Via Andrew Sullivan, who links to a New Zealand paper:
The Conservative Jewish movement, the faith’s American-based middle ground between liberalism and orthodoxy, is nearing a leadership decision that seems likely to permit openly gay rabbis and same-sex unions.
The Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards which last tackled the issue in 1992 meets in New York next week, its 25 members reviewing an issue that has already rent many Christian churches and simmers across Judaism.
“The way it looks, it will be decided on a more liberal understanding of the law,” Rabbi Irwin Kula, president of the National Jewish Centre for Learning and Leadership, told Reuters. “It would be a very big, big surprise if that’s not the case.”
…
A gay pride rally in Jerusalem this month met with stormy protests and finally unfolded in a small stadium under heavy security. But Israel’s highest court also has ruled that homosexuals who marry abroad may be registered as married in the country.There are perhaps 6 million Jews in the United States, only about a third of them affiliated with a congregation. Of those who do attend synagogue 38 per cent are Reform, 33 per cent Conservative and 22 per cent Orthodox, according to one survey.
Rabbi Kula, author of Yearnings: Embracing the Sacred Messiness of Life, said the move toward liberalisation among Conservatives “is not something that came down from the top. It came from Jews in the pews … Jews who had homosexual children and wanted them to be rabbis.”
Rabbi Gerald Zelizer of Neve Shalom, a Conservative congregation in Metuchen, New Jersey, a former president of the Rabbinical Assembly who is a contributing columnist for USA Today, said in an essay in that newspaper this year that he backed the 1992 position but now had a different view.
“Conservative Judaism has always taught that we must upgrade our biblical understanding with new scientific knowledge. Contrary to the biblical assumption that gayness is a sinful choice, our best knowledge today indicates that it is as determined and irrevocable as blue or brown eyes …” he wrote.
Hermeneutics in action. I, for one, am glad to see this move. I’m looking forward to my PC(USA) getting it, someday, when we realize that, yes, God creates you with a sexual orientation (yes, sometimes on a sliding scale), and that God creates most of us to live out the fullness of our life in intimate relationship with another (though some of us, regardless of orientation, have no such desire and live celibate lives). When we as a church come to see that, then this matter about ordination will be simple. Then we can see how blessing same-sex couples to lasting, intimate, reciprocal relationships can be important, a responsibility, and a gift for the couple, for the culture, for the church. And how realizing this will not decimate our view of either God or the bible, any more than our rejection of slavery or the full inclusion of women in all teaching ministries of Christ’s church did. And how these, in fact, led to fruitful reappraisal and renewed appreciation for scripture, not less. So much so that almost all Presbyterians (of the PCUSA variety) now read the bible with new eyes and reject readings that support slavery or subjection of women. I’m still waiting on those PCA folk, but I’m not holding my breath…
While this move was prompted by “Jews in the Pews,” we too have our voices from the pews. Some people in the our pews object to this (see the comments, for instance, to the this comment in this thread over at the Classical Presbyterian‘s Blog):
I’ll speak bluntly. I am a person in the pew. I do not want to be affiliated with a denomination that ordains practicing gays. I do not want my children being taught that two men or two women living together in a “marital” relationship is not only o.k. but blessed. I don’t want to support church leaders who want to “re-imagine” God or spend their time thinking up new names for the Trinity. I don’t want to go to a women’s bible study on the book of Genesis and find out that it is about “voices that have been muted, if not outright silenced” (from the PCUSA website).
But this isn’t a universal, or even a majority view. (Not addressing either the reaction to the “re-imagining” conference, or this reader’s rejection of the denomination’s theological reflection on the full biblical revelation of the nature of the one triune God, or the rest) I think progressives are way out ahead on the issue of sexual orientation and the church, and the PCUSA moderates, like the Conservative Jews in this piece, realize that we’re talking about their children, their nieces and nephews, their brothers and sisters, and they don’t want them excluded from the fullness of life that God intends for them, nor from the fullness of service that God might be calling them toward in the Church.
And my prayer is that, three generations or so from now, most of my conservative brothers and sisters in the PCUSA (those who haven’t already gotten this) will see this like they now see women leadership. I think that will happen, and, frankly, I think that’s what they think will happen too, and it scares the crap out of them.
Our church is more Christlike because we’ve moved past abolition and women’s ordination, and we’ll be more Christlike when we achieve this one too. My two cents.
Hear, hear.
I don’t think it’s a matter of conservatives changing their minds in 3 generations. I think it’s more likely that people in leadership positions who are conservatives today have their minds made up, and we won’t see any change until they die or leave power.
In other words, the folks whose parents haven’t even met now will grow up with different assumptions about the gay marriage issue. Along with that goes a different understanding of what the Bible is saying. It’s when THEY start “moving and shaking” in the church that things will change.
It took 50 years for women’s ordination (measured from the women’s right to vote debates around the turn of the 20th century). We’re only 30 years into this issue, and it’s looking like at least another 30.
The question that I have is this: will the silent majority of the PCUSA be willing to stay together while this change happens, or will we have a split first?
This perspective is helpful, Mark. Thanks. Though part of “changing their minds” in my judgment is this shift in presumptions brought to the matter that you describe. The more we come to realize that orientation, though complex (in some ways like race and gender), is innate, the more that we’ll see that our theology and ethics about human sexuality, ordination, and so on will shift. There will still be “conservative, moderate, and progressive” views on these, but, yes, I think all three will have made movement towards correcting this.
Will we split first? Maybe. (Depends, perhaps, on how large and noticeable a split we’re talking about) I’m not placing any bets.
Thanks for the comment!
Kairos – I really hesitate to address this topic . . ..
You’re correct about the change of opinions among Presbyterian members -> unless something unforeseen occurs, opinions will change in the direction you suggest over the next few years. (I personally think fewer than 30, but that is entirely my sense of where people are.) This is a reflection of the changes in the larger culture: there is a marked difference in attitudes on sexuality between those held by the bulk of people my age and younger, and those held by older people. (In that sense, Mark is right — though I don’t think it has as much to do with ‘leaders’ as with the general population.) I do not view this as a theological change among ‘conservatives’ as much as a demographic change.
The issue that traditionalists have is that the other two items you mention (slavery and ordination of women) are similar in some respects, but also contain some large differences. The shift in conservative Judaism’s interpretation (as presented in this article) is chiefly led by a desire among those ‘in the pews . . . who had homosexual children and wanted them to be rabbis.’ For a traditionalist this is not a valid reason for making such a change, nor is it a theological consideration.
For a traditionalist, the argument would have to be made from the Bible. (This was done with slavery and to a lesser, but still significant degree with women’s ordination. Yes, one can argue with some merit that such arguments depend on seemingly conflicting statements in the Bible, but one cannot argue that biblical precedent doesn’t exist. One can also argue (as I tend to favor) that there is little relationship between our position called “elder” or “pastor” in our denominational organization and the New Testament.)
My point is this: it is more difficult for traditional Presbyterians to accomodate this change than you may realize. Yes, conservatives have focused too strongly on this single issue to the exclusion of many others. And yes, there is s struggle, admitted or not, between being faithful to one’s beliefs and at the same time kind and truly compassionate. Very few traditionalists are being intransigent on this issue out of a desire to make people unhappy. At the same time, traditionalists would not be persuaded by the biological argument – even were it to be proven. Many (other) things that we regard as sin (and as a society do not tolerate) do have strong biological factors. These may be mitigating, but they do not make the particular behavior good by default. I mention this because, when it comes to other issues, the biological argument is often, in fact, rejected.
Hi Will–
Thanks for commenting. I’m glad you did. And while I (clearly) have my views on this subject, I continue to respect traditionalists who work on this matter. Part of that is my respect for people of faith anywhere along the spectrum who are trying to figure this out with as much integrity and faith as they can muster. So thanks…
You of course have a point about the comparison with slavery and women’s ordination. My comments comparing this to the slavery and womens’ ordination matter were summary and not meant really to offer a deeper comparison other than a historical analogy. The matters are complex, and each have differences from the other.
But, on the other hand, I think the argument about human sexuality is in fact being made from the bible, too, even if traditionalists aren’t currently accepting of those arguments. Those arguments include a critique of the biblical material that is usually marshaled against same-sex relationships, an analysis of human sexuality generally in scripture, and an assessment of the ways in which pre-scientific or early-scientific understandings of human sexuality might have influenced the text compared to theological views that are reflected throughout scripture. You and I, say, might disagree about that reading, but I don’t think its accurate to say that this isn’t also a biblical argument. My own view is that the biblical record is actually stronger in its support of slavery than it is in its rejection of same-sex behavior, but that too is debated.
But I understand, or at least try to, the traditionalist’s struggle (if that’s the right word, it might not be) with this matter. I don’t mean to suggest that this is an easy matter, or going to be anything but a difficult change for them. Nor do I believe that there is any desire on the part of traditionalists to make people unhappy. I think that’s an end result of the theology, but I don’t think that’s the intent. (Just like some economists will say that progressive attempts to raise the minimum wage will result in a damage to the economy without any real impact on the working poor, but no one thinks that’s really the intent of those efforts…note that both this and that are matters of debate)
I wish, though, that traditionalists would stop seeing themselves as the only ones seriously looking for biblical arguments on this and other matters.
On the last matter: I don’t deny that there are biological factors in much that scripture calls sin. That’s not the point. Those biological matters tend to impact all humanity broadly. The question is whether scripture intends to singularly restrict a subset of humanity in a way that it doesn’t impact the rest. Does scripture intend to treat one race of people differently than another? One sex differently than another? One orientation different than another, if in fact orientation is itself “God given.”
Sexual concupiscence, say, is biological, and it impacts both orientations equally. Its not inherently unfair to offer moral restrictions on sexual appetite to both. I’m in favor of ethical and theological arguments that actually provide a code of conduct that impacts our biological underpinnings, but want to see that done fairly, universally.
I’ve got more I could say, but its early and I’ve got to go to bed. Maybe more in another post.
Thanks for your comment, Will. I value it. Peace be with you….
Thanks for the response. I realize, of course, that we’re not likely going to sort this out in the sense of coming to any real resolution, but I am interested in gaining a better understanding your perspective on this.
A point of clarification: I was referring to biological [which I’m defining as factors over which a person has no conscious control] issues where there was a differential between people. I didn’t offer analogies because most come off as more offensive than I intend (e.g. people assume that I’m making a comparison of *kinds* of behaviors that I am not making). But, for the sake of clarity, I will. The Bible is fairly clearly opposed to abuse of alcohol. Anyone *can* abuse alcohol — but a few have a strong predisposition to do so. Whether this is, as it appears in some cases, genetically pre-determined, or a result of environmental factors is not relevant. The fact remains that some people get a raw deal in this area. It is difficult or impossible for them to exercise moderation — so that often the only possible answer for them is total abstinence. Both the Bible and society reject alcohol abuse without regard to fairness. Obviously this analogy breaks down in the sense that consumption of alcohol is not nearly as central to a person’s life as sex and in the sense that we can clearly see the harm in alcohol abuse. But it is an example of a behavioral requirement that is easier for some than others. I find that to be true of many biblical requirements — both in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.
I should probably also offer a couple of qualifications. I can’t speak for other traditional Presbyterians – opinions vary widely on this subject – in some cases I disagree with my presumed cohort, in others I agree.
*I* believe that the contentions between traditionalists and progressives are wider/deeper and go beyond issues of sexuality. I find it a very negative development that this is the *flashpoint*. I understand how that came about (2 reasons primarily — our culture is changing in this area, and many people who have no particular theological concerns are also inclined to take sides here), but I find it to be a mistake. That doesn’t mean I disagree with the traditional view on the subject, but I know that view has been used as a cause/excuse to treat people badly, and I know that the theological issues tend to be overwhelmed by the personal issues. As a Christian I see no excuse to treat people badly or for visceral reaction to have any place in the discussion. Sadly, both of these are occurring.
I don’t mean to suggest that other traditionalists have the struggle I mentioned. (Yes, struggle is the right word, but it is by no means universal.) To me, there is a tension between following my religion and being a decent, kind, empathetic person. People will blanch at that concept, but I have seen religion used in ways that caused people not to be decent, kind, or empathetic. (Here, I mean all religion, whether Christian or otherwise, and whether traditional or progressive.) ‘First do no harm,’ seems to me to be a valid approach.
Hi Will,
Busy weekend; sorry for the delay in a (likely too short and unsatisfactory) response. I appreciate the caveat you offered for the alcohol analogy and the recognition in the difference between human sexuality and consumption of alcohol.
The analogy is an interesting one. But I see a major difference: it is one thing to say that there is a moral (or even legal) norm “enjoy alcohol responsibly” that applies evenly to everyone, and “enjoy sexuality responsibly” when the “legitimate” avenues for responsible enjoyment of sexuality are restricted to heterosexual couples. In the “traditionalist” worldview, there is no such thing as a legitmate enjoyment of sexuality for the homosexual, except heterosexual activity. If it is true that sexual orientation is, to some substantial measure, innate (genetic or congenital), then this is not a distinction made on choice but on essential condition, and would be placing a burden on homosexual folk we don’t place on others, namely, to try to get sexual fulfillment somewhere that is unnatural.
In that regard, the former norm about alcohol would be fair (it applies to everyone in an equal way, even though some aren’t able to abide by it, even though some choose not to abide by it, the science of addiction as nature/nurture being complex, and different than the nature/nurture of human sexuality), the latter is not (applying to everyone in an unequal way, offering “straight” people a path to legitimate enjoyment and to “gay and lesbian” people no path to legitimate enjoyment. And particularly since sexuality is a fundamental aspect of human life, of human flourishing, to cut this aspect off ipso facto for homosexual people makes it even more demeaning.
One of the reasons (among others) I support same-sex unions/marriage is precisely to offer sanctioned ways for these couples to fulfill that norm that is unevenly applied right now. I don’t want to do away with that norm (though I might tweak it a bit)…
On the caveats: I don’t like labels all that much, and I get there are wide differences in all of them. I adopt the label “progressive” but am quite orthodox in many of my views, with a progressive lens. So I understand where you are coming from, and I try not to assume too much either with other’s labels or my own, using them mainly for generalized comments such as this one.
I know that there are many “traditionalists” who aren’t trying to hurt anyone, and who struggle with how their positions sometimes unintentionally do that. I appreciate that; its not lost on me. 🙂 And I think most fair people can tell the difference between arguments that come from an irenic spirit and an attempt for truth and peace, verses those that are visceral responses to something else.
Thanks, Will. Best to you this Advent season.
Dear Friend,
This is my first attempt to “blog” in my life. I am not sure who wrote the article, but I wish to simply get clarification on the following sentence in quotes. Are you saying that in your understanding PCA folks support a reading of the Bible which supports slavery and subjection of women? If so, you need to stop holding your breath. Most PCA folks support neither of these.
Bill Myers
“So much so that almost all Presbyterians (of the PCUSA variety) now read the bible with new eyes and reject readings that support slavery or subjection of women. I’m still waiting on those PCA folk, but I’m not holding my breath…”
Hi Bill. Welcome.
Rereading this now old post, I didn’t write my point that well, and did not mean to imply that my contemporary brotheren in the PCA support a reading of scripture that supports slavery. I apologize and recant the implication. I neither meant it at the time of writing it nor believe it today.
I disagree, strongly, with their reading of scripture that restricts the full participation of women in church ministries, though they would disagree I suspect that that is “subordination” of women. The reading that supports the notion of men-only elders in my view is one that subordinates women. And the PCA isn’t the only Christian group who holds this view, and I didn’t mean to imply that either, if I did.
If most PCA folk are indeed ready to shed their teaching about the gifts of women in ordained leadership in the church, I’d welcome it. Your comment would be news to me, in that regard.
The broader point, though, your post confirms: that historically held views of scripture’s witness regarding slavery and women have changed, some based on good exegetical work, others on changed hermenutical commitments. I’m waiting for the PCA to come around on the women-in-leadership issue, but like I said, I won’t hold my breath.