Gay Marriage/Gay Ordination Debate

[BrentRichards]

So as to prevent further "thread drift" in the Wheaton response posts, I'm copying this here ... hope you don't mind U-dog. It's an excellent point worth discussing, IMHO:

I've been a partisan in the ORDINATION WAR in my denomination for over 30 years and I have been saying for almost that long that equality in ordination WAS THE WRONG BATTLE for us to be fighting first. WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE. Once we succeed at that the Ordination thing will fall into place without a struggle.

I happen to be in the same denominational war U-dog is referring to here (I'm a deserter from the "other side"), and one of the more recent incarnations has had to do with a document called the "Peace Unity and Purity" report (PUP, for short. Cute, huh?) ... anyway, local congregations have been provided with materials to discuss the report and further dialogue (in an ideal world). This observation was made in a guide to the various theological views on homosexuality, by William Stacy Johnson:

What this suggests is that, in following the lead of the wider culture, the church in 1976 may inadvertently have had its questions exactly backwards. For society at large, civil rights for gay individuals (the presenting question of the 1970s) logically had to precede the question of civil rights for gay relationships (the presenting question today). Yet things sometimes work differently in the church. Because of the priority the church places on the exemplary character of ordained leadership, the legitimacy of gay relationships logically precedes the question of the integrity of gay leadership. In other words, if the church were to create an appropriate context and standards for same-gender relationships, then the question of gay leadership would quickly fall into place.

Important point, I think. Ideas? Comments?

[BrentRichards]

By the way, document that quote comes from is here:

http://www.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity/finalreport/seventheologicalviewpoints.pdf

[u-dog]

That quote is also in Johnson's book, "A Time to Embrace" I was reading in bed the night that I read that, my wife had fallen asleep under her novel. I yelled "YES!! EXACTLY WHAT I"VE BEEN SAYING FOR THIRTY YEARS!"

After I peeled her off the bedroom ceiling, she was very interested in Johnson's point. :lol:

If ordination is to be reserved for those of "exemplary character" (and I believe that it must be) Then there MUST be structures and institutions within which committed love and sexuality may be embodied Covenantally. i.e. marriage.

It seems to me that for a those of us in the Reformed Tradition an irrefutable logic runs like this:

1. If homosexuality is a pre-determined and largely immutable (genetic, prenatal, or early developmental) characteristic and not a choice, and

2. If celibacy (NOT chastity) is a charism and not a "lifestyle choice" (a case can be made for this from both Paul and Calvin)

3. Then the Church MUST provide the structures and institutions within which committed love may be expressed physically, OR

4. Admit that it doesn't give a S*** about glbt people and stop baptizing them and taking their money and talents on Sunday mornings.

5. If the Church chooses #3 it has no reason not to ordain GLBT persons who live within those disciplined structures.

[pnggrad79]

U-dog,
I read your post and laughed so hard, because of the comment you put in there about peeling your wife off the bedroom ceiling...LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: I do that all the time to my wife. I have crazy dreams and wake up screaming or grabbing her, one time I bit her in the back while I was dreaming I was a kid biting my little sister because she hit me... I know...don't ask. Anyway, my wife is so used to being woken up suddenly in the middle of the night with my frantic antics that once she catches her breath, she puts her arms around me and says, "Baby, go back to sleep, it is only a dream."

Back to your original point, very well stated and concise. Good job!

[antonyh]

That quote is also in Johnson's book, "A Time to Embrace" I was reading in bed the night that I read that, my wife had fallen asleep under her novel. I yelled "YES!! EXACTLY WHAT I"VE BEEN SAYING FOR THIRTY YEARS!"

After I peeled her off the bedroom ceiling, she was very interested in Johnson's point. :lol:

If ordination is to be reserved for those of "exemplary character" (and I believe that it must be) Then there MUST be structures and institutions within which committed love and sexuality may be embodied Covenantally. i.e. marriage.

It seems to me that for a those of us in the Reformed Tradition an irrefutable logic runs like this:

1. If homosexuality is a pre-determined and largely immutable (genetic, prenatal, or early developmental) characteristic and not a choice, and

2. If celibacy (NOT chastity) is a charism and not a "lifestyle choice" (a case can be made for this from both Paul and Calvin)

3. Then the Church MUST provide the structures and institutions within which committed love may be expressed physically, OR

4. Admit that it doesn't give a S*** about glbt people and stop baptizing them and taking their money and talents on Sunday mornings.

5. If the Church chooses #3 it has no reason not to ordain GLBT persons who live within those disciplined structures.

Don't forget 1a. If the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

[BrentRichards]

This ends up getting used as a circular argument (which is not really an argument, but a taunt):

Your relationships are not legitimate because you're not married.
Ok, so let us get married.
You can't, because your relationships are not legitimate.
(And, by the way, we have the keys to the clubhouse, so nanny-nanny-poo-poo! [Andrew, do you know the original Greek for that?])