For some people, the idea that anyone any time, any where should have to keep their pants zipped is anathema. Writing in the Huffington Post, The Rev. Debra Haffner, director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, shows us the next–but no doubt not final–frontier in the battle to sexually liberate America’s clergy:
On Friday, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted by a substantial margin to affirm the ministries of gay and lesbian clergy in “committed, lifelong, same-gender relationships.” In the words of my colleagues at the ELCA, the vote means “ending the discriminatory two‐tier system of the past and holding all ministers to the same high standard in their relationships.”
All of this is excellent news for same-sex couples, of course, but the emphasis on “committed, lifelong relationships” leaves out the single minister, the divorced minister, the widowed minister — whether gay, straight, or bisexual — who must still adhere to a standard of celibacy unless their partner status changes.
I’ve long believed that the major sexuality problem denominations face is that they are unable to acknowledge that celibacy until marriage doesn’t apply to most single adults. There are more than 75 million American adults who are single — more than at any time in history. We are marrying later, divorcing at high levels, and living longer, so more of us will be widowed. And as a whole, we’re having sexual relationships when we aren’t in marriages.
The ELCA has joined other denominations in confirming that it wants its clergy coupled for life — or sexless. But just as the prohibition on gay and lesbian clergy in relationships didn’t work (but merely drove people in relationships underground), I’m guessing that a lot of single clergy aren’t giving up sex, either. Further, an inability for clergy to live authentically open sexual lives may actually fuel misconduct and inappropriate behavior. It makes sense to require that clergy not engage in sexual relationships with congregants; it does not make sense to ask them to give up adult sexual lives outside of the congregation.
The Religious Institute has long called for a new sexual ethic to replace the traditional “celibacy until marriage, chastity after.” This new ethic is free of double standards based on sexual orientation, sex, gender or marital status. It calls for sexual relationships to be consensual, non-exploitative, honest, pleasurable and protected, whether inside or outside of a covenanted relationship. It insists that intimate relationships be grounded in communication and shared values.
Please allow me to translate: sex by any adult, loosely defined, that is agreeable to all parties is hunky-dory. Despite the title, there really are no discernible limits here–not just fornication, but adultery, polyamory, polygamy, and pretty much anything else you can think of is perfectly OK by Haffner’s Hefnerist approach. This is what the Unitarian Haffner is advocating, not just for swingin’ UUs, but for all religious leaders. The ELCA, in insisting on fidelity and commitment in relationships and celibacy for the uncommitted, is just not with it. For what it’s worth, Haffner has at least one fan among the repressed Lutheran clergy. “Dougk56” writes in the comments:
As an ELCA pastor, I think this is right on target. Nearly 20 years ago the ELCA attempted to adopt a sexuality statement that honestly addressed the changing nature of sexual relations. It went down in flames. Now we have adopted a much more conservative and hesitant document that is way behind the cultural curve and provides little in the way of genuine insight or guidance on these questions. Rather than frankly acknowledging people’s real sexual lives we are trying to prop up outdated standards which even conservative Christians are ignoring. Thanks for calling us out on this and highlighting the unresolved question of rewarding and responsible sex for singles.
By the way, in case anyone thinks this is just one nutball and her “institute” that think it’s time for clergy to drop their linen and start their grinnin’, check out the list of endorsers of the statement to which Haffner makes reference in her column. It’s not all Unitarians, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are over 3500 names on that list, over 75 of which are associated with the mainline’s many seminaries, and some of which are pretty well known: Walter Wink, James Cone, Douglas Ottati, Marvin Ellison, Paul Capetz, Barbara Lundblad, and Jack Rogers, along with a grab-bag of Episcopal and United Methodist bishops, lots of PCUSA, UCC, Baptist, Lutheran, and Disciples pastors, etc.
UODATE: I don’t normally point this sort of thing out, but Rev. Haffner came by to respond to my post, which she characterizes as “derisive and inaccurate.” Take a look at the rest of her comment and see what you think.
(Via T19.)
August 25, 2009 at 2:29 pm
This declaration is the ecclesiastical version of Penthouse magazine.
August 25, 2009 at 9:43 pm
David,
Thank you for this information.
Doesn’t Jack Rogers still go around under the monicker of “evangelical”? I wonder if he will now disavow that label?
August 26, 2009 at 8:03 am
I don’t know whether he still uses it or not. I do know he’s made a complete mockery of it if he does.
August 26, 2009 at 10:55 am
Dear Rev. Fischler:
Although surely faith leaders have different points of view on many issues, I found your characterization of our work derisive and inaccurate. Far from an anything goes ethic, we believe that the ethic we propose is more rigorous than a wedding band. Surely in your ministry, you know of marriages that don’t meet these criteria. I invite you and your readers to learn more about our work at http://www.religiousinstitute.org and to read my blog at http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com
In faith,
Rev. Debra W. Haffner
August 26, 2009 at 11:39 am
Rev. Haffner: Thank you for coming by. It’s hard to believe that with the publicity this piece has gotten you could have found the time to visit lil’ ol’ me. What would have been more helpful is if you had explained your views more fully, or answered anything that I actually said. Instead the response you offer is nothing but assertion combined with undefined terms (what does “rigorous” mean in the view you offer, for instance?).
Do I know marriages that don’t meet your criteria? Of course. But you have a long way to go before demonstrating that that means that sex outside marriage is a good idea, or that life-long, committed, monogamous relationships are somehow obsolete or unnecessary.
Was my response to your article “derisive”? Probably. That’s about what it was meant to be.
August 26, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Before the original author arrived, I was going to point out that most of what was written there is nothing new. Check out the sermons given at the Covenant Network gatherings and you’ll find some that reflect (parrot?) this same mindset. Anybody who thinks that the arguments in mainline churches are only about homosexual ordination and same sex marriage hasn’t been paying attention. It’s about replacing the Church’s understanding of sexual ethics with something completely different. It’s the chickens of the 60′s coming to roost in the church.
As to the content of the argument, it’s just silly. It’s not for us to base our ethics on statistics. So what “that celibacy until marriage doesn’t apply to most single adults.” After 2000 years, that whole “love your neighbor” things isn’t too popular, either. Should we ditch that with a more up to date version of the ethic that takes into account whether you’ve had your morning cup of coffee yet?
David: sometimes the best we can do is point and laugh. Keep up the good work.
August 26, 2009 at 12:29 pm
David–
Great catch… I agree with the other Rev. Dave– sometimes, laughter and derision at such, uh, rigorous, standards is exactly what is called for to show that the emperor really has no clothes.
Progressives are never happy unless they’re movin’ on down the road to perdition it seems… Proverbs and lady Folly come to mind…
great work, keep it up.
dm
August 26, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Thanks, Daves!
August 26, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I am always confused by the problems that conservative Christianity has with polyamory. You seem to be so afraid of open and honest relationships. The ability to love more than one person is inherent in our humanity, but conservative Christianity wants to crush that wonderful loving potential under the destructive oppression of life-long heterosexual monogamy (after marriage of course), which is very much counter to our evolutionary biological and psychological natures.
Why do you guys ignore these facts and require people to be what they are not in order to be your flavor of Christianity? No sex before marriage is sooo 1950′s and not realistic for most people.
August 26, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Dear Ms. Haffner,
I took the time to visit your website and blog and found Rev. Fischler’s assessment to be quite accurate. I too would like specifics about what you see to be distortions or misrepresentations.
It seems to me that you are in fact advocating an “anything goes ethic” among consenting adults. Your statement is clearly advancing open sexual behaviors among adults in an open-ended fashion as long as it is consensual. I would ask you to clarify if this is not waht you are advocating. I would also ask you to clearly lay out how your view is any different than that proposed by our postmodern culture. How is your view “christian”?
August 26, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Poly: I’ll go ask the couple in my church about to celebrate 70 years of marriage in October whether their “wonderful loving potential has been crushed under the destructive oppression of life long heterosexual monogamy.”
August 26, 2009 at 2:29 pm
One thing, Adel: Keep in mind that Rev. Haffner is a Unitarian, and therefore almost certainly doesn’t claim to be a Christan. She isn’t, therefore, obliged to justify her views in those terms. I do think it is an eminently fair question to ask how her view is any different from the culture at large.
August 26, 2009 at 2:36 pm
America as a society is being crushed by advocating that there is only one acceptable answer to responsible relationships and sexuality, which is distinctly contrary to reality. Not only is this destructive by denying our natures, but it is also promoting a possessive, jealous, and guilty mentality towards people, love, and sexuality. Because of this domestic abuse, crimes of passion, and adultery are not uncommon things, unfortunately. Being open, honest, and responsible for our sexuality and needs is looked down upon and made to be reprehensible. 0_o
Can we love more than one person? We most definitely can. We love more than one parent, grandparent, best friend, etc. Why does sexual or emotional intimacy have to be an arbitrary exception, and limited to 1 other?
Can monogamy work? Yes, it most definitely it can. You gave a wonderful example of that. They are special and very lucky. I applaud your couple. However, as we become more aware of our sexuality and our humanity we are finding that the rest of America, especially with our divorce and adultery rate being exemplary, that this is not the happy and contented norm.
jmmv
Unitarian Univeralists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA)
http://www.uupa.org/
Center for Sex Positive Culture
http://www.sexpositiveculture.org/
National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
http://www.ncsfreedom.org/
August 26, 2009 at 6:57 pm
The Unitarians in my area are in the forefront of pushing “polyamory.” Since Unitarians are not Christians and don’t believe in God, I’m not sure we can expect them to reflect any sort of Christian ethics or morals.
Here, the local Unitarian Polyamory Network is mainly a swinger’s pick-up group, or cheater’s excuse group, whatever you want to call it, painted up to be respectable, at least to some people. They call themselves “the ethical alternative to cheating.”
You can learn more about the UU Polyamorists here:
http://www.uupa.org/chapters
August 27, 2009 at 7:05 am
Jordan Hylden’s essay Brave New Church that pointed out the similarity between the sentiments of ‘Reverend’ Haffner (TEC/ELCA and the sexual rights culture) and Huxley’s Brave New World.
There is a discussion at Stand Firm here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24569
Sarah has posted a chilling quote from Brave New World here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24569#393840
Rev. Haffner is just another Spongian pansexual unbeliever…following the path of many other antinomians throughout history. Their so-called ‘freedom’ is a lie.
Theirs is the same old predictable downward path of slavery to sin… from decadence, denial, delusion, depravity, disease, to death – eternal death.
Hell on earth and hell in the afterlife.
These people are bent on turning the church into a synagogue of libertines and satan. (Acts 6:9; Revelation 2:9, 3:9)
August 27, 2009 at 10:01 am
“Since Unitarians are not Christians and don’t believe in God, I’m not sure we can expect them to reflect any sort of Christian ethics or morals.”
Whoa down there cowboy! What Unitarians do you know? The ones I know, and there are many, certainly don’t resemble your characterization.
The hubris pouring out on this thread is enough to be nauseating.
August 27, 2009 at 10:11 am
Unitarians? Perhaps you should look at Wikipedia’s article on Unitarianism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
and if you mean Unitarian Universalists then you still want to read Wikipedia’s article on them. UU’s are a bit more liberal but many, many are still Christian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
Because they are not ‘your’ flavor of Christianity does not mean that they are not Christians. I know a lot of UU’s and at least half are of the Christian persuasion. Your sweeping generality is incorrect at best.
August 27, 2009 at 10:22 am
Poly friend, the very first line of the link you provide proves you incorrect:
Christians believe in the Trinity.
August 27, 2009 at 10:40 am
I attended a fascinating debate between a professor at Iliff school of theology (a bastion of Whiteheadian panentheism) and a German Tubingen school professor who converted to historic orthodox Christianity. During the questioning time, when it became obvious that the Whitehead devotee held nothing in common, and everything opposed to historic Orthodox Christianity, the questioner asked how it was that this professor still referred to himself as a “Christian”.
He answered that he called himself a Christian, because chose to call himself a Christian.
Calling UU’s Christian, when their beliefs oppose historic orthodox Christianity at every core point is absolutely useless and destructive of basic communication/language.
August 27, 2009 at 10:43 am
Some Christians do believe in the Trinity, specifically your flavor of Christianity. Other flavors, as the link shows, do not believe in the Trinity.
Your very uber-conservative flavor is not the only flavor of Christianity out there.
August 27, 2009 at 11:37 am
Art: I actually know a fair number of Unitarians. My mother-in-law was a Unitarian. While the quoted statement goes a bit far–there are Unitarians who claim to be Christian, and there are those who say they believe in God–a substantial number would say they are atheists, and an overwhelming majority would say they are not Christians. That’s not a slur, it’s just the fact.
August 27, 2009 at 11:42 am
Poly: The overwhelming majority of Christians believe in the Trinity. They may not understand it (no one does, entirely), but to make a statement such as “some Christians believe in the Trinity” is just simply ignorant. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alone make up a large majority of the world’s Christians, and both are Trinitarian to the core. Virtually all evangelicals are as well, along with most mainliners. Are they all “uber-conservative”?
Of course, you may be speaking from what I’ve long termed the “maggot’s eye view of the world.” In the maggot’s eye view, everything that can be seen is garbage. From your point of view, it may be that everything that in line with your own thinking is “uber-conservative.” But that doesn’t make it so.
August 27, 2009 at 11:53 am
“an overwhelming majority would say they are not Christians.”
I guess it depends upon the group of Unitarians you happen to bump into. They’re the most diverse church I’ve ever encountered, and they vary widely in composition from place to place. For instance, the one in my area, which I have visited on many occasions, is predominantly Christian and Trinitarian, but there are also Atheists there.
I always get a kick out of the tripping, stumbling, and general ignorance that is displayed whenever people try to make generalizations concerning the Unitarians.
August 27, 2009 at 12:17 pm
From religioustolerance.org:
According to a 1997 survey of almost 10,000 UUs gave their theological perspective as:
•46.1% Humanist. This is the most common belief system.
•19% identify themselves as Nature or Earth centered religion (e.g. Wiccan, Druid or other Neopagan tradition.
•13% describe themselves simply as Theist.
•9.3% self-identify as Christian.
•6.2% are mystic.
•3.6% are Buddhist.
•Other perspectives listed are Jewish at 1.3%, Hindu at 0.4%, Muslim at 0.1% and other at 13.3%
Me, I always get a kick out of people who try to generalize from their personal experience or, better yet, act as though they know what they are talking about when they really don’t.
August 27, 2009 at 12:37 pm
David,
That is a very informatiave link you provided…thank you.
What I found quite interesting is this portion…
“It is obvious that the “glue” that holds congregations together is not a shared theological belief system, as it is in almost all other religious groups. The 1997 survey found that the four most important factors are:
Shared values and principles: 52.1%
Acceptance, respect and support for each other as individuals: 42.5%
A desire to take religious questions seriously: 14.6%
Commitment to social justice and public witness: 11.5%”
What is most interesting to me, as I am currently in the PCUSA, is that these are the precise reasons that are given for unity by the leaders. I wonder if this is true among Episcopalians, Methodists, American Baptists, ELCA, etc. It seems very clear that unless God were to intervene there will be no distinction between mainliners and UUs except labels.
August 27, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Wow! A whole 10,000 of ‘em eh. I guess they also gave information as to how these people were distributed among the congregations?
Now you know full well that I wasn’t generalizing, don’t you?
August 27, 2009 at 1:09 pm
The website says:
“The 1997 Unitarian Universalism Needs and Aspirations Survey,” at: http://www.uua.org/ The respondents were self-selected from among the recipients of the WORLD periodical. There may be some bias in the survey.
Even so, 9.3% is a small percentage.
Poly, is everyone who says they are a Christian a Christian? What, in your view, constitutes a Christian? Anyone who says they are?
If you were talking to someone who said they were a devout Marxist, and then in the next breath said that they believed that private property ownership was a good thing – you’d know that, no matter what they said, they weren’t a Marxist.
If you were talking to someone who said they were a devout Muslim, and in the next breath he said that he didn’t believe that God was one and Mohammed was His prophet, you’d know that whatever they said, they weren’t a Muslim.
A person who does not believe in the Trinity, or that Jesus was the son of God, is not a Christian by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
August 27, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Art, the total membership of the UUA is only about 217,000 (as of 2001). A similar survey of the PCUSA would get results from over 100,000! A similar survey of voters before a presidential election would have to talk to over 5,000,000 (!), instead of the 500-1500 that is typical. Can’t you just admit that you’re wrong?
August 27, 2009 at 4:27 pm
David,
I’m not going to admit to something that simply isn’t true. The UU Congregation in my community is predominantly Christian. That’s simply a fact. I claimed nothing more than that, and I didn’t try to draw any generalization from it either. If you would care to re-read my previous comments, you would see that. So drop the holier than thou crap and admit that you misinterpreted what I wrote.
I’ll ask you again; did the study discuss how those members were distributed among the congregations? That information could explain why the UU congregations you and I are familiar with are so different.
August 27, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I’m not going to admit to something that simply isn’t true.
That statement is a generalization about the beliefs of UUs. It is stated as if it were a fact. It is stated on the basis of your experience of one congregation. It flies in the face of a large-scale survey that, while undoubtedly skewed to some degree by the element of self-selection, is nevertheless based on a far larger sample than the one congregation with which you are familiar. It is a survey the validity of which is recognized even by those in the UUA who consider themselves Christians (though they also suggest the number may be as high as 25%. See here for one example.
August 27, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I’m a scratch golfer, b/c I choose to say I am. To say otherwise is simply not true. Who is anyone to say that their definition of “par” is the only one.
August 28, 2009 at 7:55 am
David,
Stop saying I tried to draw a generalization about the denomination from one congregation. I didn’t. I made a specific observation (indeed I stated a fact) about a specific congregation and drew no conclusion about the broader denomination other than to point out their diversity, which the study does as well. Go back and re-read what I wrote until you comprehend that.
I have seen more than one UUA congregation, and I would also state that they are diverse and somewhat clustered (not conforming to the distribution spelled out in the study) as well.
Do you know anything about sampling statistics? No, of course you don’t, that was obvious by your 1:10 pm comment. I, on the other hand, have taught classes in statistics, and partially make my living doing statistical pattern recognition. So pay attention.
You stated that they suggest that the number of Christians in the UUA may be as high as 25% (as opposed to the ~9% stated in the study). To me, that sends up a red flag that the sample space might have been too small (as I thought it might have been). The problem is that it is difficult to obtain a representative random sample of a population when the population tends to form clusters of similar individuals (in other words, they aren’t uniformly spread out). Sampling about 1 in 20 as they did could easily result in a poor sample. This is why I asked you if they mentioned anything about how their members were distributed.
Obviously this whole discussion has gone way over your head.
August 28, 2009 at 9:00 am
Such a shining example of Christian charity…
August 28, 2009 at 9:26 am
Kate,
Yes, David really is a hoot, isn’t he. So charitable!
August 28, 2009 at 9:50 am
Stop proving my point, Art.
August 29, 2009 at 12:51 pm
It is revealing how many prominent Presbyterian supporters of gay ordination support the “Bump ‘n grind” theology of this declaration.