Sexual Ethics, III

In earlier postings, I've tried to understand how God wants us to use the gift of sexuality. I recognize that my particular position is conservative in some respects, and liberal in others, and probably doesn't suit anyone but myself. So it goes.

In this posting, I want to understand how we as Church deal with individuals who fail to use sexually according to God's wishes.

Promiscuity

This one is relatively easy, from a theoretical point of view:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

There are, of course, practical problems. Although some fornicators (i.e., braggarts) self-report, this can't be relied on. Suspicions may form an adequate basis for proposing counseling, but they're inadequate to initiate church discipline. In particular, the biblical standard (cf., Num 35:30, Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1) requires two or more witnesses, and as fornication is generally done in private with an equally guilty partner, any witnesses would be implicating themselves as well.

Thus, congregations who take this seriously have generally limited themselves to hounding out couples who are publicly “living together” without the benefit of marriage (or engagement, depending on interpretation). But this seems to misdirected. Couples who are living together are (it is to be hoped, at least) in the midst of forming a pair-bond/union. And this isn't what we ordinarily mean by a fornicator, which would be someone who has sexual relations outside of a relationship that could reasonably be expected to mature into long-term pair-bond/union, e.g., someone who has multiple partners within a relatively short period of time.

The imperative to forgive makes dealing with sinners in the church problematic, fornicators included. We want to believe that repentance is possible; we want to be receptive to God acting in the sinner to heal and reform them. When asked how often we should forgive, Jesus once said seventy-seven times. Undoubtedly there are fornicators who would exceed even this limit, but I don't believe that Jesus's intent was for us to keep score. It seems that about the best we can do is to throw notorious fornicators out, let a reasonable time (e.g.., a year, which is roughly equal to 1/77ths of a normal human lifespan) pass for reflection, and then let them petition for re-entry by providing evidence of repentance.

Divorce

It would seem the divorce is much like promiscuity in terms of church discipline, but it actually seems quite different. In my confession (ELCA) divorce/remarriage is discouraged, but not necessarily viewed as a disciplinary matter, although I suspect a pattern of divorce and remarriage would be. I suppose that the theory here is that the church should be present for all, and what matters is that people are making a good-faith effort in the relationships that they're in. A curious reality of confessions that do not excommunicate for divorce is that rarely do you see both members of a divorced couple remain in the same congregation. Almost invariably, one stays, and one goes.

In other confessions, e.g., the Catholic Church, the remarriage is illicit and grounds for automatic excommunication, and the only paths back into the church are annulment of the original marriage, or re-establishment of the original, broken marriage. To an outsider, the practice of annulment feels like selective justice—a remedy whose availability may depend as much on who you know, or how much you're willing to contribute, rather than any objective analysis of the original "marriage." It is important not to prejudge the Catholic Church for how it handles this situation, but I think also useful to be honest about how that process is sometimes perceived, even by people whose predilection is to give the Catholic Church every benefit of doubt.

Here again, I could imagine a church that handled divorce along the lines that I suggested for simple promiscuity: an appropriate period of separation for reflection and amendment, and then an opportunity to rejoin under the status quo. I am not aware of any church that handles the issue this way.

Clergy Sexual Misconduct

This is a difficult issue, which is often associated in the public mind with the Roman Catholic Church. This is grossly unfair, as every church has had to deal with this problem.

The way various church bodies have chosen to react depends a lot on the framing of the problem. I've heard of two extraordinarily different framings. I know that there are others.

Abuse of Power This framing holds that clergy sexual misconduct occurs through an abuse of power by the clergy member, who holds the office of the keys in some confessions, and is the personal representative of God in others. The model come-on line in such cases is "God wants us to be together," through which a clergy member leverages their spiritual role into an intimate role.

Enticement This framing holds that clergy become involved in sexual relationships because someone whom they are counseling exploits the clergy member's empathy.

I suppose we are all constrained by our experiences. I ended up on my local synod's advisory committee for women, and as such, was sent as a synodical representative to the original VOCAL conference (Victims of Clergy Abuse Link-up) in '92. While there, I heard a number of presentations by individuals who had been involved sexually with clergy, and felt abused by it. Surprisingly often, two such victims would discover with shock that they'd had the same clergy "partner." These stories had an authenticity, and as such a tremendous impact on all who heard them. I also heard Marie Fortune give a very powerful talk on power relations and sexual misconduct. This made a powerful impression on me, because it provided a strong theoretical way to understand issues of faculty/student sexual relationships, and what felt instinctively wrong to me about them, too.

So, obviously enough, I came to favor the first framing, and still do. True consent is only possible in a context in which there is not a strong asymmetry of power within the relationship. Obviously, clergy hold power over their flock, just as professors hold power over their students. True consent is not possible in either case. This often puts me at odds with some of my colleagues (who would structure University policies so as to provide licit means for faculty/student relationships). Moreover, what I've read, reinforced with the "victim's reunions" I observed at VOCAL, made it clear to me that the recidivism rate among clergy who have abused their flock is quite high, and that it is extraordinarily difficult even for leaders of good will and discernment to reliably determine who has been "rehabilitated," and who has not.

It seems to me that we should, in a spirit of Christian forgiveness, provide an opportunity for clergy who have so transgressed to return to the church, but there is no reason any confession should accept the risks associated with their continuance in ministry. I recognize that this creates a particular problems for confessions (such as the Catholics) which interpret ordination as sacramental, but this is how it must be for the safety of all, and for the integrity with which the gospel is preached and the sacraments offered.

This sort of consideration, by the way, is a good part of the reason why I would never choose to be a part of any "independent" congregation. It seems to me that clergy discipline can only be maintained in the presence of a synodical structure. And it is a matter of concern to me that the bishops (and here I mean in the Lutheran Church, as well as other confessions) are often expected to be administrators more than pastoral leaders in their own right. For it is the bishop's primary function to be a pastor to the clergy who serve under them.

Peace