Re: Another query to George and comments to Janice

Burgy et al -

1) As Gordon has pointed out, the NT gives criteria for those who are to
hold the pastoral office. The point now isn't what those criteria are but
simply that there are criteria. All Christians are made members of a "royal
priesthood" in baptism but not all are called to the pastoral office.
Whether or not one is to be a pastor is not to be determined only by a
person's sense that he/she is to be one (the inner call) but by the the
church (the external call). (I am speaking of ordinary circumstances.) No
Christian has a "right" to be ordained. One of the things that's bothered
me most about the debates on homosexuality in the ELCA is the ignorance on
that matter of the call by seminarians - primarily homosexual persons or
those advocating for them - who talk about their "right" to be ordained or
who say "I know God wants me to be a pastor" &c as if that settled. That is
not the Lutheran understanding of the public ministry of the church & I
don't think it's the traditional Presbyterian one either. (I'm not ignoring
the importance of the inner call but it's not determinative.) This is a
matter of ecclesiology & the doctrine of the ministry, apart from issues of
sexuality, but it's important background.

2) Whether or not the church is going to recognize same-sex unions in some
way is an issue that should be decided before the question of ordination is
discussed. If the church can't recognize such unions then the ordination of
homosexual persons living in such unions is clearly problematic. The way
the Episcopal Church has dealt with the issue has been precisely
ass-backwards, approving the episcopal consecration of a man with a
homosexual partner but unable to give any sort of approval to such a
partnership.

3) I do not think, on the basis of the biblical witness, that homosexuality
& homosexual unions are God's intention for humanity. (That statement needs
to be nuanced a lot & I think is the point at which we'll differ.) When I
have said that the church should give some recognition to same sex unions it
is not a matter of blessing something that is ordained by God, as is
heterosexual marriage, but a matter of pastoral care for persons with
homosexual orientations. It is like divorce or a "justifiable war," the
"least bad" way of dealing with a less than perfect situation. The same
rationale cannot be given for ordination, because we don't ordain people as
a way of providing pastoral care for them.

4) That's my view at the present time. I don't have the "certainty" that
you suggest if necessary in order to hold this position but I don't agree
that that sort of certainty is needed. The church may see the matter
differently in the future - & by "the church" I mean not just American
protestant denominations but the whole church catholic.

5) & of course I should add that all this is not to question the validity
of pastoral acts performed by ordained homosexuals, celibate or not. I am
not a donatist.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol or John Burgeson" <burgytwo@juno.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: Another query to George and comments to Janice

> George wrote, in part: "I think the church needs to accept the reality of
>
> non-volitional homosexual orientation & find some responsible way to
> recognize same-sex unions (not marraige) to help people with such
> orientations deal with their conditions. OTOH I see no compelling reason
>
> for the church to ordain non-celibate homosexuals."
>
> I agree with sentence one, although I am not convinced one way or the
> other on same-sex marriage. On sentence two, I comment as follows:
>
> 1. I am reasonably sure you (as would I) would welcome into church
> membership people who are living with a same-sex partner. Not all
> churches would do so, of course, but that's another thread.
>
> 2. If you would not ordain such people, you will have in your
> congregation, two classes of people, one "first class," who can be
> ordained (no matter what their particular sins) and one "second class",
> who cannot be ordained, because of one particular situation, which some
> Christians call a sin and other Christians claim is not a sin. I take it
> as given that having two classes of member is not a "good thing."
>
> Given these two statements, I turn your last sentence around. What is the
> "compelling reason" the church should NOT ordain non-celibate
> homosexuals?
>
> The only reason I can come up with is to claim certainty on an issue that
> good and devout and scholarly Christians can and do disagree upon. But
> perhaps you can propose another reason.
Received on Fri Jun 9 09:10:31 2006