A parishioner in a congregation I used to serve emailed me about the recent change in ordination standards in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The old language read:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.
The new language reads:
Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.
The practical effect of this change is to allow congregations and presbyteries, if they so choose, to ordain non-celibate gays and lesbians to the offices of elder and minister, respectively.
My former parishioner asked me about this change, especially regarding whether or not the biblical passages that condemn homosexuality are speaking to the same kind of same-sex behavior we're debating in contemporary society.
Greco-Roman women were betrothed in their teens to Greco-Roman men in their late 20s. Men who were old enough to have a sex drive but not old enough to marry usually found sexual outlets in one of two places. Either they took a concubine, or they took a teenage boy under their wing, mentored him and also used him for sexual gratification. So the argument is that when Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, that's the kind of homosexuality he was condemning because that was practically the only type of homosexuality with which he was familiar.
There's some merit to that argument, although it's by no means a slam dunk. If you could put Paul in a time machine and transport him to the United States in the 21st century, I think you'd be hard-pressed to get him to acknowledge the justice and righteousness of same-sex marriage. On the other hand, I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to get anything out of him. I believe that the sight of a moving car and a working TV set would reduce him to a fetal tuck. Just as we'd would be if we were hurled into the year 4011.
My point is that we cannot live in the first century AD. We can only live in the present and make ethical decisions as best we know how. Of course as Christians our conscience is captive to the Word of God, but Christian living happens when ancient texts intersect with the contemporary situation, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, faith, hope and love abound. The Westminster Confession puts it this way:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.
This society knows a few things about human sexuality that previous societies didn't, namely: a small number of people are attracted to persons of the same sex due to some mysterious mixture of nature and nurture. This orientation is set fairly early in life and cannot be changed without doing psychological damage. Further, it appears that very few people of same sex orientation have a vocation for celibacy, just like heterosexuals.
If we require gays and lesbians to live celibate lives on the basis of Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, then we'll be making liars and hypocrites out of people. We know this because of the church's long and ultimately failed experiment with requiring clerical celibacy.
And this in fact has been the case with homosexuals. Gay men and lesbians have coped by marrying people of the opposite sex, which often doesn't work very well. Or they cope with anonymous sex in rest area restrooms. Or they develop a love affair with the bottle--as is the case with many Roman Catholic priests.
It seems to me that the prudent and humane thing to do is to regularize same-sex relationships in marriages or civil unions. If one wants a proof text for this opinion, I would offer 1 Corinthians 7:9: It's better to marry than to burn. People whose relationships have been formalized in that way, who are also Presbyterians and who are called to serve as elders or ministers then should be allowed to do so, with the consent of the respective governing body.
Now Camille Paglia famously argued that homosexuals don't have anonymous sex in rest rooms because they are oppressed but because they like it! OK, fine. The institution of heterosexual marriage hasn't eliminated one-night stands, and I doubt that gay marriage will eliminate homosexual promiscuity.
But that's not the point. The point is that de-coupling sexual intimacy from the hard-won emotional intimacy that grows as two people pledge themselves to each other in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health is not good. That's the message the church should be sending to the world.
I'm more convinced than ever that gays and lesbians ought to be able to marry, and if called, to serve the church as elders and ministers. But I'm also more sympathetic than ever to the concerns of people who disagree with me.
Mind you, I'm not sympathetic with homophobia--with the name-calling and physical violence against gays that's still typical of teenage and young adult men. I'm thinking more about people who have seen a lot of changes in the past 40 years, not all of them good: divorce, out-of-wedlock births, elective abortions, and so forth. I think that for some people, gay ordination is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I share those concerns. But I don't think that gay marriage or gay ordination means blessing any of those trends. Gay marriage actually pays marriage and its virtues a compliment. Gays and lesbians are saying, "Marriage is good. Deal us in, please."
This post will not convince anyone, I think. Nobody changes their mind on something like this all at once. And many people may never change their minds. What I say to those of you who disagree with me and are Presbyterian is, Please remain Presbyterian. We can agree to disagree on this. Sexual ethics are important, but it's not the article on which the Church stands or falls.
Besides, the practical importance of this change is that some congregation somewhere will ordain someone your congregation wouldn't. But isn't that already the case with regard to a whole lot of issue (theology, temperament, leadership style, etc.)?
Liberals Presbyterians need conservatives (and not just their per capita dollars!). Liberals have little passion for evangelism. We need your passion. And liberals, despite going with the culture on this issue, tend to be culturally flat-footed. We need conseratives' creativity and entrepreneurial spirit.
I imagine conservatives need liberals too, although that's up to you to decide.
Recent Comments