued to write the Chicago headquarters of the denomination.
A legitimate criticism of the version of the Associated Press story that ran in the Roanoke Times & World-News was that it omitted crucial paragraphs that would have told readers that the document does endorse many traditional sexual teachings.
It encourages teens to wait to have sex until they are mature enough to make committed - presumably lifetime - commitments to a partner. It promotes marriage as the preferable, public statement of that commitment.
The study report condemns adultery, promiscuity, sexual abuse, intentionally spreading sexually transmitted diseases, prostitution, pornography, and advertising's "cynical manipulation of people's sexuality for commercial gain."
It also condemns discrimination toward people because of their sexual orientation.
Even after they had had a chance to read it, and discover for themselves that they would agree with much of the document, many people still felt dismay.
The mere existence of the disagreement - indeed, of the discussion - is cause for consternation by some on both sides of the issue. There are those who believe the traditional teaching against homosexual behavior ought to be good enough for anyone today. There are others who believe the complete acceptance of homosexuals into the life - and clergy - of the church should have happened years ago.
They are passionate positions that, as Roanoke College religion professor Robert Benne rightly points out, strike at the core of who we are. That is why, he says, we care more about church pronouncements on sexuality than we do its declarations on foreign policy.
At Tuesday's meeting, the passion was obviously there - among the panelists and among the clerics who sat around the tables discussing the presentations.
Passion was kept in check, however, by civility.
Being civil to each other is a notion that activists for causes often reserve a special disdain for. They believe civility - good manners - is a ploy by their enemies to exercise control over their activism. It is an "establishment" invention intended to keep control in the hands of those who already have it.
In my view, just the opposite should be true.
By insisting that people listen to each other without interrupting, a minority position should be assured a hearing. By insisting that people refrain from engaging in personality attacks, a minority view should remain free from the distortions of unrelated and immaterial emotions. By insisting that there be no threat of violence in an argument, legitimate passions can be vented.
Such was the case at Roanoke College last week.
If that example can be imitated in individual congregations in the coming months - and probably years - then this process may indeed turn out to be the wonderful teaching opportunity that Bishop Bansemer hopes it will be.
Lutherans - like many of their fellow Christians - will be forced by this debate to clarify their beliefs. If they take the challenge seriously, they will study, they will listen, they will teach, they will learn.
by CNB