Here are two comments agreeing (more or less) with Ottati, followed by two more (much longer!) that take issue with his views.

[12-11-03]

~~~~~~~~~~~

Concerning Ottati's article:

I think the article makes the point that there is a strong theological (dare I say, biblical!) reason why we should ordain homosexuals and lesbians. To deny this point is to challenge our confession as Christians. At what point do we say unity means denying our faith and get on with serving the God and Father of Jesus Christ? Indeed, we should not wait any longer, and should repent in sackcloth and ashes that it has taken so long.

Dr David Roberts

~~~~~~~~~~~

I found Dr. Ottati's article very compelling and I whole-heartedly agree with his main point that "We (the PCUSA) shouldn't wait to ordain called and qualified gays and lesbians to all offices of the church, and to endorse same sex unions and / or gay marriages between persons committed to a loving relationship of mutual help and care." In fact, I can't find anything in the article I really disagree with. But I would like to add another voice and a few comments to the subject of "waiting."

There has been a lot of discussion about bringing forth a G-6.0106b amendment at next year's General Assembly or waiting until after the Task Force completes it's work. Those who advocate bringing an amendment to next year's GA have said that we need to follow the quickest possible path to justice. But do we need to follow the quickest possible path, or do we need to follow the quickest possible path that has the best chance to be realized?

Given the recent votes of our Presbyteries, some people believe that an amendment that seeks the deletion of G-6.0106b has little or no chance of passing. Further, these people believe that another vote on such an amendment might actually hurt our goal of justice by "turning off" people to our cause. So because they truly want inclusivity in our church they have no choice but to wait until a future GA, where they believe we have a good possibility of succeeding.

Some people have said that we are not called to be successful, we are called to be faithful, and that we should take every chance we can get (no matter how slim) to get rid of G-6.0106b. If that is the case, shouldn't we be calling for special meetings of the General Assembly and calling to redo the voting at various levels of our church government? We should try to be quick and successful, and we shouldn't sacrifice one for the other.

There is a balance that we must find between being quick and being successful. We want to be successful because this is such an important issue. But we also want to be quick, because every day that goes by is one more day that our church is complicit in the harm and violence that is being done to our GLBT friends and family.

I know that we can (and do) disagree about what the balance between being quick and being successful should be. Some of us will choose to "wait" until a future GA because we want the best chance at a quick resolution. Some of us will not wait because we want the quickest chance at the best resolution. But, I believe that all of us are struggling for the same cause, and that we should cherish and honor one another as sisters and brothers in Christ.

Peace,

Rev. Shawn Coons   
University Presbyterian Church
shawncoons@comcast.net

~~~~~~~~~~~

James D. Peters has sent a long and detailed argument against Ottati's view, saying it is unscriptural and is merely going along with "all the arguments we hear from our 'progressive' and permissive society."

December 10, 2003

Dear Dr. Ottati

I was saddened and dismayed to read your paper on the Witherspoon Society internet web-site entitled "Why We Shouldn't Wait." The reason for my dismay is that I would look to theologians like yourself to lay out a scriptural basis for a position on the difficult and divisive issue of homosexual behavior and the ordination of practicing homosexuals to positions of leadership in the Church. I fear for the future of the Church and society in general when our seminaries are used to teach our future Ministers and church leaders the views expressed in your paper.

In my view, the arguments presented are not much different than what one can read in any of our daily newspapers these days. These are all the arguments we hear from our "progressive" and permissive society. It seems to me that professors in seminary should be looking to the Bible for guidance and direction on the matter rather than looking for ways to support and promote the gay agenda.

Further, in my opinion, the positions put forward are not particularly persuasive. Perhaps the reason for that is that you are trying to use the Scriptures to justify sinful and immoral behavior and are unable to find support for that position in the Scriptures. If it wasn't so sad, I would have laughed at your suggestion that the sin of Sodom was that they were inhospitable. Where you have cited a Scripture passage that condemns immoral homosexual behavior, you seem to brush it aside by saying that it is God's grace that is important.

I agree that all of us are sinners who have been saved, only by the grace of God. However, it seems to me that someone who is a practicing homosexual (even one in a so-called committed loving relationship) makes a deliberate choice on an ongoing basis to continue to live a sinful and immoral life. From my reading of the Gospels, whenever Jesus encountered someone who was living a sinful or immoral life, he told the person two things; 1) your sins are forgiven; and 2) go, and sin no more.

Regarding the issue of ordination of gays and lesbians, you suggest that because there is doubt on what the Bible teaches, we should err on the side of love. I really don't think the Bible is unclear on the subject, however, if I understand you, it appears that you actually mean that we should condone or approve of homosexual behavior, not only by society in general but also by our church leaders.

You are correct that God is a God of love and also a God of grace. However, he is also a holy God and a God of justice. Again, from my reading of the Scriptures, it is clear that sin results in death. Out of His love for us, God sent His Son to take our place and die on our behalf, to die for our sins, so that we might be reconciled to God. By erring on the side of love, he didn't overlook or condone our sins. He did something unbelievable - something amazing - something unspeakable! He sent His Son to die for our sins. By condoning homosexual activity, or as you say, erring on the side of love, in a way, we deny persons practicing this sin the opportunity to repent, seek God's forgiveness, and be reconciled to Him.

The world around us is trying to promote homosexuality as a perfectly normal, natural, and healthy alternative lifestyle. This is clearly untrue. While I do not have statistics at my fingertips, there are very significant health problems associated with this behavior, not the least of which is the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Our society goes to great lengths to teach people about the dangers of smoking and even eating junk food, but extols the virtues of an even more insidious and dangerous lifestyle. To have it also being promoted by theologians is very distressing.

From points made in your paper, it appears that you are of the view that persons who practice the homosexual lifestyle do so because it is a "non-negotiable dimension" of who they are. From what I have read on the subject, there is no valid documented evidence that this is so. I believe this is another dangerous lie that is used in today's world to excuse peoples' behavior. Arguments like this merely serve to encourage a lack of accountability for whatever behavior or activity people want to pursue. Even if persons have tendencies or temptations in the direction of homosexuality or any other sin, it is not a given that they have to act on their inclinations, feelings or desires. Further, it is clear that the Bible does not condone people acting on their own evil desires and lusts. (Romans 6:12 to 14)

You argue for the ordination of gays and lesbians using human rights and other societal arguments. However, as you are aware, the views of society are not always consistent with scriptural principles. Especially when dealing with ordination of church ministers, the most important place to look for guidance is the Word of God. You say that "at least one biblical passage opposes" the practice of homosexuality, however, the way you do so infers that there is really only one passage that does so. In my reading of the Scriptures, I find considerable reference to homosexuality and every time it is talked about, it is condemned, as are all other types of sexual sin and immorality.

It seems to me as a lay person, that if God had approved of the practice of homosexuality, the Bible would contain at least one story or one example of a loving, committed, gay relationship that we would be encouraged to emulate. However, that is not so. Throughout the Bible it is clear that God created man and woman - male and female. It goes on to talk very clearly about marriage and about sexual union between a man and a woman and more than that, between one man and one woman. Genesis 2:24 says, "Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." It does not suggest a boyfriend as an acceptable alternative. If God had wanted men to marry other men, surely he would have made it clear. As you know, the principles of marriage between one man and one woman are further outlined in 1 Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5.

In looking over your paper again, it occurs to me that the only way your arguments in favor of ordaining gays and lesbians will work is if one does not believe that homosexual activity is sinful and immoral. However, in order to believe that, one essentially has to disregard a considerable portion of Scripture. There are many passages of Scripture that describe homosexual activity and various other behaviors as sinful and exhort us to abstain from sexual immorality. A few of these include: 1 Corinthians 6; 1 Timothy 1:10; Romans 6; 1 Thessalonians 4.

You mentioned Bishop Robinson of the Episcopalian Church and apparently support his ordination. Would you similarly have supported it if he had left his wife and family and taken up a new life with a younger and more exciting girlfriend? What sort of behavior do we expect our church leaders to model? Certainly the Bible, in 1 Timothy 3, sets some standards for bishops that would not be met by people living such a life.

As I said earlier, I am dismayed that views such as those expressed in your paper are being put forward by a theologian from a Presbyterian seminary. We get enough of this kind of thinking from our permissive society and the world around us. What we need from theologians is some clear instruction and illumination of what the Scriptures teach.

James D. Peters

~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Editor,

The recently published theological musings of Doug Ottati, regarding the call for the immediate ordination of gays and lesbians and the endorsement of same sex unions, deserves and demands a response.

With all due respect to Dr. Ottati and his skills as a theologian, his logic is flawed and his conclusions faulty. His arguments begin with a false assumption which takes the entire argument far astray of the real issues facing the PCUSA regarding these topics, and his supporting statements are often false and completely without merit. Let me illustrate.

The basic premise of Dr. Ottati's theological musings is stated in this way... "The argument centers on the typically Protestant and biblically well attested conviction that we belong to the God of grace and that, therefore, we have little reason to exclude either ourselves or anyone else from the scope of redemption."

Unless I am completely mistaken, the arguments against the ordination of gays and lesbians, and the arguments against same sex unions never have and never will "center" on denying or affirming either personal or corporate redemption. To the best of my knowledge, none of those who would argue with Dr. Ottati believe that gays and lesbians are excluded from the grace and redemption of God. Saying no to ordination and same sex unions is not the same as saying God does not love gays and lesbians. Nor does saying no imply that God's grace and Christ's redemptive giving of himself are either one withheld from gays or lesbians. If this is truly the center of Dr. Ottati's argument, he is arguing with a straw character he has created out of his own frustration.

Dr. Ottati tries to back up his "argument" with this supporting statement... "...it is unjust to treat people unfairly. But this is precisely what the church does when it excludes from ordained leadership a particular class of called and qualified members. Especially in a church where all other members may be considered for positions of ordained leadership..."

I have two problems with this statement. First, this is not a church where all other members may be considered for positions of ordained leadership. Dr. Ottati's statement is simply wrong. In our congregation we have members who are not considered for leadership positions because the lifestyle they lead does not conform to the "standards" of the Biblical mandates or of the PCUSA and its Book of Order. And none of these people, to the best of my knowledge, are either gay or lesbian. Secondly, according to every discussion on ordination, before and after the infamous insertion of "6b" in the Book of Order, it has been affirmed that persons with a gay or lesbian orientation are not excluded from ordained leadership. The persons excluded from ordained leadership are those with a gay and lesbian orientation who have decided to act upon that orientation. And yes, the Church still calls such action sin.

I suspect that this classification of homosexual activity as sin is the real center of Dr. Ottati's argument, but he fails to ever really make this distinction. The closest he comes to tackling this issue of whether or not homosexuality is sin is tangentially dealt with under his second major point.

Dr. Ottati makes the observation that... "Some passages in the Bible refer to homosexual practices and behavior. All are negative, and they cannot summarily be dismissed."

And yet he goes on to do exactly that. Dr. Ottati seeks to find ways to either dismiss or discount all the Biblical passages that mention homosexuality. It is especially interesting how he even goes so far as to suggest that a rewriting of the Sodom narrative using women instead of men as the sexual identity of Lot's visitors would then help us rethink our twety first century response to these issues.

Unfortunately for Dr. Ottati and others who use this method of Biblical criticism, the Biblical narrative is the narrative. It may be of some academic interest to posit what may have been the point of the story if it had been recorded differently, but it won't help us discover how to live with the text to rewrite it the way we wish it had been written. This sort of Biblical criticism essentially asks us to exchange our vision of the way God has revealed Himself for the way we wish God would become Emmanuel with us.

Karl Barth claimed that God's "No" is simply the other side of God's "Yes," suggesting that the Church can say No to certain behaviors while at she at the same time says Yes to the persons whose behavior is being challenged. In fact, I believe that Barth's vision of the reconciliation of God with the His people demands that the Church learn that it can only say Yes to God by saying No to those things that we know are sinful but wish they weren't. And, we can only say Yes to our relationship with one another when we are willing to deal with No also.

One of my CLP students said something like this in one of his sermons this Fall... "God creates, God sustains, and God constrains". While this wasn't the way he meant it... it occured to me that God the redeemer is also God the constrainer and we need to remember that. In fact, in all deference to Dr. Ottati, this may be the true center of our arguments regarding these issues.

Hesed ve shalom,

Rev. Malcolm M. King III
Pastor, 1st Presbyterian Church
La Follette, TN
A Confessing Church
presbys@campbellcounty.com

~~~~~~~~~~~

Got comments?

We'd like to your responses -- either to Dr. Ottati's essay or to the comments above.
Just send a note, and unless you say otherwise, we'll post it here.