Gay Marriage and the Church in the Pacific Northwest

Are churches (especially churches in the Pacific Northwest) that draw a line in the sand by taking a stand against homosexuality shortsighted?

In his book Jesus the Savior, Presbyterian theologian William Placher contends that "here is precisely not the place to 'draw the line'" (102). Placher first observes that Jesus says nothing about homosexuality, and that the Bible mentions "sexual intercourse between people of the same sex...only about half a dozen times, and never at any length" (96). Placher then considers Paul's undeniably negative comments about at least some "homosexual activity," wrestling inconclusively with the question of whether Paul condemns all such activity or only exploitative relationships and acts (98-100). Looking for clarity in the story of Jesus, Placher finds that "the pattern of Jesus' ministry"--what Jesus repeatedly and consistently did--affirms the generous treatment of "the outsiders, the disreputable, and the fearful" (102).

Jesus the Savior was published in 2001--more than a decade ago. In 2014, there is an additional reason to question the wisdom of drawing a line in the sand by taking a stand against homosexuality. Today, it appears increasingly likely that these churches will find themselves on the wrong side of history in the near future. As Bob Dylan puts it, "The times they are a-changin'."

• A 2013 Barna poll found that 53% of Americans now favor "changing laws to enable more freedom for the LGBTQ community"--an increase from 42% in 2003. Increased friendliness toward gays and lesbians was seen in each of four subgroups--including "practicing Protestants" and "practicing Catholics." Will this trend continue into the future? The poll found that 65% of Americans under forty favor more gay-friendly laws. (Note that Washington, the most populous state in the Pacific Northwest, is relatively young.)
• A new survey from Public Religion Research Institute verifies Barna's earlier findings. PRRI reports that 53% of Americans now support gay marriage (with only 41% opposed). In the West (a region that encompasses all of the Cascadian states), 58% "favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry." (Gay marriage is legal in the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia, where the majority of Cascadia's population lives.) Again, generational demographics point to the likelihood of increasing support for gay marriage in the coming years: "Today, nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Millennials (ages 18 to 33) favor same-sex marriage, compared to 37% of Americans who are part of the Silent Generation (ages 68 and older)." For Northwesterners, also pertinent is the fact that "unaffiliated Americans (73%), white mainline Protestants (62%), white Catholics (58%), and Hispanic Catholics (56%) all favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry"--62% of Washingtonians and 57% of Oregonians belong to one of these groups.
• Interestingly, Gallup's tracking of attitudes toward interracial marriage shows that 48% of Americans approved of these relationships twenty years ago; in 2013, 87% of Americans approved of them. Will approval of gay marriage grow at a similar rate? If so, then gay marriage will be no more controversial in two decades than interracial marriage is today.

My point is not that churches should base their teaching on cultural changes. My point is that Scripture and culture should be read in conversation with each other; theological integrity demands that we start with the first, and pastoral sensitivity demands that we move to the second. Bible-onlyism is likely to lead to under-contextualized ministry (just as ignoring Scripture is likely to lead to over-contextualized ministry). Context matters. Our changed and changing context is one in which most people now have at least one loved one who is openly gay (see the PRRI poll above); Christians know how much relationships matter--we worship a relational God.

In my presbytery (a regional body of Presbyterian churches that encompasses southwestern Washington and much of Oregon), several churches have drawn a line in the sand by taking a stand against homosexuality--specifically, they have left our denomination for more conservative denominations. In two decades, these churches may think no differently than they do now, continuing their countercultural stand; after all, Jesus was and is countercultural.

Still, as admirable as countercultural attitudes and actions can be, they are not always so; sometimes the culture is ahead of the church, with gender equality one of the best examples. (The Spirit's work is not confined to the church!) It is possible, then, that the aforementioned churches will regret drawing a line in the sand where they have. They may regret making something that Jesus never mentioned a focus of their ministry. They may regret that they did not embrace a more gracious reading of Scripture. They may regret that they under-contextualized their teaching and practice, picking a battle more likely to alienate their neighbors than welcome them.

When I was a student at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary fifteen years ago, I worked in the school's library. One day as I shelved books, I came across a large portrait of the seminary's founder, Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney, in a secluded section. It seemed a strange place for this painting, as few people would see it. Later, I learned that Dabney (armed with various Bible verses) had supported slavery. Then I understood.

Cascadian Bloggers on "Religious Freedom" / "Gay Discrimination" Laws

Two Cascadian bloggers have weighed in on recent legislation in Kansas and Arizona (et al.) that would allow businesses to deny services to gays and lesbians on religious grounds. Both Marci Glass and Bryan Dormaier impugn this legislation. Glass, a Presbyterian pastor in Boise, opposes the bills but thinks that people should be free not to attend gay weddings. Dormaier, a Portland pastor, points out the problem of hypocrisy and argues that--whatever the law allows--Jesus would not refuse service to gays and lesbians.

Northwesterners--Individualistic, Entrepreneurial, or Both?

Statue of Lewis and Clark at the End of the Lewis and Clark Trail in Seaside, OR

Are Cascadians individualistic, entrepreneurial, or both? This and other questions came to mind as I read an article posted by Portland professor Paul Metzger earlier this week (first at Christ & Cascadia and later at Uncommon God, Common Good). Metzger begins by naming the explorers Lewis and Clark, describing them as "rugged individuals" and "risk-taking entrepreneurs." "Their spirit is in the air," suggests Metzger, in the culture of the Pacific Northwest--including our churches. After throwing in "anti-institutionalism" as a third "challenge," Metzger brings up popular writer Donald Miller, who "no longer attends church regularly." The implication is clear: Miller, a former Portlander, has been negatively influenced by the culture of Cascadia.

I have no interest in Donald Miller's church-attendance habits. I do, however, find Metzger's cultural analysis interesting. Here are some thoughts it provoked in my mind.

• Is the Pacific Northwest any more individualistic than the rest of American society? Sure, children here learn about Lewis and Clark in school (the city in which I live--Vancouver, Washington--is on the Lewis and Clark Trail); but it seems a stretch to think that the famed explorers are pioneers of contemporary culture. In any case, Lewis and Clark were more clearly rugged frontiersmen than "rugged individuals"--there were two of them traveling together, right? Apparently, they did not think it best to go it alone. As evidence of Lewis and Clark's "spirit in the air," Metzger points to the Northwest's many "cafes, bistros, tearooms, and micro-brew pubs." Entrepreneurialism? Yes. Individualism? No. These gathering places reflect an appreciation for community.
• Should individualism and entrepreneurialism (not to mention anti-institutionalism) be conflated--lumped together in the same breath? Does "entrepreneurial" have the same negative connotations as "individualistic"? When I hear "entrepreneurial," I think "innovative"--not "individualistic." Certainly, there are entrepreneurial individuals; yet there are just as surely entrepreneurial communities as well. (And although anti-institutionalism might be caused by individualism or entrepreneurialism or both, it might also be caused by institutions losing the trust of the people they serve.) 
• If my first two thoughts are worth thinking, then it follows that more entrepreneurial churches in Cascadia will generally fare better than more individualistic churches in Cascadia. Research conducted by James Wellman supports this conclusion; Wellman found that entrepreneurial churches are doing relatively well in the Pacific Northwest. My review of his book Evangelical vs. Liberal: The Clash of Christian Cultures in the Pacific Northwest can be read here.

Book Review: EVANGELICAL VS. LIBERAL

James K. Wellman, Jr., Evangelical vs. Liberal: The Clash of Christian Cultures in the Pacific Northwest (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 306.

James K. Wellman, Jr.'s Evangelical vs. Liberal: The Clash of Christian Cultures in the Pacific Northwest is a fascinating read that should be of interest to evangelical Protestants, liberal Protestants, and Protestants in between. Wellman is "a liberal Christian" (284) and a Presbyterian Church (USA) pastor who teaches comparative religion at the University of Washington. The study he narrates in this book compared twenty-four growing evangelical Protestant churches with ten growing liberal Protestant churches, all of them located in the largely unchurched states of Washington and Oregon. (The churches were studied between 2000 and 2005 [45], making the book's findings a little bit dated.) Because of this region's progressive leanings, Wellman went into the study guessing that the liberal congregations would have an advantage; instead, he found that the evangelical congregations were growing more dramatically (numerically, at least) and that growing liberal churches were hard to find (xiii).

One possible reason for Wellman's difficulty is his narrow definition of liberal. To qualify as liberal for this study, a church had to see "Jesus [as] a model of radical inclusiveness," had to believe reason to be as authoritative as Scripture, had to leave "personal morality" up to "the individual," and had to support a range of positions that included a public pro-gay stand (5-6). Thus, a mainline Protestant church that saw Jesus as more than "a model of radical inclusiveness," that valued reason but that believed Scripture to have greater authority, that occasionally addressed "personal morality," that was pro-peace, anti-poverty, and concerned about the environment, and that practiced gender equality but had taken no stand on the subject of homosexuality would not be considered progressive enough to be called "liberal" in this book. The evangelical churches studied seemed to include greater variety, with everything from Pentecostal churches (six) to Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations (two) (48).

After noting that even evangelical Protestantism is declining overall (3), Wellman sprinkles many reasons for the evangelical advantage over liberal Protestantism--particularly in the Northwest--throughout his book.

• Evangelicals have more children and retain a higher percentage of these children than do non-evangelicals (6-8). As one evangelical pastor interviewed by Wellman put it, "We believe in out-reproducing the liberals" (278).
• In a reversal since the 1970s, evangelicals are now more public with their faith, and "[t]he public voice of liberals is now relatively mute" (19). Interestingly, evangelical activity in the public square seems not to have impacted the Northwest's politics; in fact, Washington and Oregon became even bluer in the 2008 presidential election than they had been in 2004. ("Of the 298 evangelicals [interviewed] in the study, only 7 claimed to be Democrats" [238].)
• Evangelicals nurture one another in "smaller religious enclaves" (32). "Forty-three percent of evangelicals talked about participation in a small group whereas less than one percent of liberals were active in a small group" (155).
• Consistent with their belief in hell, evangelicals emphasize evangelism; consistent with their belief in tolerance, liberals do not try to convert others--they "prefer everyone to be accepting as they are" (37). Interestingly, Wellman found that the evangelical churches in his study did no better than the liberal churches in true evangelism; rather, the evangelical edge was in recruiting churched people to their churches, taking advantage of the large number of newcomers to the Northwest in recent years (53-54). Evangelicals wanted larger churches; liberals did not (134). 
• Although the Northwest leans left in many ways, "the region is not liberal in the sense of being communitarian or devoted to larger public projects for the common good. It is fundamentally entrepreneurial and libertarian." The evangelical pastors interviewed by Wellman were the more entrepreneurial (43).
• Because of the Northwest's progressivism, people living there can find most of what liberal churches offer outside of these churches: "What do liberals add to the regional ethos? My conclusion is that...liberal theology mostly mirrors the egalitarian and inclusive nature of the regional moral landscape" (43). Offering little that is distinctive, liberal churches may seem unnecessary.
• Twenty of the twenty-four evangelical churches were suburban; seven of the ten liberal churches were urban (45).
• Evangelicals target young people, both families with children in the home and young adults, contextualizing their ministry with these groups in mind; most of the liberal churches studied by Wellman were making little if any effort to engage these groups (110, 158-159). The fastest-growing liberal church was an exception (131). All of "the [evangelical] worship services include[d] contemporary rock music" (15) and were informal (132-136); "worship in liberal churches...was relatively formal and traditional" (128). Tellingly, when Wellman sent students to observe churches, many of them returned describing the evangelical churches as "liberal" and the liberal churches as "conservative" (83).
• The evangelical churches in this study made more effective use of technology than did their liberal counterparts; for example, their Web sites tended (1) to have a more local focus, (2) to be more interactive, and (3) to be updated more frequently (148-151).
• The study's evangelical churches saw their service to their communities as a means to an end--a way to bring new sheep into the fold; the study's liberal churches saw service as an end in itself (212).

Wellman concludes:

Evangelical theology and organizational structures appeal to people in need of human connection. The PNW [Pacific Northwest] is a region that is entrepreneurial and respectful of a market mentality; evangelical leaders in particular resonate with this mentality of growth, expansion, and reward.... Liberals, on the other hand, appeal to the individualism of northwesterners, who value the freedom to think for themselves. Liberals, however, are less entrepreneurial, less interested in growth and expansion, and less organizationally dynamic, though they offer a religious ideology that is open and expansive, which northwesterners treasure and mirror. And yet, in this way, liberal religionists may be too much like the region. (282)

Can I have a third option?

Portland--Trendy or Trend-Setting?

Portland pastor A. J. Swoboda has a new article posted at Christ & Cascadia that discusses the Northwest's trendiness. Swoboda writes, "The great Northwest urban environment is inebriated with a deep-seated thirst for attaining its piece of what's happening, what's new, and what's trending in the world." I wonder about the accuracy of this statement. Take Portland, for example. Is Portland trendy, or is Portland trend-setting? One is copycat, the other is cool.

If Portland is truly trendy, then its copycat habits may be deserving of prophetic criticism. If Portland is trend-setting, then poetic affirmation may be more in order--after all, setting trends requires creativity, and Christians believe in the creator God. One of the greatest challenges of cultural engagement for Christians and churches is knowing when to be a prophet and when to be a poet. Many trends are passing fads (although some trends turn out to be lasting directions). But Christians and churches would do well to learn from an innovative culture.

Jonathan Merritt on American Culture

I see fewer luxury cars in Vancouver, Washington, than I did in San Carlos, California. This difference probably has less to do with cultural differences between the Pacific Northwest and the Bay Area and more to do with income differences. (The median income in Vancouver is about $49,000; the median income in San Carlos is about $111,000.) American culture is characterized in part by greed, and the subculture of the Pacific Northwest--whatever its distinctive characteristics--is not immune to this vice.

In an exceptional (even prophetic) piece, Jonathan Merritt takes on the -isms of consumerism and materialism (as well as a third, workaholism). Specifically, he impugns the messaging of a new Cadillac commercial. The article can be read here.

Local Culture Snapshot