Quite a few friends have been sharing this story about the Presbyterian Church (USA) moving toward the acceptance of gay clergy on a national level. It was in my Facebook inbox today and, just a few minutes ago, it came to Gmail from my wife.
I don't know enough about the wording of the PC (USA)'s resolution or about the nuances in any arguments for or against it. I do know that I believe gay and lesbian Christians should be able to serve openly in ministry at all levels. I won't comment on the resolution because I can't. But I will say that sexuality should not preclude someone from ministry. Neither should the lack of external genitals.
See, my wife, who probably wouldn't call herself a feminist if we equate feminism with a limited tableau of monolithic political and social narratives (yeah, you know we do), added an addendum to the link she sent me:
"meanwhile, many denominations across the country [my note: maybe half of US denominations] still don't ordain women."
Neither of us mean to equate sexuality with gender, and it has to be true that fewer groups ordain openly homosexual persons than ordain women. But these things are related, aren't they? In most cases, the refusal to ordain women or to treat homosexuals with fairness, dignity and grace, stem from a certain kind of biblical hermeneutic that deals with Scripture in very limiting ways. Even if you believe that the Bible is the literal, accurate transcription of what inspired people heard from God, it doesn't necessarily follow that you must believe that what God said through the apostle Paul to the church in Corinth is the same thing God said to the church, let's say, in Rome. And, in fact, it isn't. In Corinth, women were to have precious little to do with church leadership: even as the freedom they found in Christ to speak in a room of men was real, Paul thought its practice would scandalize the accepted gender roles of Corinthian culture at the expense of the Gospel. (This is one of those times where I think Paul erred on the side of caution with devastating results).
But even if you think that Paul's missive to Corinth came straight from the heart and mind of God, you have to wrangle with the fact that in Paul's letter to the Romans, he acknowledges and praises the leadership role of the woman Junia, even calling her an apostle. If you believe the letters to Corinth were from God, you probably believe the same about the note to Rome. But if believing such also means you believe that these letters are also meant for all Christian communities for all times, you have something of a problem. Which model is right? Should the Roman apostle Junia really consider herself a complementary (subservient, rather than co-equal) child of God next to her husband simply because Paul told the church in Corinth (and Ephesus) to follow the societal and familial norms of their native cultures? I don't think so. I don't think you can hold this view even if you say you think the Bible is the literal word of God.
But what if Scripture is something more than that? What if it's the testimonies of diverse communities seeking God over time and across cultures? What if, as increasing numbers of Christians suggest, what was good for Corinth wasn't good for Rome, and what was good for Rome in the first century A.D. isn't good for churches in America now? What if Paul was overcautious in Ephesus and Corinth, and what can that tell us about the story we find ourselves in now?
For too long, many Christians have used spot-checks here and there in Scripture to exclude groups from the radical equality and freedom before God that serve as the base of Jesus' Gospel message: The Kingdom of God is coming, and, in me, and thus, in you, the Kingdom of God is here. This Gospel is for the margins and will be misunderstood and misused by people in high places, Jesus knew. The super-valuation of straight men in church leadership -- and church life in general -- is an enduring disgrace to our real witness and to the peace we claim in Christ. It fosters sexism, homophobia, domestic violence and a host of needless, tragic anxieties in men and women who haven't been raised in contexts where the reconciliation of their doubts about supposedly Biblical gender roles and sexualities on one hand, and their deep longing for a relationship with the radically welcoming God of Jesus on the other, is encouraged or even possible.
People of faith, we must do better than this. Christians, we need to take inventory of the times. Consider the opportunities we have to speak the truth of human dignity to the power of a culture that bullies gay kids to the point of suicide, that even now demonizes gay adults, that in secular and sacred realms says girls should understand their roles are defined by their organs. Consider the witness we have always struggled to bear and have often borne too late: the proclamation that if we were all dead in sin before our lives touched Christ's, so too may we all live under his radical care and in his radical kingdom. So too are we equal before God, in whom there is no male nor female, Greek nor Jew, gay nor straight. Please, friends, help us get this right.
Follow Christopher Cocca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ccocca
Presbyterianism and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Presbyterian Church Votes To Allow Openly Gay And Lesbian Clergy
Presbyterian Church U.S.A. to allow gay and lesbian clergy - CNN.com
Presbyterian Church to Allow Gay Ministers - The Daily Beast
In the case with homosexuality, first the most explicit prohibition against it is found in Romans 1, so that's where the focus should be, not on peripheral listings like in 1 Corinthians. Also, the culture conditioning argument doesn't work well because the Romans, as many recent studies have shown (see for instance the simply titled, *Roman Sexuality*), were very open and accepting of homosexuality in every sense that we know of it (equal sexual partnership of two adults of the same gender, while not the norm, was also not proscribed in Ancient Rome). The so-called "Boswell Thesis" that these only refer to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual behaviour or that it pedarasty have also been debunked. A new approach is needed and one that takes the text seriously in its actual culture, not the popular perception of it.
Tribal customs are just that--customs. Morals are not the same as mores, and we need to focus on how to apply the Golden Rule, not how the church was run in the first century.
Other than style and technology it's the same sin sick world that it has ever been. Since humans first walked this earth they have been liars, cheaters, thieves, murders, drunkards full of various lusts and hate and now they want God to put His stamp of approval on it. I say let the drunkard, the drug addict, and the adulterer come to church but they need to check their whiskey bottle, their syringe, and their lusts at the door.
Do you think that there were no standards in place for the selection of those Navy Seals that took down OBL? Yes there was. There was an appointed leader, each person had a unique role, but each person had the same rights of a NS, and the mission was a carried in a specific manner to ensure success. We all have a place in God’s organization, equally beneficial and satisfying. Everybody’s role is not the same but each has an equal right.
There were indeed standards, but those standards were based on training and skill level, not on gender or sexual identity. Nobody is allowed to simply show up and participate in the activities of the Navy SEALs - or failing that, to simply organize their own SEAL team. Only those who have undergone the rigorous training and who can exhibit appropriate skills are allowed to call themselves SEALs.
Clergy who meet the standards of training and skills should have their ministry validated, regardless of their gender or sexual identity. HIGH FIVE!!
Hopefully, one day it will be a double 'nothing' as noone will care about another's gender or sexuality. Best of wishes to you and yours!
Beware of people who want to tell stuff that you never heard before, never found before, and nobody ever really knew before. They are not about to give you the essentials that were once delivered to the saints. If you want to make it up as you go along, thats fine, but it has nothing to do with God.
Try again.
To be constructive, if you actually want to make headway with complimentarians and not just preach to the converted, you need to engage with us by understand what we think and why we think it. I read your article and the first thing it told me was you had no idea what I thought or why I thought it. I felt like you had underestimated the depth and seriousness of our engagement with scripture, and our motives. I recently read a quote from J.M. Barrie: "Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own." I think doing so would make what you write more potent. Assume we read the Bible carefully and are familiar with and have engaged texts like Romans 16:7 and the fact that women were the first to see the risen Christ. Also, assume we are sincere and well intentioned. You can assume this because for many of us this is the truth. Doing so will allow you to make a point. Failing to do so just makes things worse.
That said, thanks for replying. Most writers on here don't. I'm going to watch for your articles in the future.