HONEST AND HUMBLE TALK ABOUT SEXUALITY

©Wendell Griffen, 2012

            President Obama's recent personal statement supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples has made national headlines.  Marriage equality is a controversial issue.  So nobody should be surprised that the statement is controversial for many people.

            At the same time, nobody should be surprised that President Obama arrived at the conclusion he reached.  He publicly admitted months ago that his views on marriage equality were "evolving."  Even then Mr. Obama expressed support for civil unions for same-sex couples.

            The president's support for marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples came weeks after hundreds of Baptists gathered in Atlanta April 19-21 for what was called "A [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant."  The Conference was sponsored by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Resource Center and the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University. 

            I was a plenary speaker at the Conference on Sexuality and Covenant and spoke about how our congregation moved "from fear to joy" concerning sexuality.  New Millennium Church is a three-year old congregation. Most of our congregants are in our middle or senior years, black, and life-long Baptists. We are all heterosexual people who are or have been married.

            And before the fall of 2010, none of us had been in a congregation or attended a church conference where human sexuality was taught.   Why?

            I think it's because religious people have avoided serious thinking, honest conversation, and open-minded dialogue about human sexuality.  We have a phobia about it. 

            We're afraid to admit we're afraid of sexuality. We're so afraid of sexuality that parents don't want to talk with their children about it and don't want them to learn about it from teachers in high school. 

            Sexuality has been excluded from the subjects that seminary faculty analyze with students who are undergoing professional education for ministry.  In the few seminaries that include human sexuality in the curricula the courses are electives, not required.

            No one should be surprised that people in our families and congregations aren't comfortable dealing with sexuality.  How can people live with grace and truth concerning such an integral part of our humanity when we're driven by fear?

            But our discomfort and phobia has done great harm to individuals, families, faith communities, and our effort to be agents of God's love and truth in the world.  Our ignorance and aversion to honestly and humbly engage in what Rev. Dr. James Forbes (Senior Minister Emeritus of Riverside Church in New York) terms "the lifelong course in sex education" has produced hurtful results on countless lives.  I witnessed it over the course of my ministry too many times to ignore it.

            So when New Millennium Church was organized I prayed that we would be people inspired to honestly and humbly be "inclusive, welcoming, and progressive followers of Jesus Christ."  We welcome all persons in God's love each Sunday morning because almost everyone in our congregation has experienced legalized segregation and religiously-sponsored discrimination based on race, gender, and sexuality. 

            That's why I led our congregation to prayerfully study and confront the religious phobia about human sexuality.  For several months we studied what we had previously feared talking about in church.  Our study was guided by the following principles.

·         Every person's opinion counts.

·         Respect each other.

·         Be open-minded and non-judgmental.

·         Have compassion.

·         Maintain and protect confidentiality.

·         Listen to each other respectfully.

·         Disagree agreeably.

·         Don't be afraid to grow/change.

            Our study allowed us to follow the Holy Spirit (rather than our fears).  We listened to each other, pondered reading assignments, studied principles of Biblical interpretation, and prayed for each other.  We had honest conversations about sexuality and faith for the first time.  We came to know a gay Christian couple whose committed relationship to each other has lasted forty years (longer than many marriages including my own). We learned about the discrimination they endure and overcome every day.

            Our study allowed us to rethink what covenant means.  Covenant is about commitment in relationships, not about social or religious ceremony.  Marriage ceremonies didn't protect black slaves from being sold away from each other by white Christians.  Covenant involves justice, not social privilege. 

            Religious people must confront our phobia about human sexuality and the painful effects of that fear.  Before we take sides about marriage equality, we should be willing to at least talk honestly and humbly about sexuality.  Pastors must be prophetic leaders of those conversations. The Holy Spirit has called us to be prophetic leaders. The people in our congregations deserve no less than that from us.

            We live for God in every breath and heartbeat by the power of the Holy Spirit as followers of Jesus Christ, together.

Ethics Memo to Governor Romney

©Wendell Griffen, 2012

            I have a suggestion to whoever is advising Governor Mitt Romney's presidential campaign these days.  Get an ethicist or pastoral counselor on board now.

            In recent days, candidate Romney has stumbled badly in responding to confirmed reports that he was ringleader in assaulting a schoolmate at the prestigious Cranbrook School he attended for high school. According to his schoolmates who also participated in the assault on a male student who dyed his hair a different color, Romney led the attack and wielded the scissors. 

            Romney doesn't deny that the incident happened but says he doesn't recall it.  He admits to pranks during his youth.  If he offended anyone by them he's sorry.  He's a wiser person now.

            Here's my assessment of Romney's response and its relationship to the wider question of his presidential candidacy.

            "I don't recall whether I led a physical assault on a vulnerable person" isn't credible.  This wasn't a pre-school misunderstanding. Romney was on the threshold of adulthood.  The conduct was intentional, violent, and abusive.  Romney's claim about not remembering he led a calculated assault on another person in his school community when he was practically grown doesn't pass the credibility test. 

            There's no "if" about whether the conduct happened or whether it was offensive.  Romney's personal response to questions from journalists about the incident is the kind of doublespeak the public has learned to expect from public figures trying to look contrite without genuine contrition.  The assault happened.  Romney's role in it has been confirmed by several other participants.  Instead of admitting what he did, apologizing for it, and showing he learned from his mistake Romney questions whether what he did may have offended someone.  That response is telling evidence of his lack of compassion at the very least.

            What happened then is relevant to the rest of Romney's career and his presidential candidacy.  Mitt Romney is a wealthy white man who has enjoyed social and other privileges of whiteness, maleness, wealth, and access to power.  The assault that Romney tries to trivialize by calling it a "prank" casts an early moral light on his use of power.

            The attack on his schoolmate shows that Romney was willing to wield his power against someone in his community who was vulnerable.  His leadership skills and influence were not employed to protect and defend his vulnerable schoolmate, but to abuse and victimize that person. 

            Because Romney claims to not remember the incident it could not have been a "teachable moment" in his moral formation.  His career in business and government has not been marked by actions on behalf of people who are vulnerable, less powerful, or otherwise unprivileged. 

            Ethically speaking, the high school assault can and should be placed in context with Romney's glib comment several months ago about not being concerned about the poor ("I'm not concerned about the very poor.")  It should be analyzed alongside his opposition to public policy aimed at making access to quality healthcare available to all persons in our society without regard to wealth, privilege, nationality, and other aspects of privilege.  

            How Mitt Romney mistreated a schoolmate in high school is very relevant when we ponder how his ideas on public policy will affect people who are poor, sick, weak, unpopular, and otherwise vulnerable.  As a privileged young man, Mitt Romney saw a vulnerable schoolmate and picked on him.  As a privileged adult, some of his public policies and business practices appear insensitive or oppressive toward vulnerable people.

            In the final analysis, Romney's conduct in high school, his career since then, and his presidential candidacy challenge us to decide if justice includes concern for people who are vulnerable or only those who are privileged and powerful.  Candidate Romney wants to become President Romney.  If a popular and privileged student would misuse his popularity and social advantage to prey upon a weak schoolmate, what would he do to protect and assist vulnerable people in our society if he becomes president?  What would he do as leader of a powerful and privileged nation to alleviate suffering, poverty, and injustice in the world?

            According to what Jesus said in the gospel of Matthew, when a young Mitt Romney saw and refused to protect and assist a vulnerable schoolmate and when Mitt Romney refused to protect and assist vulnerable workers and others in his business and public life, he mistreated God.  Judging from his response to questions about the Cranbrook incident, Romney and his advisors could benefit from pastoral counseling.