Fred Glennon
Le Moyne College

Introduction

Many thoughtful theologians, ethicists, and church leaders, clergy and lay, are struggling with the question of homosexuality and what to do about it. The question is not simply theoretical or abstract. Rather, gay and lesbian Christians and their heterosexual supporters are seeking, some say demanding, acceptance as full members of the church with all the rights, privileges, and duties church membership entails. Not only do they want the church to affirm their sexuality; they also want the church to open up all church offices and rituals to them, including ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions. The churches have debated this issue intensely for the past twenty-five years or so and, in light of recent actions by many mainline churches, the debate is likely to continue.

Into this context, people on both sides of the debate have used the biblical language of covenant as a way of framing the issue. They speak about the church’s covenant with God, the church as a covenant community, and the covenant of marriage; and they ask if and in what ways these covenant relationships can include gay and lesbian Christians. Does the language of covenant provide a theological and ethical framework for helping resolve the debate about homosexuality?

In a series of recent essays, most notably in his Covenants and Commitments, Max Stackhouse has argued that there is a universal moral law instituted by God that, he contends, holds up heterosexuality as normative for human sexual expression. Because of his identification as a covenantal ethicist, the implication is that a covenantal sexual ethic, if it is to remain true to the tradition of covenant, must be heterocentric. He goes so far as to say that those who affirm homosexual relationships as legitimate abandon the notion of covenant in favor of contract, where "the felt needs of individuals is sovereign, with doubt as to whether any normative order exists for such relationship" (1997, 32). He further supports his position by recounting how most mainline ecumenical Protestant denominations, especially those in the Reformed tradition, are holding the line on heterosexuality as the norm for sexual and marital relations. To his credit, Stackhouse recognizes the human inability to fully understand God’s moral order, reflected historically in the exclusion of women and persons of different racial and ethnic backgrounds from covenant community. Thus, there is a need for careful deliberation and openness. Yet he states that it is clear that God's moral law for sexual expression is heterosexuality.

In this essay, I will contend that the need for discernment on this issue continues. I will argue that it is reasonable to conclude, differently than Stackhouse, that what is normative about a covenantal ethic of sexual expression is not heterosexuality, but whether those sexual expressions and the relationships in which they occur are mutual, reciprocal, faithful, and just. These qualities are what constitute ethical sexual relationships not their sexual orientation. I make this argument drawing some from the work of other ethicists who write from a covenantal framework, but mostly from the insights and wisdom of covenantal congregations I have studied, two of which I highlight in this paper. In their struggle to discern God’s will for their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, they have discovered that God’s law says more about norms for sexual expression than about sexual orientation. Moreover, in their affirmation of homosexual relationships, they have not abandoned covenant but furthered our understanding of what God’s covenant entails.

Methodology

My procedure in this paper will be, first, to lay out Max Stackhouse’s argument about heterosexuality as normative for a covenantal sexual ethic. I will critique it briefly using the arguments of other theologians and ethicists on what covenant entails. My methodology, however, is to rely not simply on theological tradition and reflection, but to ground both in the ecclesiastical practices and experiences of specific congregations. My reason for choosing such a methodology is that, in a context where Christians of all walks contest hotly the scriptural and theological traditions on homosexuality, careful moral reasoning drawn from the experiences of Christian communities struggling with this issue becomes an important source of ethical insight.

I will introduce the reader to the discernment process of two congregations who came to a different conclusion than Stackhouse because they approached this issue from their desire to live out their covenantal self-understanding of the nature and mission of the church. What does it mean to be in covenant with God and with gay and lesbian Christians? What does God’s covenant say about appropriate sexual expression for couples seeking to live together in faithful, committed relationships in a heterosexist society that denies them the same basic rights afforded to heterosexual couples? Both congregations looked at the biblical and theological traditions and, rather than finding heterosexuality as normative for sexual relations, discerned that the norms of God’s inclusive covenant--mutuality, reciprocity, faithfulness, and justice, norms that Stackhouse also affirms—are the most appropriate measures for all relationships.

Before doing an analysis of Stackhouse’s argument, it is imperative to clarify why I chose the term heterocentric versus heterosexist in the title of this paper. A heterocentric perspective argues that heterosexuality is normative for sexual expression; this is the ideal or God’s intention for sexual expression. All other forms of sexual expression may approximate this ideal, but they are always less than the ideal. Heterosexism refers to the way in which a heterosexual norm generates prejudice and structures in society that relegate non-heterosexuals to second class citizenship. These structures often give rise to injustice that result in the oppression of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. The thoughtful heterocentric positions I am challenging in this paper understand fully the kind of injustice that occurs against gays and lesbians in society. They do not condone such actions and seek public policies that provide justice for all. Thus, it is difficult to see them as heterosexist. It may be true that all heterocentric positions, when embodied in social structures, result in heterosexism. It may be impossible for institutions and societies to be heterocentric and not heterosexist. (I will raise this question again near the end of the essay.) But any thorough analysis of this issue is beyond the scope of this essay.

Max Stackhouse on Covenant and Homosexuality

Stackhouse makes his argument about heterosexuality as normative for a covenantal sexual ethic most strongly in his book, Covenant and Commitments. This is one of a series of books on family, religion, and culture. This context is important because Stackhouse intends his book to provide "a viable ethic for family life in our times, in view of the challenges posed by our changing social and economic context" (1997, 1). For him, the language of covenant is central because it provides a firmer social structural foundation for understanding the family and political freedom than modern reliance on the state or the individual, especially in light of the family's critical role in the development of civil society. But he wants to ground that covenantal ethic in our given biological structure of male-female union.

Stackhouse sees revealed in the creation stories in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible an onto-theological order that establishes heterosexuality as the norm for all sexual expression. He says that normative structure has three elements, fidelity, fecundity, and family (1997, 16-19). The fundamental relationship people have with God and with others is "fidelity in communion." By this he means that people are social creatures, finding fulfillment only in relationship with others. With regard to sexuality, the biophysical complementarity of male and female is a part of that created relational structure, that God-given moral order that everyone knows and to which they must be faithful.

The second element of human sexuality, and its divinely ordained purpose, is generativity, which in its broadest sense means using the resources of creation to see that life flourishes. In this way we take responsibility for and contribute to future life. For human sexuality a critical component of generativity is fecundity, the ability to reproduce or openness to the possibility of procreation through which we participate in God's ongoing creativity. Stackhouse notes that having children is not the only way to take responsibility for the future. A Christian can feel called to forsake procreation to serve God or human need more fully. These other ways, however, do not supplant the primary purpose of human sexuality given in creation.

To these two theological-biological norms Stackhouse says the biblical texts add the sociotheological norm of family, the social institution where fidelity and fecundity are sustained and become part of the general pattern of the common life. Stackhouse recognizes that the surrounding cultural, economic, and political context influences the shape of the family structure. Thus, in the American context families are more egalitarian and democratic in structure than the patriarchal patterns reflected in the Bible. Yet the functions of the family, such as the nurture and moral and religious education of children, continue.

These three elements of the structure of human sexuality became normative for sexual expression not only for the biblical writers but also for the Reformers, Stackhouse argues. And they continue to ring true for most believers today. Stackhouse recognizes that the theological and ethical understandings of sexuality have changed over time as people have discerned new insights about the first principles and ultimate ends of life. He has seen this happen with regard to the changing role of women in the family, in church, and in society. Yet the one principle he doesn’t see changing is the heteronormative reality that reflects the right ordering and ultimate ends of human sexuality. A quarter century of debate within the church has resulted in continued rejection of efforts to overturn this classical teaching. Not only does it have biblical and theological grounding, it is also "rooted in one of the deeper tissues of human existence, reason" (1997, 20). This is how God wants us to live.

What is the relationship between this view of human sexuality and a covenantal ethic? Stackhouse argues that all sexual expression should take place in the context of covenanted relationships. Why? Drawing from his understanding of the covenantal heritage, Stackhouse contends covenants provide the kind of "binding commitments that give shape to life in ways that approximate, under conditions of sin, the patterns and purposes of holy living that God intends" (1997, 26). The classical tradition of covenantal ethics expressed in the Reformed tradition, with their balance of freedom and mutual obligation, rights and duties, are the best way to assure that we fulfill the heteronormative order of fidelity, generativity, and family given by God in creation. If Christians are to be faithful to their covenant with God, we must honor and reflect God's intentions for sexual expression in human relationships.

The marriage covenant is a good example. In this covenant relationship, people make promises and commit themselves to one another and to the order that God intends. For Stackhouse, the marriage covenant is not just simply an agreement or contract that can be made or broken according to the desires of the partners involved. Rather, this covenant "is an agreement made under terms which are understood to be given by God" (1998, 646). While he admits that the unitive dimension of sexuality in marriage, of companionship, mutuality, and bonds of love and affection, becomes more central for the Reformers and Puritans, it does not replace the purpose of that sexuality, fecundity.

What does this norm mean for homosexual persons? "All other options are properly seen as adjustments, exceptions, compromises, or relative approximations" (1997, 19). He admits that many same-sex relationships have as much, if not more, moral integrity than some heterosexual unions. But he still sees them as less than the ideal God has given in the structures of creation. Stackhouse is critical of those who affirm same-sex relationships on the ground that because there is love, God must be part of it. Covenant is more than just a partnership that two people agree upon. That is more of a contract than a covenant. A covenantal view includes "the idea that one structure of sexual life is normative, above any other," that is "a manifestation of a binding architecture of mutuality, established by God, for the well-being of humanity"(1997, 32). Same-sex unions can be approximations of the covenant ideal but they are missing faithfulness to the divinely ordained purpose of God.

Critique

Not everyone who seeks to understand the implications of covenant for sexual ethics would draw the normative line at heterosexuality. Stackhouse suggests two reasons why this is the case: either the order is not clarified in persuasive ways; or people want it to be otherwise, so they obscure and resist what they dislike. I doubt whether or not these two reasons fully explain the objections people have to his argument. For some, his understanding of creation and covenant are not convincing (although they do understand what he has to say). This is true on several counts.

First, some writers looking at the Genesis stories come to a different conclusion about the meaning of those stories. Paula Cooey argues that the normative claim of the Genesis accounts is about difference not heterosexuality. "That God created all humans in God’s image establishes a kinship among humans that forms one of the two necessary conditions for all particular human relationships, namely commonality. That God created humans different from one another, as witnessed by the creation of Adam and Eve, constitutes the second necessary condition for all particular relationships" (1993, 75). For her creation as male and female indicates that difference, not sexual difference, is essential to covenant. David Matzko concurs. The complementarity required for a person’s "coming to be" is not founded on sexual differentiation, but it is still founded on a real "otherness." There is plenty of otherness in same sex relationships (Heim 1998, 647). Eric Mount agrees with Stackhouse that sexuality should be expressed within covenantal relationships, but is less sure about whether a covenantal ethic requires a heteronormative conclusion. Rather, he contends that the "elevation of difference and relationship over law and order in this instance holds more covenantal promise for the common good" (1999, 67).

Others challenge Stackhouse's notion of generativity. Stackhouse says that the biophysical dimension of generativity, "of connectedness across generations," is critical because it expresses the willingness to live for the wider and ongoing community (Heim, 1998, 646). Luke Johnson challenges this biophysical view. Johnson contends that there is a continuum of what is life-giving. Bearing children may be the most obvious way of doing that, but it’s not the only way. "Since there’s no evidence that 90 percent of people are going to become homosexual, I don’t think the gene pool is under immediate threat. And there’s no reason why gay couples can’t, through adoption or other means, have children and be part of passing on life from generation to generation" (Heim 1998, 647). Matzko agrees that the generativity needed in marriage is not simply a matter of having children. But they should offer concrete efforts that are life-giving to the community. For childless couples, there can be analogous contributions that can be made to the life of the community.

My questioning of Stackhouse’s argument revolves around his insistence that heterosexuality is the only norm for a covenantal sexual ethic. Can there be other norms within a covenantal sexual ethic that will affirm some same-sex unions? Stackhouse addresses my question in part when he looks at Jung and Smith’s study on heterosexism. He notes that they contend that the Protestant heritage locates "sexuality in the context of a covenanted relationship of joyful love that required both voluntary commitment and equality between partners, and it found the grace of God present in this relationship." Stackhouse suggests that their question (and mine) is, "Why could covenant, love, blessing, joy, voluntary commitment, and equality not apply also to homosexual relationships" (1997, 37)? He says that from the deeper assumptions of covenantal theology, they may. But a fully covenantal view, he argues, places these in the onto-theological framework of fidelity, fecundity, and family.

This is true, however, only if one accepts the heteronormative ideal as determinative for covenant. Are there other possibilities for covenantal sexual ethics? Does this decision to recognize same-sex unions as a variation not a deviation mean that one's ethic cannot be fully covenantal? I would argue that this is true only if one begins with the normative structure of human sexuality Stackhouse sees given in creation. If one begins the discussion of a covenantal sexual ethic from a different starting point, like the experiences of churches seeking to live as a covenant community in relationship with gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, it is possible that one may reach a different conclusion about what a fully covenantal sexual ethic entails. This was the case for two congregations I studied. These two groups of thoughtful, committed Christians, who understand themselves in terms of a covenant theology have come to a somewhat different understanding of the meaning and requirements of covenant with relationship to sexual expression, and we cannot simply dismiss the deliberations of these Christians as confused or self-interested. What follows is a discussion of their experiences and the insights we can draw from them.

Insights from Congregations

To raise the possibility that a covenantal sexual ethic may include same-sex relations, I have chosen to include the insights generated by the discernment of two congregations that I have studied recently, Pullen Memorial and Oakhurst Baptist, who, after years of deliberation and struggle, have decided that the plausibility exists. As noted previously, my reason for using congregational studies is that, given the debate over the scriptural and biblical tradition on homosexuality, rational and faithful reflection on experience becomes more significant for this issue. My reason for looking at these two particular congregations is that they understand themselves as covenant communities that are self-consciously seeking to remain faithful to their covenantal relationship with both God and with their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. They view their covenant with God as a given. In the preamble to their 1997 covenant, Oakhurst Baptist Church contends: "We are together only to be the church of God in Christ. We are not here by chance, but God through grace is making of us a fellowship to embody and to express the Spirit of Christ." Similarly, Pullen Memorial stresses that the life of the church is a gift and revolves around their "sense of being graced." The pastor writes, "We love because we were first loved. We live because life is given. It’s a gift, not our creation."

Yet both congregations also recognize that there is an element of consent to the covenant relationships they are forming, consent to what God is calling them to be and to do, especially in relation with their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, which is not as clear as Stackhouse believes. This discernment process is most critical at the level of the congregation. While denominations as a whole are also seeking to address this issue, they can remain more abstract; the debate can be more philosophical and rhetorical. This is less the case at the level of the congregation where people, who are already in relationship with gays and lesbians (they are brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors), seek the wisdom and leading of the Spirit of God. This is where the covenant is embodied, in relationships and ritual.

Another reason for choosing these congregations is that they are both Baptist, affiliated with both the American Baptist and the Southern Baptist denominations. Stackhouse suggests that people who are not persuaded by the heterosexual ideal want it to be otherwise, so they obscure and resist what they dislike. This could not be further from the truth for these congregations. In many ways, they came to the issue kicking and screaming recognizing the potential costs, within their congregations and denominations, questioning the heterocentric ideal would entail. The discernment process took years to complete, and both congregations have lost their denominational affiliation. In the end, however, they felt that this is where the Spirit of God was leading them if they were to remain faithful to their covenant with God.

The context for the two congregations in many ways is the same. Aside from their Baptist roots, both congregations acknowledge that we live in a heterosexist society that continues to abuse, marginalize, and oppress gays and lesbians. This oppression is present in social and economic structures; but members of the homosexual community have internalized the oppression as well. The congregations also had gay and lesbian Christians participating in their church communities as members and friends who were seeking acceptance into the congregation. A major reason for their participation is that both congregations have a reputation of being biblically grounded and inclusive communities, committed to sexual, racial, economic, and ecological justice.

A. Pullen Memorial’s Holy Union Process

The catalyst for Pullen Memorial’s decision to become both a welcoming and affirming congregation was that the pastor had been asked to bless a same-sex union. Part of the reason for the couple’s decision to ask for that blessing was that clergy and lay leaders had spoken out against the injustice perpetrated against gays and lesbians and they felt the community was a very welcoming place. Moreover, the church had formed an Open Forum on Homosexuality and the Church (modeled on the United Methodist process of Reconciling Congregations Program) to explore the church’s response to homosexuality and the injustices they faced. That group, composed of heterosexual and homosexual persons, had been meeting for almost a year and had become a close-knit, caring, and trusting community. The pastor turned the matter over to the Board of Deacons and the congregation because he felt the request was also about the identity and mission of the church, and only the "wisdom of the congregation" could make this decision. After establishing a lengthy process of deliberation, through small group meetings and open forums, the congregation put the question to a vote.

In its deliberations, the congregation came to significant conclusions about what it means to be a covenant community, about the nature and purpose of sexuality, and about the ethical norms governing sexual expression. Throughout the process the church continued to ask the question of identity and integrity. "What would God have us do, what does it mean to be a faithful, obedient body of Christ?" (Long, 1996, 25). The congregation answered those questions with the first two items on the ballot:

As a Christian community dedicated to the ministry of reconciliation, we reaffirm that all are welcome and accepted into the worship and fellowship of the Pullen community. We reaffirm that all people are recipients of God’s love and grace. God intends the church to be a community which embodies love, grace and justice for all people. We invite as members of Pullen all who believe in God revealed in Christ and seek to worship and serve that God. (98% approval)

As a sign of faithfulness to God’s covenant with all humankind, we discern that God is challenging the Christian community to accept all persons without regard to sexual orientation into our fellowship. We affirm the participation of gay men and lesbians in our congregational life together and seek to utilize the gifts of all persons in our congregation. We believe that our faithfulness to God’s covenant with all humankind will be a source of reconciliation to those who have felt alienated from God and the church. (93% approval)

In these two statements, the church indicates that they are covenant community under God and that God’s covenant is inclusive of all persons regardless of sexual orientation. Because all persons are a part of God’s covenant community the church must welcome them into the community and demonstrate equal respect for all.

Equally important to the vote was the general consensus of the community that the process reflected the qualities of covenant, with many members expressing that they had experienced a sense of community and depth of caring not often experienced in the institutional Church (Levi, 1993, 2). Even those who dissented on the question of blessing same-sex unions felt the freedom to voice their opposition openly and freely without fear of hostility. After the vote, avenues to voice disagreements remained open. As a result, only about a dozen families left the congregation over this issue (out of a membership of 750 that has since grown to 900).

The congregation also came to an understanding of the nature of sexuality and its responsible expression. Their search for answers regarding human sexuality began "with the understanding that there exists no theology of heterosexuality or theology of homosexuality but, rather, a theology of personhood" (Levi, 1993, 6). This includes both sexuality and spirituality, which they see as complementary traits of a healthy personality, not polar opposites. After studying the bible, the historical tradition, and scientific evidence they concluded, differently than Stackhouse, that humans "have a wide range of sexual responsiveness and that homosexuality is a part of our biological diversity." The congregation felt the Bible did not address same-gender sexual orientation but condemned exploitative, promiscuous behavior. They resolved that the Genesis stories were not affirming heterosexuality as normative, but illustrating that "the gift of sexuality is a source of personal fulfillment and enrichment as well as a means of strengthening the bonds between loving couples—whether homosexual or heterosexual" (Levi, 1993, 2-3, 4). If sexuality is a gift, then it seems cruel to ask homosexuals not to express that gift. While sexuality is a gift, it is subject to abuse and misuse. Sin enters when the sexual act is harmful to oneself or to others. Love and commitment, they insisted, belong together. In this way they sought to "promote responsible stewardship of this gift of sexuality—for both heterosexual and homosexual." For them this meant that our use of the gift should honor "God’s desire for relationships marked by delight, faithfulness and mutual respect" (Long, 1996, 21, 19).

The final issue, therefore, was whether or not to affirm same-sex unions. While this element on the ballot received less support (only 66%), the endorsement was nonetheless overwhelming. In their view, their acceptance of same-sex unions sent two symbolic messages to Christians, gay and straight. First, blessing these unions expressed their commitment to stand with Jesus in ministry to the marginalized of society. They had begun this effort when they entered into covenant with their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Blessing same-sex unions was a continuation of that covenant. As one of the small groups expressed this commitment, "Having accepted as members individuals who are gay, we would be breaking our covenant with them if we did not support them in making a public statement of their commitment to God and each other" (Long, 1996, 33).

Second, affirming same-sex unions "symbolizes the legitimacy of such relationships, especially in its rejection of promiscuity and its upholding of the ideal of fidelity and monogamy." Like Stackhouse, Pullen is concerned with norms for sexual expression and behavior. They agree that all sexual expression should take place in the context of covenantal relationships. They came to believe, however, that it is the quality of the relationship that has greater bearing on the ethical dimensions than the gender of the persons involved. God intends the gift of sexuality "to be shared responsibly and lovingly by both homosexuals and heterosexuals" (Levi, 1993, 7, 3). The best context for such responsible expression is a covenant relationship of mutuality, commitment and trust. The church should support the establishment of such covenants because, after all, the mission of the church is "the nurture of faithful covenants and the healing of broken covenants" (Long, 1996, 30). The support they provided was not only to establish a covenantal model for same-sex union services, but they also connected those covenants with the broader church covenant. Reflecting on the service blessing of the union of two women, Pat Long writes, "The whole congregation did, in fact, enter into covenant. Just as Pullen people do in receiving a new member or dedicating a baby or baptizing a believer, the congregation made promises to support and participate in the lives they were blessing" (1996, 93).

Oakhurst’s Revision of the Covenant

At Oakhurst Baptist, the catalyst for deciding whether or not to bless same-sex unions, and the ordination of openly gay people, was the confluence of 20 years of conversation about the question of homosexuality and the process of revising the church covenant. As with Pullen Memorial, Oakhurst had experienced growth in the number of gay and lesbian members, some of them couples with children, participating in the life of the congregation; in church mission activities, as Sunday School teachers, and as deacons. The majority of them came because Oakhurst had a tradition of being an inclusive, biblically based community, expressed clearly in the covenant that the church placed on a large banner that hangs prominently in the sanctuary.

In 1974, Oakhurst adopted a specific covenant that expressed their identity as an inclusive community that would treat all persons with equal respect and dignity.

In this fellowship, "we are no longer Jews or Greeks or slaves or free men or even merely men or women, but we are all the same; we are Christians; we are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28, Living Bible). Therefore we reject any status in this fellowship in terms of church office, wealth, race, age, sex, education, or other distinctions.

In addition, the covenant laid out the kind of commitments and qualities of relationships expected of all members of the congregation, such as trust, openness, and mutual responsibility. The document took two years of meetings and discussions before it was adopted unanimously by the congregation. This carefully crafted covenant, writes church historian Alverta Wright, "would serve to define the community and would become the central document around which the future would unfold"(1985, 57). To insure this would happen, not only did the church display the covenant on a banner, they established a standing Covenant Committee, held yearly covenant renewal Sundays, formed small groups annually to discuss the implications of the covenant, and included discussion of the covenant in new member orientation classes. As a result, the covenant helped to knit the Oakhurst community together, "in bonds of mutual responsibility, respect, and cooperation." Most importantly, the covenant became a living document, through the church’s commitment to racial and gender equality, its missions to the hungry, the homeless, the imprisoned, and the victims of AIDS, and its advocacy of peace, justice, and reconciliation. This covenant, both written and embodied, is what drew so many people, gay and straight, to Oakhurst.

The desire to revise the covenant emerged because a large segment of the membership felt that the context and the community had changed and, if the covenant was to remain a "living document," the covenant needed to reflect those changes. In terms of context, advocates for change noted, first of all, that the liturgy and worship at Oakhurst used more inclusive language than the covenant. One member commented, "It struck me as strange that the language of the first covenant was not as inclusive as the intent of the covenant. I realize though that it was a product of its time." Of greater concern was the growing prejudice and violence in American society against gays and lesbians, some of whom were members of their church community. What did it mean to be the Church of Jesus Christ in this context? What are the implications of accepting gays and lesbians as full members of their community?

The process of revising the covenant took two years to complete. Aside from inclusive pronouns for God, the most controversial change was the inclusion of sexual orientation. Some members of the congregation believed the first covenant addressed their concern with its rejection of any status in terms of "sex" or "other distinctions." Gay and lesbian members of the congregation felt that this was not sufficient. Not only were distinctions based on status rejected in the first covenant, they were named and delineated. As one gay member voiced it, "To really name them provides a whole lot more power." They wanted to be named as well. In their deliberations, the congregation took this argument to heart and decided to name other distinctions in the revised covenant as well. The new covenant adopted in 1997 reads:

In this fellowship, "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of us are one in Christ Jesus"(Galatians 3:28). Therefore, we reject any status in this fellowship in terms of church office, possessions, education, race, age, gender, sexual orientation, mental ability, physical ability, or other distinctions.

Some critics of the church charged that the main motivation for including gay and lesbians as full participants was "political correctness." But this statement ignores the identity and history of the church. The motivation for changing the covenant was to live out its understanding of the church as an inclusive covenant community, characterized by mutuality, equality, and justice, especially for the marginalized.

The congregation lived these covenantal characteristics in the process of discernment over changing the covenant. One member of the committee commented, "We gained trust because we always provided avenues for the congregation to voice their views, orally and written." Dissension was incorporated right from the beginning. One of the members of the covenant revision committee was an outspoken critic of the change, partly because of her belief about sex and marriage, partly because she believed the former covenant addressed the concerns being raised. She voiced her concerns openly throughout the two-year process and even in the final meeting when the congregation voted to change the covenant. Yet throughout she felt the support of her community. "Nobody turned their back on me." As a result of this open, mutual, and trusting process of dialogue and discernment, there were only 12 negative votes on the covenant revision and no one left the congregation.

Once the congregation came to the decision to revise the covenant, the covenant formed the basis for further decisions in the life of the congregation. A task force on homosexuality had been operative even before the covenant revision occurred. Their charge was to look at the implications of homosexuality for ordination and same-sex unions. With regard to the ordination of homosexuals to the ministry, the congregation already had ordained an openly gay deacon. The reason was the covenant obligated all members to "discover and affirm the gifts" God had given them "and use them in God’s service;" and to "evoke, affirm, and celebrate the gifts God has given to others." The diaconal candidate clearly had the gifts for ministry and they ordained him. But now an openly gay man sought ordination to ministry. The decision to make no distinctions according to sexual orientation and this covenant practice of affirming gifts enabled the congregation to focus on the gifts of the person for ministry, not his or her sexuality. They ordained him a few months later.

On the issue of same-sex unions, the church’s understanding of God’s covenant and their covenant with each other, led them to accept the possibility that the celebration of same-sex unions was "appropriate, desirable, and consistent." Like Pullen Memorial, Oakhurst had been engaged in conversation about the morality of homosexuality for years. They looked carefully at every biblical text that dealt with sexuality and homosexuality, and they took seriously the scientific evidence that homosexuality might be an orientation rather than a choice. They concluded that for whatever reason, or for no reason at all, God had made homosexuals that way, with the same need for spiritual and sexual fulfillment as any Christian. The best declaration of the church’s understanding of this issue is found in a statement the church adopted unanimously and sent to the Georgia Baptist Convention, which was considering excluding them from fellowship.

Over the last two decades, the congregation has learned how to be inclusive of those with mental disabilities, physical disabilities, and addictions. Our most recent challenge to find God's way of love was when Christians who were not heterosexual began to question our inclusion of other oppressed peoples while denying full acceptance to them. Most of these came to us from Southern Baptist congregations who refused to accept lesbian and gay people. Once more, the church turned to a careful reading of Scripture and prayed for God's leadership. We came to believe that the Biblical references to homosexual behaviors do not address the Christian commitments and loving relationships of our gay and lesbian members. We struggled, and still do, with honest differences. But with the congregation's decision to "reject any status in this fellowship," we have been blessed with many dedicated, committed gay and lesbian Christians, sisters and brothers in Christ who are investing their lives in the work of God's kingdom.

In this statement, we see the connections the church makes between its understanding of covenant and sexual ethics. Their covenant as inclusive community led them to ask whether or not traditional views about heterosexuality as the norm were still valid. They concluded that they were not. What made sexual expression ethical was the qualities of the relationship, commitment, love, mutuality, justice, not the sexual orientation of the partners. As a result, the church was willing to bless same-sex covenantal relationships that expressed these qualities and allowed their ministers to participate in such services. The first blessing service was the recommitment ceremony of a lesbian couple who had been in covenantal relationship with each other and the church for almost 20 years.

Insights

What can we learn from the experiences of these congregations about covenant and sexual ethics? First, we learn that God’s covenant is inclusive of all persons regardless of their distinctions, including sexual orientation. God calls the church to seek justice and inclusion for all. Historically, the tradition of covenant has had problems with this. That is why many people have well-founded suspicions about the language of covenant as a norm for community or ethics. But what these congregations illustrate for us is that the church called to be an inclusive covenant community with God can welcome all within her midst. This inclusiveness is fundamental and supersedes all the exclusive ways human beings act. God’s inclusive covenant becomes the standard by which to judge other covenants.

Second, these congregations teach us that the church’s self-understanding may undergo revision as it discerns new things. There is continuity in the traditions the church receives. Certain norms and themes emerge that appear consistent. But received covenants and traditions are not static. We must be open to the new things that God is doing in our midst, new things that challenge our own covenants, but also our understanding of covenant in general. These new experiences may lead us to revise those covenants in light of these new understandings.

Third, by beginning with rational and faithful reflection on the covenantal nature and mission of the church in the context of their experiences with gay and lesbian Christians, these congregations were able to view all relationships in this covenantal context. Their experiences raise the possibility for others looking at this issue that what is normative about covenant for human relationships is not the sexual orientation of the partners, but the faithfulness, trust, fidelity, and commitment of the partners to one another and to the wider communities beyond them. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude contra Stackhouse and others that covenant sexual relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are mutual, faithful, equitable, and just. Can same-sex relationships be generative? Yes. They enable participants in the relationship to flourish and grow, whether they are the partners or the children. Moreover, these same-sex covenants are set in a broader community of the church, which commits itself to the nurture and growth of all its members.

Finally, these congregations teach us what it means to embody covenantal relationships with each other. In each case, the congregations were willing to allow for dissension and discussion. They always incorporated minority opinion and sought consensus. When consensus was not always forthcoming, they provided avenues for those who differed to give voice to their differences without judgment or labeling. They modeled the kind of covenant commitment to one another they sought to offer to their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. They have been welcoming and affirming to all. As a result, very few people left Pullen over the issue and no one left Oakhurst. In each case, they point to the process as the reason; the spirit of care, trust, and mutual obligation felt by all concerned. This is a tribute to the kind of covenant community these congregations had become.

I wish we could say the same about the associations and denominations with which the congregations were connected. In both cases, the larger bodies labeled the churches as sinful, unbiblical, bowing to the pressures of gay activists; and they ousted them. Some of the rhetoric was not only not affirming, but also not welcoming. One might expect this from the fundamentalist-minded Southern Baptist Convention. But similar kinds of dissociation have occurred among American Baptists, the Reformed Church in America, and United Methodists recently. There seems to be no room among some in these groups for relationships just because of disagreement over this issue. I question how covenantal these larger church bodies really are with regard to their respective congregations. God’s covenant is an inclusive covenant, even of differences. Yet these respective bodies could not tolerate such difference and so they broke communion.

This leads me to ask anew the question about whether or not heterocentric (not affirming) does not also mean heterosexist (not welcoming). These denominations cannot tolerate the diversity that good people seeking to live out their understanding of God’s covenant for the world today bring to the church. And so they defrock ministers who differ, taking away their job opportunities, their medical and life insurance, and their retirement benefits, all in the name of conformity. The gracious covenant love of God is not present. I guess if there is any consistency in what we find here is that they do not discriminate. They will restrict the benefits to both straight and gay clergy. But the heterosexism emerges in other ways with regard to gays and lesbians who feel called by God to minister but not to deny their sexuality. This hardly mirrors the "welcoming" posture or promotes an end to the injustice that Stackhouse and others seek.

Conclusion

Stackhouse leaves open the possibility that human understanding is always limited. Yet he says that reasonable people will discover that heterosexuality is God’s ideal. In light of the deliberations and experiences of these and other congregations, I do not think that he is correct. Reasonable people within these congregations and elsewhere have sought out God’s will on this issue and, working through the dictates of reason, experience, and the leading of the Spirit, have come to a different conclusion, a conclusion I would contend is fully covenantal in the best sense of that term.

These congregations and others fully understand what the norms of covenant are and seek to practice them in the life of their communities together. They are open to the leading of God in looking at social justice issues. They have concluded that heterosexuality is not normative in the way that Stackhouse and others claim. Rather, God’s covenant is inclusive of a variety of sexual expressions as long as they are expressed in committed relationships of mutuality, faithfulness, equality, and justice. As ethicists, we have a great deal to learn from these congregations about what it means not only to assent to God’s covenantal ethic, but how to embody the covenant in our lives. To paraphrase the prophet Jeremiah, "they have the covenant written on their hearts" (Jer. 31).

REFERENCES

Allen, Joseph L. 1984 .Love and Conflict: A Covenantal Model of Christian Ethics. Nashville:
            Abingdon Press.

Bellah, Robert. 1975 The Broken Covenant. New York: Seabury Press.

Cooey, Paula. 1993.  Family, Freedom, and Faith: Building Community Today. Louisville:
            Westminster/John Knox Press.

Everett, William J. 1997. Religion, Federalism, and the Struggle for Public Life. New York: Oxford
            University Press. 

            1988.  God’s Federal Republic. New York: Paulist Press.

Gaede, Beth Ann, editor.  1999. Congregations Talking About Homosexuality: Dialogue on a Difficult Issue, Bethesda,       
            Maryland: The Alban Institute.

Glennon, Frederick E.  1997.  "Reviving the Welfare Covenant." In Living Responsibly in Community, edited by Frederick E.
             Glennon, Gary S. Hauk, and Darryl Trimiew. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

Grenz, Stanley J.  1998.  Welcoming but Not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality.
            Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Heim, David.  1998.  "Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: A Conversation." Christian Century
            115 (July 1/8): 644-650.

Jung, Patricia B., and Ralph F. Smith. 1983.  Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge. Albany: SUNY Press.

Knight, Walker L.  1969. The Struggle for Integrity. Waco, Texas: Word Books.

Levi, Patricia E., et al. 1993.  Celebration of Same-Gender Covenants, Task Force Report. Raleigh, North
            Carolina: Pullen Memorial Baptist Church.

Long, Patricia V. Enlarging the Circle: Pullen’s Holy Union Process. Raleigh: Pullen Memorial
            Baptist Church.

May, William F. 1983.  The Physician’s Covenant. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Mount, Eric. Jr. 1996. "The Currency of Covenant." Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics, 295-310.

            1999. Covenant, Community, and the Common Good: An Interpretation of Christian
                        Ethics. Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim Press.

Peters, Lanny. 1999. Reported in "Baptists and Gays: Chief Concern is Fidelity to the Word of God,"
             The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, November 21.

Stackhouse, Max L. 1997.  Covenants and Commitments: Faith, Family, and Economic Life. Louisville:
            Westminster/John Knox Press.

Sturm, Douglas. 1988.  Community and Alienation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Wallis, Jim. 1996.  Who Speaks for God?: An Alternative to the Religious Right - A New Politics of
            Compassion, Community, and Civility. New York: Dell Publishing Company.

Wright, Alverta. 1985.  Not Here By Chance. Decatur, Georgia: Oakhurst Baptist Church.