On Oct. 21, the trustees of Shorter University in Rome, Ga., approved a covenant requiring faculty and staff to support the “mission of Shorter University as a Christ-centered institution affiliated with the Georgia Baptist Convention.” Then they asked employees to “reject as acceptable all sexual activity not in agreement with the Bible, including, but not limited to, premarital sex, adultery and homosexuality.”

A fortnight latter, Baptists learned about a “fall update” email from leaders at Mercer University in Macon, Ga., announcing a policy extending health care and other benefits to the “domestic partners” of faculty and staff, regardless of sexual orientation.

The Georgia Baptist Convention cut its historic ties to Mercer in 2005. Now, the school’s strategic shift brings it “into line with other leading private universities … including Emory, Duke, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Tulane, Furman, Rollins, Elon and Stetson,” noted Mercer President Bill Underwood, in a statement quoted at EthicsDaily.com, a progressive Baptist website. “It is also consistent with our established policy of not discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.”

While this divide may shock outsiders, these decisions are “totally logical” in light of trends in Baptist life and higher education, stressed Lutheran scholar Robert Benne of Roanoke (Va.) College, author of “Quality with Soul: How Six Premier Colleges and Universities Keep Faith with Their Religious Traditions.”

“These schools are headed in opposite directions because their leaders want them to become radically different kinds of institutions,” he said. Shorter wants to “become a ‘Christian’ university in terms of its approach to education and campus life. … Mercer is trying to become what its leaders see as an elite institution, the kind of place where if you tried to talk about ‘Christian education’ the faculty would raise all holy hell.”

In some ways, these Baptist conflicts resemble those among educators in other religious groups, he said. For example, many American Catholic colleges and universities have become highly secularized, while their leaders insist that they remain rooted in “Catholic” values or some specific educational tradition, such as the legacy of the Jesuits. Meanwhile, a few other Catholic schools publicly stress their loyalty to the Vatican.

With that in mind, it’s significant that Mercer’s Internet homepage states: “Founded by early 19th century Baptists, Mercer — while no longer formally affiliated with the Baptist denomination — remains committed to an educational environment that embraces intellectual and religious freedom while affirming values that arise from a Judeo-Christian understanding of the world.”

Benne noted that few well-known schools can accurately be labeled “fundamentalist,” as would be the case with the independent Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Meanwhile, most conflicts in Southern Baptist academia involve debates about accepting some explicitly “Christian” approach to education, often referred to as the “integration of faith and learning.”

Thus, it’s symbolic that Mercer leaders openly say they want to go the other direction, following in the footsteps of universities such as Vanderbilt and Duke, and historically Baptist institutions such as Furman and Wake Forest. The Mercer student handbook, for example, contains no moral code covering student conduct on premarital sex, adultery and homosexuality.

At this point, Shorter accepts non-Christian students. However, Benne said Shorter’s new doctrinal and lifestyle code for faculty and staff suggests that it will soon ask its students to sign a similar covenant of faith and moral conduct. If so, covenants of this kind are common on Christian campuses, including famous liberal arts schools such as Wheaton College, Calvin College, Biola University and numerous other members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (the global network in which I teach).

Many of these schools retain ties to the denominations that founded them, but they are reach out to recruit other evangelicals or traditional Christians as students, faculty and staff. Some of these schools now openly appeal to Catholics, as well.

The problem for many Baptist academics, stressed Benne, is that they place such a strong emphasis on “soul freedom” and the “priesthood of every believer” that they struggle to find ways to separate themselves from the “lukewarm people who are not really committed to the their school’s vision.”

The result is a perfect Baptist Catch 22.

“How do you defend specific doctrines and convictions,” he said, “without daring to list these specifics, which means you have committed the sin of having a creed?”

These duties have long been part of his job description. Meeting with leaders from the world’s booming evangelical and Pentecostal flocks?

Not so much.

However, recent ecumenical contacts by this high-profile representative of the Moscow Patriarchate is evidence that times are changing. Time after time, during meetings with evangelical leaders and others here in America, Hilarion has stressed that it is time for Orthodox leaders to cooperate with traditional Catholics, evangelical Protestants and others who are trying to defend ancient moral truths in the public square.

“I am here in order to find friends and in order to find allies in our common combat to defend Christian values,” said the 44-year-old archbishop, who became a monk after serving in the Soviet army. He also speaks six languages, holds an Oxford University doctorate in philosophy and is an internationally known composer of classical music.

For too long, Orthodox leaders have remained silent. The goal now, he said, is to find ways to cooperate with other religious groups that want to “keep the traditional lines of Christian moral teaching, who care about the family, who care about such notions as marital fidelity, as giving birth to and bringing up children and in the value of human life from conception until natural death.”

On this occasion earlier in the year, Hilarion was preaching from the pulpit of the 5,000-member Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas, a conservative congregation that remains part of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which recently approved the ordination of noncelibate gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

While in Dallas, Metropolitan Hilarion’s public schedule included meetings at Dallas Theological Seminary, a prominent institution among many of America’s most conservative evangelical leaders. He has also, during the first half of the year, met with nationally known evangelical leaders in New York, Washington, D.C., and at Princeton University.

In a recent interview with Christianity Today, one of evangelicalism’s flagship publications, the archbishop said it is crucial for all churches — including Eastern Orthodox churches — to expand their work into public life, even if this creates controversy in some quarters.

“Very often nowadays our church will publicly express positions on what’s happening in the country,” he said. “Some people ask, ‘Why does the church interfere? It’s not their business.’ We believe that the church can express its opinion on all aspects of human life. We do not impose our opinions on the people, but we should be free to express them. And people will have to choose whether to follow or not to follow, whether to listen to what we say or to ignore it.”

The archbishop’s statements were especially significant and timely because of a related conflict now raging in the Orthodox Church in America, which has Russian roots.

A major cause of the controversy was the decision by the church’s leader, Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen, to privately endorse The Manhattan Declaration, a document produced by a coalition of conservative Christians that focuses on abortion, euthanasia, sexual morality and religious liberty issues. Numerous Catholic bishops and several other Orthodox leaders have also signed as private citizens, not in their roles as church officials.

At the very least, this bitter dispute has demonstrated that some OCA leaders are opposed to public stands on hot-button political issues, especially any that proclaim the church’s teachings on sexuality. Some prefer isolation and silence.

However, Metropolitan Hilarion, in his taped sermon in Dallas, said it is shocking to see churches divided by “what hitherto seemed unthinkable — namely marked differences among Christians in their understanding of moral law. … There has surfaced a desire to revise, or to be more precise, to adjust, the unambiguous commandments of God to any manifestation of human fancy, a trend that has spread out with the speed of a cancer. …

“Maybe this is one of the reasons why so many families break, why so many marriages end up with divorce, why so many children are raised without a father or a mother and why the birthrates in many countries have become so low. … Family is no longer a primary value to many young people. This is a tragedy of our times and this is a challenge that we can face together.”

But what if the cartoons included the Prophet Muhammad?

In one famous case, a professor at Century College in Minnesota dared to post the Muhammad cartoons that were published in a Danish newspaper. Facing fierce criticism, she put the images behind a curtain so that anyone passing her bulletin board would not see them unless they chose to do so. Administrators quickly created a policy requiring advance approval of all posted items.

It’s easy to find hot religion buttons on campuses. What if a club tried to screen Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” and administrators banned it, citing its R-rating and controversial content? What if the same administrators allowed a play on campus in which a character pretended to perform a sex act on an image of Jesus?

What if a Jewish group sponsored a campus lecture by an Israeli official and it had to be cancelled due to heckling by Palestinian students? What if a professor urged students to destroy a campus-approved display of tiny crosses, created by pro-life students, that symbolically represented their opposition to abortion?

These cases are real and there are hundreds more.

Passions are boiling over on many campuses,” stressed attorney William Creeley, who directs legal teams for the secular Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. “Students and professors and administrators are fighting about all kinds of things, but the surface issues are often proxies for the real issue — which is religion. …

“The garb in which these clashes are clothed may be student rights or campus fees, but they are usually about religion, morality and sex.”

A recent survey by the foundation, he said, found that 71 percent of America’s campuses try to enforce codes that in some way clash with the First Amendment. Meanwhile, many private schools — which can create covenants that limit many freedoms — are failing to warn students, faculty and staff about the contents of the documents they sign when entering these voluntary associations.

Catholic educators at Georgetown University had a legal right to ask the abortion-rights group “Hoyas for Choice” to operate under the name “H*yas for Choice” and to deny it some campus benefits. DePaul University had a right to deny equal treatment to a group called “Students for Cannabis Policy Reform.” The issue, said Creeley, is whether private-school leaders explicitly warn students and parents — before they enroll — about “what they are getting into.”

Scratch the surface and it’s easy to find religion in other campus conflicts. For example, “conservatives” often claim they face discrimination when seeking faculty promotions or jobs in prestigious schools, especially in science and political science departments. Programs that discuss Islam, or deal with Israel and the Middle East in general, continue to generate heat. Can faculty who dissect the Bible do similar textual criticism of the Koran?

However, any FIRE review of recent campus fights, said Creeley, would have to discuss whether or not religious groups on state campuses can insist that their leaders support their foundational beliefs. In other words, can a Jewish group insist that its leaders support the right of Israel to exist? Can a pro-life group insist that its leadership be limited to those who oppose abortion? Can an evangelical group require that all members of its leadership believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court — in another 5-4 decision — ruled that the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco could require its Christian Legal Society chapter to use an “all comers” policy for members and leaders or lose its status as a campus organization. The case pivoted on the group’s affirmation that sex outside of marriage — the union of husband and wife — is sinful.

FIRE has tracked 40 or more disputes of this kind, noted Creeley, and there are sure to be more.

“I cannot think of anything less ‘liberal’ than what we are seeing on many campuses,” he said. While most educators “pride themselves on offering a ‘liberal education,’ ” many are now promoting “an orthodoxy that tempts them to edit the First Amendment. … You end up driving certain points of view off campus and silencing the religious voices that trouble you. That’s dangerous — period.”

****

It seems that we are going to see more mainstream coverage of those debates about religious liberty, military chaplains and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” So let’s back up and note a few basic fact, some of which were handled quite well in that CNN.com report that I praised the other day in the post called, “Chaplain questions older than DADT.”

As that title implied, I wanted to note that church-state questions about military chaplains are not new.

The military powers that be have been arguing for a long time about doctrinal and legal issues linked to public prayers, God talk, preaching, evangelism/proselytism and a variety of subjects. Tensions between the traditionalist camp and what the oldline-Universalist-progressive camp are not new. It’s much harder for an evangelical, charismatic of Anglo-Catholic Episcopal priest to lead a wide variety of vague rites that mesh with various other traditions than for a liberal Episcopal priest to do that same. It’s easier for a Reform rabbi to function in a state-funded religious environment than it is for a Southern Baptist, a Missouri-Synod Lutheran or an Eastern Orthodox priest (to name a few examples).

These hot-button issues almost always revolve around public expressions of doctrine, as opposed to silent, private beliefs.

When looking at DADT, however, the current state of things clearly affects the left as well as the right. As mentioned in the GetReligion comments pages, clergy in religious groups that favor DADT repeal have had their hands tied in public ministries to gays and lesbians in the military.

However, the must crucial question is not whether many doctrinal traditionalists will have to leave the military if DADT is repealed. The real question is whether many will leave rather than face punishment for public or even one-on-one expressions of their religious beliefs. Thus, it was important that the CNN.com story included this crucial slice of the Pentagon DADT report:

Despite the fact they would not pull their endorsements for chaplains, “A significant portion of the respondents did suggest that a change in policies resulting in chaplains’ free exercise of religion or free speech rights being curtailed would lead them to withdraw their endorsement,” the report said.

Or, as Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America put it in a letter to the chaplains board:

“If our chaplains were in any way … prohibited from denouncing such behavior as sinful and self-destructive, it would create an impediment to their service in the military. If such an attitude were regarded as ‘prejudice’ or the denunciation of homosexuality as ‘hate language,’ or the like, we would be forced to pull out our chaplains from military service.”

So there is much more to this story than what happens if DADT is repealed. The question is how DADT repeal (or the continuation of the policy) will affect the ministry of military chaplains — liberal and conservative — and the rights of the soldiers that they serve — liberal and conservative.

This brings us to the new story on these issues in the Washington Post, which adds some useful information on the point of view of liberal clergy, such as:

The Rev. Dennis Camp, a retired Army colonel, said it pained him when gay soldiers came to him to complain of the burden they felt from keeping their sexuality a secret. They could not display pictures of their loved ones or talk freely about their personal lives, he recalled. But he could not encourage them to be honest about their orientation, he said.

“They were forced by the situation, the system, to be dishonest, and that took its toll on them. And me,” said Camp, a United Methodist minister who retired in 1996 after 27 years of service. “It was horrible. Right from the beginning I was saying, ‘This is bad. This is wrong. It really has no place in our military community.’ “

Yet in the paragraphs immediately before these lines, the Post framed the debate in the following manner:

The authors of the report noted that only three out of the 145 chaplains who participated in focus groups suggested that they would quit or retire if the law was changed. Many chaplains expressed opposition to repeal, while many others said they would not object, according to the report.

“In the course of our review, we heard some chaplains condemn in the strongest possible terms homosexuality as a sin and an abomination, and inform us that they would refuse to in any way support, comfort, or assist someone they knew to be homosexual,” the report stated. “In equally strong terms, other chaplains, including those who also believe homosexuality is a sin, informed us that ‘we are all sinners,’ and that it is a chaplain’s duty to care for all Service members.”

Once again, repeal is not the ultimate issue for the leaders of traditional religious groups. The issue is hidden in that phrase “care for all Service members.” Does “care” equal acceptance of homosexual activity? For example, I cannot imagine many traditional clergy actually saying that they would “refuse to in any way support, comfort, or assist someone they knew to be homosexual.”

Really? Did the Pentagon offer any direct quotes from chaplains expressing those views, or is that an official bureaucratic interpretation of what women and men said in these interviews? What is the legal content of those words “support,” “comfort” and “assist”?

The Post report does offer the following information from someone who is worried about protecting the rights of clergy who advocate traditional views on sexuality issues.

Many conservatives worry that lifting the policy would muzzle chaplains whose religions require them to preach against homosexuality. The Rev. Douglas E. Lee, a retired Presbyterian Air Force chaplain and brigadier general who now counsels and credentials chaplains, said chaplains generally point out their views on homosexuality before counseling a service member on that issue. He worried that military policies may prohibit even that level of conversation if “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed, even though Pentagon officials have not recommended any change to the policy governing chaplains’ behavior.

“There’s a strong possibility that a chaplain wouldn’t be allowed to proclaim what their own faith believes, and not give people the information they need to be a good Christian or a good Muslim or what have you,” he said. “If there’s no protection for the chaplain to be able to speak according to his faith group, that might affect the number of chaplains we recruit or our ability to do our duty for the troops.”

Once again, note the following inserted — but valid — commentary noting that Lee made these comments, “even though Pentagon officials have not recommended any change to the policy governing chaplains’ behavior.”

That’s true, although the Pentagon would find itself involved in court cases challenging those policies. Where are the crucial decisions being made, these days, on these kinds of moral and cultural issues?

Meanwhile, the CNN.com report was much stronger in this regard, since it noted that the current policies that guide the work of military chaplains already contain the very tensions about the public and one-on-one expressions of doctrine that are now being linked to the DADT debate. Again, here is that section of the CNN.com story:

“Existing regulations state that chaplains ‘will not be required to perform a religious role … in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.’ At the same time, regulations state that ‘Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command.’ “

Once again, someone will need to define the word “care.”

In other words, these doctrinal tensions are not new. The DADT debates are merely the latest chapter in a larger church-state story, once in which voices on the left and right must be reported accurately.

The time: This hypothetical encounter occurs soon after the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that forbids gays, lesbians and bisexuals to openly serve in America’s armed forces.

The scene: An officer requests counseling about tensions with her same-sex partner as they prepare for marriage. The priest says this would be inappropriate, since his church teaches that sex outside of marriage is sin and that the sacrament of marriage is reserved for unions of a man and a woman.

The priest offers to refer her to a chaplain at another base who represents a church that performs same-sex rites. The officer accepts, but is less than pleased at the inconvenience.

What happens next? That question is driving the tense church-state debates that continue behind the scenes of the political drama that surrounds “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“If the government normalizes homosexual behavior in the armed forces, many (if not most) chaplains will confront a profoundly difficult moral choice: whether they are to obey God or to obey men,” stated a September letter from 60-plus retired chaplains to President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” they argued, will cripple the ability of many chaplains to provide counseling. “Service members seeking guidance regarding homosexual relationships will place chaplains in an untenable position. If chaplains answer such questions according to the tenets of their faith, stating that homosexual relationships are sinful and harmful, then they run the risk of career-ending accusations of insubordination and discrimination. And if chaplains simply decline to provide counseling at all on that issue, they may still face discipline for discrimination.”

These complaints are “somewhat disingenuous,” according to the Rev. John F. Gundlach, a retired Navy chaplain from the United Church of Christ, the progressive Protestant denomination into which Obama was baptized.

“These chaplains … will continue to have the same rights they’ve always had to preach, teach, counsel, marry and conduct religious matters according to the tenets of their faith. They will also continue to have the responsibility to refer servicemembers to other chaplains when their own theology or conscience will not allow them to perform the services to which a servicemember is entitled,” stressed Gundlach, writing in Stars and Stripes. “Any chaplain who can’t fulfill this expectation should find somewhere else to do ministry.”

The urgency of these debates will only increase after this week’s Pentagon statement instructing its recruiters to accept openly gay applicants, a shift driven by a federal court decision barring the military from expelling openly gay soldiers.

Military chaplains are already being asked to serve as doctrinal Swiss Army knifes, performing rites and prayers for personnel from a variety of flocks when the need arises. This kind of pluralism is easy for chaplains from some traditions, but not others.

Meanwhile, it’s hard for chaplains to refer troubled soldiers to clergy in foxholes 30 miles away. It’s impossible to have a variety of chaplains — Southern Baptists and Wiccans, Catholic priests and rabbis — serving on every base, let alone in submarines.

There is no easy way out of this church-state maze.

If “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed, “no restrictions or limitations on the teaching of Catholic morality can be accepted,” noted Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for Military Services. While Catholic chaplains must always show compassion, they “can never condone — even silently — homosexual behavior.”

A letter from Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America to the chaplains board was even more blunt: “If our chaplains were in any way … prohibited from denouncing such behavior as sinful and self-destructive, it would create an impediment to their service in the military. If such an attitude were regarded as ‘prejudice’ or the denunciation of homosexuality as ‘hate language,’ or the like, we would be forced to pull out our chaplains from military service.”

So be it, said Gundlach. While these chaplains “worry about being discriminated against, they openly discriminate against some of the very people they are pledged to serve and serve with. If the hate speech currently uttered by some conservative chaplains and their denominations is any indication of how they will respond in the future, we can expect this discrimination to continue.”

These chaplains need to resign, he said. The armed services “will be the better for it.”

Officers will be elected.

Political issues will be discussed. Lofty resolutions will be passed. At least one long business session will include a proposal about clergy benefits and salaries.

In recent decades, gatherings in the “seven sisters” of mainline Protestantism have also — to varying degrees — featured battles over sex. These flocks are, in descending order of size, the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Churches USA, the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

But as the hours pass, veterans know that they can take breaks whenever the word “greeting” appears in the agenda, marking a polite mini-speech by a visiting civic leader or religious dignitary.

But something unusual happened recently during the 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). An official “ecumenical advisory delegate” — Father Siarhei Hardun of the Orthodox Church of Belarus — used his moment at the podium to deliver a message that was courteous and stunning at the same time, if not genuinely offensive to many in the audience.

“Frankly, he was pretty sly about what he said and how he said it,” noted the Rev. Carmen S. Fowler, president of the conservative Presbyterian Lay Committee. “People are used to dozing off during these greetings, so this caught them off guard. … Most of the General Assembly yawned its way through the most provocative moment of the whole event.”

Speaking in clear, but careful, English, Hardun thanked the Presbyterians for the economic aid that helped Orthodox churches in his land rebuild social ministries after decades of bloody Communist persecution. Only 20 years ago, he noted, there were 370 parishes left and, today, there are more than 1500. He thanked the assembly for its kindness and hospitality.

However, the Orthodox priest ended by offering his take on the assembly’s debates as it prepared for another attempt to modernize Christian doctrines on sexuality. Shortly before his “greeting” the commissioners voted 373-323 to approve, for the fifth time in two decades, the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians. Regional presbyteries must now approve the measure, which is the stage at which previous efforts were defeated — by increasingly smaller margins.

“Christian morality is as old as Christianity itself. It doesn’t need to be invented now. Those attempts to invent new morality look for me like attempts to invent a new religion — a sort of modern paganism,” said Hardun, drawing scattered applause.

“When people say that they are led and guided by the Holy Spirit to do it, I wonder if it is the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Bible, if it is the same Holy Spirit that inspires the Holy Orthodox Church not to change anything in Christian doctrine and moral standards. But if it is the same Spirit, I wonder … if there are different spirits acting in different denominations and inspiring them to develop in different directions and to create different theologies and different morals?”

The priest closed with a quote from St. Paul, urging the Presbyterians: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

Later in that business day, a slim 51 percent of the assembly voted to defeat a proposal to redefine marriage as a holy covenant between “two people,” rather than one between “a man and a woman.”

General Assembly moderator Cindy Bolbach — an outspoken advocate of the gay-rights measures — offered no comment whatsoever about Hardun’s remarks when he left the podium, but quickly moved on to other business. However, before her election she urged her church not to fear the repercussions of an era of change. The denomination has lost half of its members since the 1960s.

“We have to learn how to proclaim the Gospel in a multicultural age where Christianity is no longer at the center,” she said, in a survey of the candidates for the moderator post. “We have to learn how to tell people who have grown suspicious of institutions why an institution like the P.C. (U.S.A.) can be of value to them. … And we have to accept the loss of the church we have always known — as the church transforms itself into something new.”

After all, debates about the Bible and sexuality had rocked America’s largest Lutheran flock since it was born in 1988 through the merger of three older Lutheran denominations. Similar fights have caused bitter divisions among Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Methodists and other oldline Protestants.

While the decision in the recent ELCA national assembly was a triumph for proponents of same-sex marriage, this media storm also focused attention on a question that often causes debates among liberal theologians and ethicists: What does the word “monogamous” mean?

The detailed social statement approved by the denomination does not specifically define the term, but states that clergy in same-sex unions should be held to the same standards as those in heterosexual marriages.

“This church teaches that degrees of physical intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment. This also suggests a way to understand why this church teaches that the greatest sexual intimacies, such as coitus, should be matched with and sheltered both by the highest level of binding commitment and by social and legal protection, such as found in marriage,” argues the document, which is entitled “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.”

Thus, the Evangelical Lutheran Church continues to oppose “non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual sexual relationships of any kind. … Such transient encounters do not allow for trust in the relationship to create the context for trust in sexual intimacy.”

It’s hard to define “monogamy” without discussing what it means for one person in a relationship to be sexually “faithful” to another, said the Rev. Kaari Reierson of the national ELCA staff. She was part of the task force that produced the “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” document.

“When we talk about a ‘monogamous’ relationship,” she explained, “we mean that someone is supposed to be having physical, sexual contact with only one person.”

For some activists, however, “monogamy” is a fighting word.

As the national debates about same-sex marriage began to gain momentum a decade ago, the influential gay newspaper The Advocate stated this issue in a blunt headline: “Monogamy: Is it for us?”

This is not a new issue. As a gay United Methodist pastor explained to me in the early years of the AIDS crisis, few gay Christians embrace a “twin rocking chairs forever” definition of monogamy. Instead, they believe that it’s possible to be “faithful” to one’s life partner, while having sexual experiences with others.

The Episcopal Church’s first openly gay male priest went much further, questioning the relevancy of monogamy altogether during an address about what he called “sex-positive” theology soon after his ordination in 1989.

“My position on sexual exclusivity … is that it is NOT in fact a requirement for a valid Christian marriage,” stated Father Robert Williams, whose controversial views led to his departure from the Episcopal Church. He died of complications of AIDS in 1992.

A strict form of monogamous sexual fidelity, he noted, is “an option some couples choose. Others do not, and yet have lifelong, grace-filled, covenant relationships.”

The gay journalist Andrew Sullivan — a liberal Catholic — was equally blunt in his 1995 book “Virtually Normal,” arguing that, “There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman. …. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.”

And in the ELCA? Several church representatives stressed that their leaders are still preparing the revised guidelines for clergy conduct, which may not be made public until the end of the year. However, Reierson said she believes they will strive to apply terms such as “monogamous” and “faithful” to the covenant relationships of both gays and straights.

Meanwhile, the current policy that “single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life” will remain in the guidelines, she said. This means no sex before marriage for all single clergy.

“I think what we have said is pretty clear,” she said. “I don’t see room in there for physical, sexual relations with another person outside of the covenant of a lifelong, committed relationship.”

“We reaffirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality,” it said. “Candidates for ordination are expected to conform to this standard.”

However, 21 bishops disagreed, publicly stating that gay sexual relationships were “no less a sign to the world of God’s love” as traditional marriages. These bishops — including the Rt. Rev. Edmund Browning, who was chosen as America’s presiding bishop six years later — warned that since “we are answerable before almighty God … we cannot accept these recommendations or implement them in our dioceses.”

It was the start of an ecclesiastical war that has dominated the 70-million-member Anglican Communion for decades.

Then again, this conflict may have started in the 1960s, when Bishop James Pike was censured for his “offensive” and “irresponsible” views questioning the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and other ancient doctrines. And in 1977 a high-profile leader — Bishop Paul Moore of New York — created a firestorm when he ordained a priest who identified herself as a lesbian.

It’s hard to understand this story without some grasp of this complicated timeline. However, news reports regularly chop off several decades, thus making it appear that these doctrinal clashes began with the 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay, non-celibate Episcopal bishop.

“This whole conflict is actually about the Bible and how you interpret it,” said the Rev. George Conger, a correspondent for The Church of England Newspaper. “The polite warfare has been going on for 30 or 40 years. The open warfare truly began in 1997, when the archbishops from Africa and the rest of the Global South met in Jerusalem and decided to let their voices be heard.”

In addition to events in the late 1970s, other crucial dates on this timeline include:

* 1989 — Bishop John Spong of the Diocese of Newark ordains the first homosexual priest who is openly living in a same-sex relationship.

* 1994 — Spong drafts his Koinonia Statement affirming the ordination of gays and lesbians living in faithful, monogamous relationships — with the support of 90 bishops. He also publishes his 12 theses for a liberal Reformation, rejecting belief in the transcendent, personal God of the Bible.

* 1996 — An ecclesiastical court dismisses heresy charges against Bishop Walter Righter, after another controversial ordination. The court says Episcopalians have “no clear doctrine” clearly forbidding the ordination of persons who are sexually active outside of marriage.

* 1998 — In a stunning defeat for the left, bishops at the global Lambeth Conference in Canterbury declare that sex outside of marriage, including gay sex, is “incompatible with scripture” and call for a ban on same-sex-union rites and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

* 2000 — Archbishops from Rwanda and Southeast Asia consecrate two American conservatives as missionary bishops, escalating global efforts to form an alternative structure for Anglican traditionalists in North America.

Since the consecration of Robinson, the Episcopal Church has made several attempts to appease the large, overwhelmingly conservative Anglican churches of Africa, Asia and other regions overseas. Meanwhile, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has attempted to calm nerves, while starting the process of creating a doctrinal covenant that he hopes will provide unity on issues of faith and practice.

However, early this week the U.S. House of Bishops voted — by a 99-45 margin — to allow dioceses to proceed with the selection of gays and lesbians for “any ordained ministry.” This effectively overturned a resolution passed at the 2006 General Convention that urged dioceses to refrain from consecrating bishops whose “manner of life” would offend other churches in the Anglican Communion.

“The key question is whether this is a national story or a global story,” said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the conservative Diocese of South Carolina. “The way most people tell this story, America initiates things and then the rest of the world responds. Then America responds and you repeat this process over and over.

“You see, America is at the center of everything. It’s the American church and its concerns that count the most. Meanwhile, Anglicans around the world are trying to tell a different story.”

That was in 1981.

“Every time we turned around we were arguing about sex, and homosexuality in particular,” said Heidinger, who retired last week. “Frankly, I was already weary of it and that was a long, long time ago. We wanted to get on to more positive things, like missions and church growth. … Yet here we are years later, still arguing about sex.”

Two events defined that era. Colorado Bishop Melvin Wheatley, Jr., defied his colleagues in 1980 by rejecting a church policy stating that homosexual acts were “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Then, in 1982, he appointed an openly gay pastor in Denver. When challenged, Wheatley said: “Homosexuality is a mysterious gift of God’s grace. I clearly do not believe homosexuality is a sin.”

The most important word in that statement was “sin,” explained Heidinger. The fundamental issue at stake was whether United Methodists could find unity on basic doctrines — like whether sex outside of marriage was “sin.” This, of course, raised another issue: What does “marriage” mean?

Liberals kept quoting a statement added to the church’s Book of Discipline in the 1970s affirming “theological pluralism” as an essential element of United Methodist life. Then conservatives managed to have “theological pluralism” removed in 1988, and language affirming the “primacy of scripture” added.

“That started a lively debate about the role of doctrine,” said Heidinger. “Until then, it seemed like you could believe anything you wanted to believe and still be a Methodist. … Want to say the resurrection of Jesus is a myth? That was fine, because of ‘theological pluralism.’ “

Meanwhile, United Methodists were learning other complex and painful truths about their church, long been known as the quintessential Middle American flock.

In the mid-19th century, 34 percent of all believers in the country were Methodists. Then in 1968, the Methodists joined with the Evangelical United Brethren to create the United Methodist Church — with 11 million members. But by 2006, membership had fallen to 7.9 million, with staff cutbacks, gray hair and shuttered churches becoming the norm in many regions.

After decades of “thrashing around in denial mode, trying to find somebody to blame,” United Methodist leaders finally admitted “that our house was on fire,” said Bishop William Willimon of northern Alabama.

It was also painful to admit that United Methodists were worshipping in churches that disagreed on key matters of doctrine and church law, said Willimon, co-author of a mid-1980s study, “The Seven Churches of Methodism.” The bottom line: It was hard to find the ties that could bind the declining flocks in the “Yankee Church,” “Industrial Northeast Church,” “Western Church” and “Midwest Church” with those in the “Church South” and the “Southwest Church.”

Talking about the future is hard, when discussions of the recent past are painful.

“It’s a tribute to Jim Heidinger and other people like him that, when they first came on the scene, they were just the old-fashioned guys who wanted to hang on to church doctrines and traditions,” said Willimon. “But somewhere in the last few decades, the evangelicals turned into the people who were talking about wild ideas about how to change where the church was going. They’re the ones finding out what the growing churches across the nation are doing.”

Nevertheless, wars about doctrine and sexuality are far from over.

Progressives wield great clout in the seminaries, boards and agencies, stressed Heidinger. Yet in recent years, more than a third of the church’s clergy have studied at the certified, but not officially United Methodist, Asbury Theological Seminary. The other two-thirds are spread among 12 official seminaries. An alternative, evangelical Mission Society for United Methodists sends roughly the same number of fulltime missionaries overseas as the official General Board of Global Ministries.

But, for conservatives, the most important trends are global. Thus, 25 percent of the delegates at the 2008 United Methodist General Conference came from overseas. That may hit 40 percent in 2012, said Heidinger.

“When you ask United Methodists overseas — like in Africa — about the big issues, they don’t mind telling you what they believe,” he said. “That’s where the future is. That’s where the growth is, right there.”

After several years of struggle, Father Theodore Hesburgh discovered a bond between his commission colleagues that transcended race and regional differences, noted President Barack Obama, in his historic commencement address at the University of Notre Dame.

All of them liked to fish. Thus, the president of America’s most famous Catholic institution — he served for 35 years — arranged for a twilight cruise on the lake at Notre Dame’s retreat center at Land O’Lakes, Wis.

“They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history,” said Obama.

Hesburgh mastered this kind of graceful strategy, as did another hero of Catholic progressives — the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago. The president challenged the graduates to learn from their examples while supporting “movements for change both large and small.”

“Remember that each of us,” he said, “endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.”

Notre Dame’s president, Father John Jenkins, then underlined this link to the civil rights era by giving Obama a photograph of Hesburgh clasping hands in solidarity with the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Whoever prepared Obama for this triumphant visit did a fine job, noted George Weigel, at National Review Online. The president “hit for the cycle” at Notre Dame, “mentioning ‘common ground’; tolerance and reconciliation amid diversity; Father Hesburgh; … problem-solving over ideology; Father Hesburgh; saving God’s creation from climate change; pulling together; Father Hesburgh; open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words; Father Hesburgh.”

But the speech also offered a provocative statement about Catholic faith and the public square, noted Richard Garrett, a Notre Dame law professor whose areas of research include Catholic social thought and church-state relations.

The president urged the students to have “confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised. … Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake.” But he also stressed that the “ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt.”

“It’s beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what he asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own,” said Obama. This should “humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. … Within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles.”

It was hard not to connect this pronouncement with the renewed abortion debates that followed Notre Dame’s decision to grant Obama an honorary doctor of laws degree. In the end, 80-plus bishops publicly criticized this action, arguing that it violated a 2004 U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops policy that stated: “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The problem with the Obama’s logic, explained Garnett, is that traditional Catholics argue that the sanctity of human life — from conception to natural death — is based on universal, rational principles of human rights, dignity and equality, not narrow, uniquely “Catholic” beliefs.

The bottom line: The church defended the same principles in the civil rights era.

“There’s a powerful move at the end of the president’s speech to suggest that the Catholic stance on the right to life — the stance of Notre Dame — is a matter of mere faith, and not a reasoned stance at all. … ‘Parochial’ is a very loaded word to use,” noted Garnett.

“So it appears that Obama agrees with what Father Hesburgh believed in the 1960s, but does not agree with what Pope Benedict believes today, which implies that one set of convictions is based on reason and one is not. But from the Catholic perspective, both of these stances are rooted in the very same universal truth.”