My mind tumbled, whirled, and stumbled over itself all last night. At approximately 11:00pm, the Presbytery of San Francisco voted to call an openly lesbian woman to become a minister of word and sacrament. I was there. And I voted in favor of the call.
That this woman was eminently qualified to be a minister, I have no doubt. Aside from the one obvious issue, she has been a good and faithful servant of Christ her whole life and in the brief time we got to examine her I was able to see that she was quite capable of talking the talk as well. She looked and sounded Pastoral. And as for her faith, that I certainly have no doubt. Though she has been rejected again and again and again, she was finally officially called for the first time in 23 years. How many of us have tried to answer God's call for 23 years?
But, alas, there is that one sticking point upon which all of the questions and most of the debates were centered. The Bible clearly lists homosexuality as an aberation. I won't belittle the discussion by mentioning the other things that God lists as aberations that we now take for granted, except to note that there is a precedent in the church for us to change our minds over time. Perhaps that is what is taking place. Perhaps not. I heard many arguments on both sides of the issue - all of them passionate and well spoken (with the exception of one that was really just kind of pointless, but I nitpick). And I knew, before a full speaking session had gone by, that this was ultimately going to not be decided by debate, but by discernment.
We've heard all the arguments, but in a nutshell they come down to a question of belief. Are we tied to Holy Scripture to the point of excluding our Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender brothers and sisters from God's grace so long as they refuse to repent of this sin? Or can we, as the Church, decide that love and forgiveness is more important than scripture?
I'll be honest with you. I don't know the answer. In one of the most poignant exchanges of the evening when this question was posed to the candidate for ministry, she replied, "If I knew the answer to that, we wouldn't be here right now having this debate." I concur. Though we might have our opinion one way or the other, neither side has a definitive answer.
I voted yes, however, on the basis of one bit of Jesus's teachings which I'll paraphrase. When asked by the Pharisees which was the most important commandment, Jesus replied, "To love God with all your heart, mind and soul. And the second is like it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Upon this is the Law and all the Prophets." In Jesus's mind, the most important issue was to love God, then to love your neighbor, and based upon those two things, everything else would flow. So as a sort of litmus test to my decision, I asked myself which decision seemed most in keeping with these two important commandments. You know my answer.
All I can do is pray that I made the right decision. A little more than half of us felt led by God one way, and a little less than half felt led by God the other way. If we all felt lead by God, which of us was wrong?
(P.S. As an addendum to the above story, I need to make a point. I was not supposed to be there last night. I was called in at the last minute to replace another elder of my church that could not make it. I was not given instruction on how to vote, but was told that the vote was important. Despite the historical precedent of the vote, or perhaps because of it, I did not wish to attend the meeting. I have been in many rancorous meetings in the past in my own church and my heart has never quite healed from these bitter debates - watching former friends and colleagues tear each other down in order to prove their point is to me the equivalent of watching a Roman soldier take a catonine tails to the bare back of Jesus. This meeting, however, while every bit as intense was conducted with decorum and peace, if not exactly dignity. I am very happy to be back on the sidelines of history now.)
19 comments:
If you abandon the Scripture and what it clearly says, that way lies madness.
You also posit a false choice, i.e. exclusion from "Grace" vs. Scripture.
First, Man does not/cannot bestow God's Grace. That's God's job.
Second, the entire concept of Grace is predicated upon Scripture. If you deny the authority of the Scripture, from where does Grace lie?
Third, Grace is bestowed after personal acknowledgment of sin and comes with the benediction to "go and sin no more."
I should note, that his is not a question of claiming this lady's sin is fouler than mine. I've long maintained that the "hierarchy of sin" is a lie perpetrated by Satan to lead Man to a false sense of security. This lady is no better nor worse than any of the rest of us. The question is whether it is proper for a person to be a pastor, when, a)the person refuses to acknowledge a behavior as sin;
b)refuses to repent; and
c)insists on continuing to perpetrate, if not celebrate, the behavior in public?
Or, stated differently, would you have voted the same way for someone involved in an open adulterous relationship or who celebrated being a shoplifter?
Cheers.
One other quick question, if I may.
Why the use of the word, "aberration," as opposed to "sin?" Is this a conscious choice to camouflage the actual nature of the decision. That is, if the behavior, which your newly called shepherd espouses openly, is in fact sin, then your decision appears differently, non?
Finally, I have no problem with ordaining those, who through prayer and repentance, have managed to put off sinful behavior of whatever nature. Nor do I espouse refusing to forgive, if such a person were to stray.That's the point. That is the Christian walk for all of us.
However, that is predicated upon acknowledgment, confession, grace and repentance, and not upon ignoring God's Word.
(BTW, I was asked several months back to assume a leadership position in our church. I prayed and felt led by God to demur, because God convicted me that there were areas of my life where I needed to be fully engaged and committed in prayerful repentance, including confessing and seeking forgiveness from brothers for some things.
I don't judge this lady's Christianity, at all. But I question whether God calls people who have unacknowledged sin in their lives.)
Cheers.
Randall;
You may be right. That's the short answer. I'm not sufficiently wise enough to know the answer to these questions yet. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it 48 hours later.
But one thought that's been recurring to me over the last couple of days is this puzzling notion - perhaps its not up to us to decide. Perhaps the whole point of this exercise is to dig deeper into our reliance upon God to answer the truly deep questions of life. If everyone at the meeting was of the same spirit and truly seeking God's answer to the question, then, to a certain extent, we were all doing what we were supposed to be doing - submitting. At which point, the outcome is secondary. We might have gotten it wrong, but we made a decision to the best of our understanding of God's intentions. If we misunderstood, God will gently correct us.
The history of our church is laden with such dichotomous splits - places where one group sees scripture fundamentally differently than another group. Yet, we all consider ourselves to be Christians. We all claim to submit our lives to God. To suggest that there is only one right way to serve God would be to suggest that the vast majority of Christians are wrong. And, of course, we are. We're human and that means we are bound to be wrong a vast majority of the time. But the only one that knows which of us are right and which of us are wrong is God.
We are called to use scripture to help us make our decisions. We are assured that these are the words of God. Yet, you would find it hard to get two people anywhere to agree on what scripture actually says. That doesn't make scripture wrong. It makes our interpretation wrong. Therefore, knowing that our interpretation is probably flawed, we are forced to rely on God to reveal the truth to us. If we rely on God, then we are in His spirit. If we rely on our own interpretation, then we are in our own spirit.
Okay... I've practically written another whole blog post here - but my mind has been swimming into deeper and deeper philosophical waters the last couple of days. I need to surface for some fresh air.
Take care,
Will
Will, the following is based upon certain assumptions about your denomination's decision making process, which assumptions may be in error. If so, then the balance is in error.
I say that up front.
I maintain that a call to leadership within the body comes to an individual from God. Therefore, this lady must have believed that she was called of God to do something.
Second, she stood before a governing body of believers and asked them to bless this. Stated differently, she asked that this governing body agree with her that God, was/is in fact calling her to the ministry.
How do we as believers evaluate that? You suggest, "perhaps its not up to us to decide." Yet, over and over and over again from the Old Testament to the New, God's people are called to decide; to discern when they are being led astray. We are counseled to beware of false prophets, false teachers, by holding on to God's Word, testing the words and actions of mere men against the Word (Logos) Himself.
Of course, not only are Believers so counseled, but also, those who would be leaders are strongly, stridently warned about the consequences of leading even one person astray. In the Old Testament, the penalty for false prophesy, defined as being wrong once in attributing something to God, was death.
Harsh, non? That demonstrates the significance God places on the proper exercise of leadership and the pastoring of His flock.
As to the rejection of the "either/or" dichotomy which is implied, alas, sometimes there is no other way. Certain things are or are not. God either called this person or He did not. Behavior is either sin or not.
Let me suggest, humbly and as one with a substantial portfolio, if not file cabinet of lifetime sins, that the question which faced the assembly yesterday was, "Would God call a person to the ministry, who a)is engaged in open, sinful behavior; b) Refuses to confess or repent; and c)presumably will counsel others to do so, as well?
I would suggest, that an additional question for the assembly is/was "if we ordain such a person to the ministry and we're wrong, what responsibility will we have to God, for the souls which come into this person's charge, because of our mistake?
No snark intended here, my friend. Just straight talk.
Cheers.
Another thought, before I tackle the post above.
You mention the two Commandments Christ discussed, i.e. "Love God" and "Love Your Neighbor." If the first is the greatest commandment, doesn't a love of God require that we honor and obey Him? That we listen to His entire Word? As a Dad, I'd be mighty frustrated were my daughter, protestations of love for me notwithstanding, chose to deliberately, continually ignore my injunctions regarding curfews and the like.
Cheers.
Randall;
I think there is much to weigh in a consideration of this magnitude. Surely scripture is a huge part of it - perhaps the largest chunk. But even Jesus challenged the scholars of His day over their interpretations of scripture. In almost all cases, he ruled on the side of Love. Remember not only the admonishment of He who is without sin should cast the first stone, but also the fact that according to the law, the woman SHOULD HAVE BEEN stoned. Jesus was telling these men that the law and the scriptures were wrong - or certainly that their interpretation was wrong. Jesus expects us to challenge scripture and not simply take it at face value without thought to its meaning. Because only in struggling with its words will we be transformed by its meaning.
I don't use that as a justification for my decision, but as a point that when you say we should consider ALL of scripture, I know I certainly tried. I had to weigh all that I know about Jesus and his ministry, all that I know about what I've been taught about God and His love for His people, against a few lines of scripture that definitely appear to be extremely straight forward and clear. My interpretation therefore did not rely on my rejection of scripture but on a broader sense of what scripture was saying. I was weighing the intent versus the specific statute - the spirit of the law vs. the letter, in other words.
And then I submitted my interpretation to God in prayer and, as much as possible, without ego about the outcome - fully aware that my interpretation might have been shown to be false. You know the result because I have confessed it. I can not say how others reached their conclusion, but I would hope that they considered their votes as carefully as I did mine.
I submit again that I may have been wrong. If so, I expect that God will correct me at some point and I will see the error of my choice. OR... if I am right, then he will correct those who voted the other way and show them the error of their choice. In all things, God knew the outcome of this vote, knew how each of us would vote, and knew what the result of that decision would be. It will all work to His eternal glory.
We straight Christian people would be happiest if all the world would join us, but large swaths of humanity stubbornly refuse to do so. So we have to deal with them. Randall makes a reasonable and sensitive argument from scripture and tradition regarding homosexuals in the church.
But I have these two problems:
1. The comparison of an adulterer and a gay person isn’t quite apples to apples. The adulterer has a choice to have the affair or not. The gay person does not have the choice not to be gay. What makes a person homosexual is not based on who she or he has sex with but but what is in his or her brain. Therefore many gays have rejected the good news of redemption in Christ because what they hear when we tell them to repent is not repentance of sin but repentance of self. Those homosexuals who have continued to be disciples of Jesus despite repeated rejection from their brothers and sisters in Christ, often state that they are convinced that they are who they are because God made them that way.
2. The community that Jesus created around himself was full of the rejects from the synagogue. His table was open. Ours should be too.
Dave, regarding the "apples to apples" analogy, we return to the question of whether there is a "hierarchy of sin." I personally think not, as, try as I might, I've been unable to find any evidence in the Word, that God established such. Indeed, the first sin which started this whole mess, was simply having a snack.
As for dealing with those who refuse to acknowledge open sin and/or celebrate it, the question is not about God's grace toward them or our ability to minister to them. The question is whether it is appropriate for such individuals to assume pastoral leadership within the body of Christ?
Where does it end, this ignoring of God's word in favor of some sort of loving, socially accepted expediency?
Again, no snark intended, just frank discussion an issue which is plaguing the Body of Christ.
Regards.
Randall and Will, I acknoweldge that I struggle with this. It would be simpler for me and more intellectually and spiritually satisfying to take a position closer to yours.
The problem is, I know some gay people - some who are Christian, more who are not - often vehemently so. In the context of an actual relationship with another, it feels like bigotry to say to them you must repent of your gayness to be right in the sight of God. To their ears it sounds like saying you must repent of your blackness, or your Sweedishness.
If scripture told me that I must change my sexual orientation in order to be a full member of the Christian body, I would reject that message and that religion. I can't be anything but herosexual. Yet that is what we say to gays and lesbians.
I was born a heterosexual male. My wife was born a heterosexual female. No one would consider our sexual orientation sinful. Moreover, even without reference to scripture, it certainly seems like what nature intended.
There is medical evidence that the brains of homosexuals are wired differently than the brains of heterosexuals. Could it be a birth "defect"? Possibly. But then, no one would suggest that a person with Down Syndrome is sinful because of their defect. In fact, many would say that they are exactly who God intended them to be. The question gays and lesbians ask is, how can it be sinful to be what God made us?
Dave, much to tackle, but in for a penny, in for a pound.
I should note, that like you, I know gay people, some of whom have been/are close friends and at least one of which was an early victim of the aids epidemic. Also, as a lawyer I've assisted "alternative" couples navigate the intricacies of Missouri estate planning, probate and real estate law to effectuate their desires. I once did a lesbian "divorce." We just called it an action to partition jointly owned property.
Just getting that out on the table.
Now, on to the snark-free questions!
You write:
In the context of an actual relationship with another, it feels like bigotry to say to them you must repent of your gayness to be right in the sight of God.
Who suggests telling them to repent? The Word says what it says. The Holy Spirit convicts a soul, not you nor I. If a gay person wishes to come to church in an attempt to find God, then fabulous.
Yet, that is not the issue of Will's post. The issue is whether a person who openly ascribes to sinful behavior and refuses to repent of same; indeed, presumably believes the the Word is wrong in it's definition of "Sin," should be allowed to be in the Ministry?
With all due respect, no one wants to answer that question. Query because God tells us there is only one answer?
Question Two. If you take your sentence above and change it to any other sinful behavior, would you continue to believe it was bigotry? "Armed Robbery?" "Spousal Abuse?" "Drug or Alcohol Abuse?" How do you decide what's bigotry? How do you decide what's now not a Sin, God's Word, notwithstanding. Do we vote on it? Who votes? What are the criteria?
Again, no snark implied, but I merely identify the philosophical La Brea tar pit one jumps into.
As for the idea that "gayness" is equated with a genetic switch, this is indeed troublesome. However, if you look at the literature, the evidence is far from conclusive, if for no other reason than if we assume a time in the ancient past, before the advent of the patriarchs and these myths we call God's Word, then there would be no social reason for genetically homosexual to hide their orientation or alter their behavior, non. Thus, there would be no way to pass on the "gay" gene to future generations.
Additionally, problematic is the question of the can of worms opened by subscribing to "they're born that way" defense. Where, then, does one draw the line regarding the sexual proclivities of others?
Finally, if we believe that God's Word is truth and inviolate, then why does it matter what argument or feelings we may have. I believe that actually looking at all the evidence leads us back to the Truth of God's Word in any event.
As for Scripture being something other than it is, I find such speculation pointless. In any event scripture does not say what you attribute to it, i.e. that one must change his/her desires, whether that concerns sexual activity or any other sinful behavior. Rather it says, "Pray, lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil," and barring that, it says "don't sin."
Period.
Any person who would lead a flock who doesn't believe and preach those things should be quaking in his/her boots, methinks.
Cheers.
Randall, thanks for your pound :) There is a part of me that enjoys the sparring, but ultimately, I don’t expect either of us will convince the other. If anything, you have a better chance of convincing me. Let me acknowledge with Will, you may be right. You argue like a good Calvinist. I don't know if this actually is your tradition, but it is my own theological heritage. I especially resonate with your statement that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts the soul. And still I struggle to find an answer to the gay issue that I can live with.
In response to your questions:
1. There is no ambiguity in the message of Jesus. His very first proclamation following his temptation, according to Matthew, is “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.” Jesus calls us all to repent of sin and follow him. So we who carry on his message must ask others to repent.
Repent of what? Sin, of course. And that is what this whole conversation is about. With respect to homosexuality, what is sinful: the act of sex with the same gender, or the feeling of attraction to the same gender? Do you sin with your behavior or do you sin with your heart? Jesus is clear about this as well. Sin is a matter of the heart. Behavior simply confirms what comes from the inside.
I think that many who insist on the sinfulness of homosexuality would still accept a celibate gay minister. Such a minister would acknowledge his or her homosexuality, but refuse to act on it out of respect for God and scripture. But such a person would still be in sin (if you contend that homosexual feelings are sinful), because her heart still longs for a forbidden love. And every minister of word and sacrament would be guilty in one way or another along the same lines. The difference is, most ministers don’t have the courage to admit their sin.
2. We are once again comparing apples and oranges. Armed robbery does not compare to sexual orientation. Spousal abuse, alcohol abuse, adultery – none of these are in the same category of sexual orientation. All of the actions you mention are choices. Sexual orientation is not a choice.
3. Your last point about the truth of God’s word is the most troubling for me. It’s hard to read Romans 1 without concluding that Paul is disgusted by homosexuality. I am stuck in the tension between adhering to the truth of scripture on this point and the compassion and inclusiveness that scripture teaches in other places.
Dave, regarding the category issue, I certainly understand your point, but I wonder whether I'm obscuring mine. Thus, bear with me.
If define an activity as "sin," whether same is a sexual behavior or telling a teeny white lie or murder, idolatry or whatever, then the question becomes, do we and can we "rate" those sins on a "hierarchy of badness." If such a hierarchy is appropriate and/or Biblical, i.e. of God, then I would agree with you.
Unfortunately I maintain we cannot "rank" sins on such a hierarchy a la Dante in his Inferno. I further believe that the concept that some sins are worse than others is really a man made convention, inspired by Satan, to get us to believe that we're "not that bad, compared to so-and-so" and therefore not in need of repentance.
In fact, we all sin and fall short of God's glory. No sin is "better" or "worse" because each one is capable alone to separate us from God forever. Thus, neither you nor I nor Will nor anyone is "better" or "worse" from that standpoint than anyone else.
Finally, the only reason to establish such a hierarchy is to minimize certain sins to the point where eventually, they disappear from our consciousness as "sin."
Anyway, thus do we return to the ultimate question(s): is the behavior sin and do we ordain someone to the ministry who insists on openly committing and celebrating sinful behavior?
Cheers.
Thanks for a most interesting and thought provoking discussion. It is a huge issue that the church will continue to struggle with for years. Sadly, it will almost inevitably lead to more splits in the church.
I am actually not well versed in the apologetics of the gay religious community. Just expressing the way I'm trying to understand the issues. And I do agree with your point about the higherarchy of sin. There is none. The question for me rests on how we understand sin - does it arise from our actions, our thoughts, or our being? There is a long tradition that says that it arises from all three. So we are all in sin.
Once again, thanks for stimulating my thoughts on this.
Best,
Dave
As a final addendum to this argument; it should be noted that this action that the Presbytery took on Tuesday has already been halted by a Judicial Stay. This was not really unexpected. Far greater minds and hearts than mine will be puzzling over this decision for years to come.
In many ways, it is too bad. The ministry that called this candidate was one that reached out to the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender community. This is a community that Christians are trying hard to reach, but actions like these can only continue to sow seeds of distrust and resentment. I don't think this will change anything, per se, except that the former newly called candidate will continue to be a newly called candidate in limbo with the end result being that she will still not be able to offer the sacraments to her flock.
Nice discussion guys,
I just want to point out that a "No" vote can be just as loving as a "Yes" vote.
U.P. -
I don't want to argue with you in regards to a No vote being a loving vote as well. But I would need some justification of how that shows love to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters that isn't based in legalistic arguments.
I believe that those who voted No did so out of a belief that they were doing the right thing, some may have even been able to justify it in their own minds as doing the loving thing. I waited to hear those arguments, but none were forthcoming. All of the arguments for the negative were based entirely on a reading of scripture, while all the arguments for the positive were based entirely on how best to love our brothers and sisters.
That isn't to say that those arguments don't exist. I simply didn't hear them and I could not make any arguments along those lines myself.
Yesterday I read Jesus saying that He was not here to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Something tells me that the answer to my dilemma lies in the mystery of that statement. I am hoping someone can elucidate the answer better than I can.
Will & UP, I don't mean to interject myself into this somewhat new thread, but what the heck. I'll do it anyway.
If we believe that the person involved is truly seeking God's will for his/her life; and
He/She truly desires to serve the Lord; and
His/Her behavior constitutes sin,
which places a wall between us --even those of us redeemed by his Grace-- and God the Father, as well as with our brothers and sisters in Christ then:
Scripture calls us to approach our brother with love and confront him/her with the fact of that sin and encourage him/her to repentance.
If the above is correct, and if non-celibate homosexual relationships are sin --as Scripture clearly says they are-- then a "No" vote would be the loving, scriptural course of action it seems to me.
It all comes back to the messy question of whether the behavior is sin and whether as such, it is fitting a Scriptural to allow one who espouses and celebrates such behavior to be a Shepherd of God's people. I think Paul, John, James and Jude all answer that question in their Epistles and the answer is in the negative.
Cheers, my friend.
I for one, had the parable of the wedding feast come to mind. Matt 22:2-14.
This is one of those difficult parables. Recall that it involves an invitation to a banquet (the kingdom of heaven) where "The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy" so even the evil and the good from the streets receive the call to the banquet. Unfortunately for him, one guest arrives in the wrong clothes and is cast out into the darkness, where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The parable ends with the famous:
"For many are called, but few are chosen."
Is the rejection of the poorly dressed person a loving "No?" That person might not think so, but it delivers a message to us that we being evil, and being called to eat the Lord's supper in what is sometimes termed the "radical hospitality" of the Lord, are still required to clothe ourselves in the Lord's vestments. This might indicate a need to repent, to sin no more, to give up our earthly passions and desires, or in other words, to humble ourselves and do such things that please the Lord and not ourselves.
What if the parable had been told in a modern "inclusive" manner? The poorly dressed guest would be promoted to the King's seat and given a scepter and a crown.
What happens when the unprepared get promoted to lead an organization?
Is that love?
UP, I think your choice of parable/analogy is a good one which needs no amplification from me.
Cheers.
Post a Comment