My denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA) currently is engaged in a church-wide discussion about whether or not we will allow local congregations and regional governing bodies -- called presbyteries -- the freedom to ordain gay men and lesbians as lay leaders and as ministers. Our highest governing body, the General Assembly, has approved this proposed change but now it must be ratified by a majority of the denomination's 173 presbyteries in order to become church law. The last I checked, 15 presbyteries had voted in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in church leadership positions and 19 had voted to maintain the status quo.
On Jan. 22, my presbytery, the Presbytery of San José, voted for ratification. As we debated the issue, several people stood up and expressed what I think was genuine sadness at the fact that, while they know and love many gays and lesbians, they could not vote to include gays and lesbians in positions of church leadership. To do so, they contended, would be a rejection of scripture and would be unfaithful to the Calvinist tradition.
Some Presbyterians express this concern whenever we engage in conversations around the inclusion of gay men and lesbians in the life and leadership of the church. I want to address the issue as someone who seeks to have the roots of his spirituality deeply set in the soil of holy writ and as a pastor whose favorite theologian is John Calvin.
Part of what I believe, as a Presbyterian whose theological heritage is found in the Genevan reformation, is that when my understanding of what the Bible says is in conflict with science (or history, or archeology, or with any other way of knowing objectively what is true), the problem isn't science and the problem isn't the Bible. Instead, the problem is with me and with how I am reading and understanding the Bible -- and with what I am asking the Bible to do.
An example of this approach to understanding the Bible can be found in the first chapter of John Calvin's commentary on Genesis, in his comments on the creation of the heavenly bodies. In considering Genesis 1:16, which says, "God made the two great lights -- the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night -- and the stars" (NRSV), Calvin notes that knowledge gained from the science of astronomy is in conflict with the description of the moon being the second great light in the sky. Saturn, after all, is bigger than the moon, so the moon cannot--according to science--be considered one of the two great lights. Yet, Calvin does not reject astronomy, rather, he writes,
...astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. (You can read Calvin's commentary on Genesis online here)
In the face of a conflict between science and the Bible, Calvin urged his readers not to reject science nor to ignore the Bible, but to understand the Bible differently, to read the first chapter of Genesis as a primitive person might have, for, as Calvin points out,
[The author of Genesis] wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. (You can read Calvin's commentary on Genesis online here)
I believe we need to allow our modern understanding of human sexuality to change the way we read and understand the Bible in the same way that Calvin allowed the science of astronomy to change the way he read and understood the Bible. For indeed, knowledge gained from biological and social science -- to say nothing of personal experience -- tells us that sexual orientation is not a choice but a given, and those who seek life-giving intimacy with same-sex partners are not immoral but are living as they have been created to live.
We must not reject what we know from science, and we who are Christians cannot turn our back on the Bible. We can, however, change how we read the Bible, which, in the case of welcoming our sisters and brothers who are not straight, is exactly what we should do.
Bishop Gene Robinson: How Religion Is Killing Our Most Vulnerable Youth
PCUSA Assembly OKs Lifting Gay Ordination Ban | Christianpost.com
Presbyterians Opposed to Suspending Gay Clergy Debate ...
Homosexuality and Presbyterianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If churches could be totally honest and admit that, then they'd be making a very healthy step and could then proceed to "rewrite" the Bible and completely delete the immoral provisions for such things as owning slaves and condemning gays to their own special elevated seat of perfidy over just your common everyday perfidious sinner.
But of course to say something honest and logically consistent like that is pure heresy to you folks, so obviously you have to take the "cafeteria Christian" approach and come forth with such semantic gymnastics as you're doing now.
Because just saying hey look folks, we know slavery is wrong so obviously the Bible isn't an infallible source of morality and we therefore need to carefully examine what else it might have gotten wrong cuts just a little too close to the quick, doesn't it?
Words change meaning over time even within the same language. To give a contemporary example, if I read a letter about my grandfather in which it described him as being a “gay clergyman,” what that statement means depends on what the culture was and the era in which this description was written. Using today’s use of language, one would likely interpret this as referring to him being homosexual. But if I told you that it was actually written back in the 1950’s, the interpretation will likely change to him being a happy and chipper preacher. In this example we are just talking about 50 years …a half a century. With the New Testament scriptures alone, we are talking about a time difference of twenty centuries or 40 times as long – and in a completely different language.
Only in the Bible are these terms arsenokoitai and malakoi interpreted as homosexuality which modern people interpret as banning all same sex relationships regardless of how loving they are. Other contemporary writings do not indicate the same meaning.
We need a better translation of the bible.
How do we deal with people who are so closed, that they aren't even persuaded by their own Bible?
I don't have an answer, but it appears that John Calvin had a good approach: In an age that valued astrology, He appreciated astronomy because it was useful. It explained more of his world than astrology did. He found nothing wrong with appreciating Science as one of God's most valuable tools, given to us to use.
I come from a tradition that has no problem with gay men and women serving as ministers -- or as teachers, or Doctors, or parents or siblings or children, or in any other role they are otherwise qualified to fill. I am always surprised that anyone else might have a problem. If gay people are part of our communities and families and continue to successfully fill the roles that they are called to fill, then eventually the John Calvin rule will prevail: Gay people with open minds will prove to be more "useful" in John Calvin's sense, than the close-minded among us will prove to be.
tt77
If they are admired and respected for their contribution to their church and community, does the sudden discovery of a different orientation invalidate all?
Some would maintain that it is still a sin and therefore exclusion is justified. But can they say, in all conscience, that they themselves, or all members of their congregations, are free from sin?
This will be countered with homosexuality is a perpetual sin for which forgiveness is never sought.
We can cite endless biblical quotes regarding tolerance and love but in vain. Hence, we reach an impasse.
That doesn't mean that we accept everything; just that we greet new events with curiosity, honesty and objectivity, and recognize the difference between what is our business and what is NOT our business. I think literalist, fundamentalist movements eventually die in all religions, because fundamentalism simply doesn't work as a living strategy.
I also don't understand how I personally might have used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. In fact; I think I've argued against it.
tt77
But Reverend: the first part of that sentence does not lead to the second. Everyone's sexual orientation, including those of sadistic murderers, expresses who they are and how they are made. Less extreme, but in the same vein, in your tradition, we are all made sinful, and our natural desire is to act on our sinful inclinations. So we are all made in a manner that causes us to do things we are forbidden to do.
Modern sciences view of homosexuality tells us nothing, either way, regarding whether homosexual activity is sinful or not.
Thank you for the Calvin lore. I was not aware of that. John Davenport was almost certainly aware of this when he stated words to the the effect that he had no problems with the Copernican astronomy, though he had learned under the prior system.
I did not, and do not, otherwise equate the two.
The point is a fair one, IMO, and I have not seen a rejoinder to it yet.
Furthermore, the Bible actually has been "amended" several times and there are several different versions of it today...
Your favorite theologian is a man who was a theocratic dictator, and ruthlessly rid Geneva of anyone that disagreed with him, and he considered a threat to his absolute rule? The same man who had someone tortured and then burned alive?
Also--as an historical correction, he was not a dictator, theocratic or otherwise. He never held political office--he wasn't even a citizen of Geneva until the very end of his life, and for much of his time in Geneva the City fathers were hostile to his ideas (sometimes with good reason).
Anyway, that's why I like John Calvin.
Peace.
Ben