|
| |
|
Doug
Ottati's theological musings |
| Theological Musings
Why We Shouldn't Wait
by Douglas F. Ottati
Professor of Theology at
Union Seminary/PSCE in Richmond, VA
[12-5-03]
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. Here's an outline of the
reasons why.
First, a strong (and to many minds
convincing) argument can be made that draws on a variety of sources and has
considerable biblical support. 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. But it also
includes at least the following additional elements.
 | Jesus Christ discloses the God of grace,
and a church that acknowledges a gracious God will endeavor to be
capacious rather than exclusionary. It will understand itself primarily as
a collection of wayward but graced sinners, a community of beneficiaries
who, in response to the disarming and assuring knowledge that God is
gracious, try to make as faithful and therefore as inclusive a witness as
they can. Indeed, such a church will also suspect that exclusive
communities often reflect the sorts of constricted and defensive
preferences, loyalties, tendencies and commitments that characterize human
corruption.
|
| Biblically supported understandings of
equity indicate that 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, the exclusion of gays and lesbians makes for (at best) a
second class or halfway membership.
|
| Marriage and family should be
understood, first and foremost, as covenantal relationships and
communities of love, responsibility, and care. These intimate and
companionate partnerships entail mutual duties and responsibilities, among
them fidelity, respect, and the willingness to welcome and to care for
children should a couple be so blessed. But whether or not a couple is
able to have children is not and has never been the determinative
criterion. There have always been some married partners who do not have
children, and there have always been some partnerships that result in
children but nevertheless fail as genuinely mutual, loving, and
responsible covenants. Of course, to affirm covenantal relationships of
mutual love, responsibility, and care is not to endorse every imaginable
gay and lesbian relationship, any more than it is to endorse every
imaginable heterosexual relationship. (Those who disapprove of this
"companionate" view, might direct their complaints at Puritans, such as
William Perkins and Richard Baxter, who did much to develop the idea and
to revise earlier, medieval conceptions that sometimes centered more
directly on procreation.)
|
| Embodied sexuality is a feature of God's
good creation, although this does not mean that all sexual activity is
appropriate. The question of what is natural takes on a measure of
importance in this regard because we believe that God is creator and
governor. However, a variety of evidence may count for making a judgment
about what constitutes natural sexual behavior. Among the resources to
which one may appeal are studies of the sexual behaviors of human
societies and populations, as well as comparative studies of the behaviors
of other animal species. One may also appeal to philosophical and literary
perspectives. In any case, it is not immediately apparent (as is sometimes
rather rashly and Aristotelianly assumed) that what renders a sexual act
natural is simply the possibility that it may result in offspring. Indeed,
were this the sole criterion, one would have to conclude that a good deal
of married heterosexual sex, especially among somewhat older couples, is
unnatural. Neither is it immediately apparent that there is only one
function of the sexual organs. One might rather conclude that sexual
activity among humans has a variety of purposes and / or functions,
including procreation but also companionship, gratification, and play.
Again, we sometimes are less likely to regard sexual orientations as
"unnatural" if we believe that they flow from biological and psychological
forces that individuals cannot easily alter at will. Without trying here
to sort through the (somewhat ambiguous) evidences having to do with
hormonal configurations, we may at least observe this. The fundamental
experience of most persons most of the time, is that their sexual
orientations befall them. One's sexuality (as seemed apparent to me as
well as to many of my adolescent friends in northern New Jersey circa
1966) is not primarily the product of rational deliberation. To a
significant extent and degree, it seems a rather nonnegotiable dimension
of who one is.
|
This is a good place to register a
second major point. Some passages in the Bible refer to homosexual
practices and behavior. All are negative, and they cannot summarily be
dismissed. However, in the judgment of many scholars, at least some of these
passages do not refer to the homosexual practices we have in mind here,
i.e., committed relationships between consenting adults. Some associate
homosexual relations rather closely with the prohibited religious practices
of other peoples, e.g., Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. When it comes to the story
of Sodom in Genesis 19, consider whether the behavior of the men of the city
would have been significantly improved had they demanded that Lot hand over
two female visitors. Perhaps the real sin of Sodom was violence and
inhospitality.
Even so, there is Romans 1, where Paul
implies a different understanding of what is natural than the one I have
suggested. According to Joseph Fitzmyer, the Apostle assumes that there is
essentially one natural function of the sexual organs themselves, namely the
expression of love between a man and a woman for the procreation of
children. Paul regards homosexual conduct as a "misuse of the natural
procreative faculty" that is associated with idolatry and, while he may not
have in mind precisely the same practices that we do, his remarks are
unequivocal.
For this reason God gave them up to
degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,
and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women,
were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts
with men and received in their own persons, the due penalty for their error
(Rom. 1:26-27).
How do we deal with this?
In the final analysis, I think, we can only
appeal to theological themes and ideas that command broad biblical support
(e.g., the conviction that the God of Jesus Christ is the God of grace) as
elements of an overall argument to endorse practices that at least one
biblical passage opposes. It seems important to point out, however, that
somewhat similar arguments have been tried before. Consider John Calvin's
reasons in favor of lending money at (limited rates of) interest despite his
recognition of specific biblical prohibitions. Consider, too, that many
biblical passages imply possible religious sanctions for "total war," ethnic
cleansing, and genocide, e.g., Joshua, while more than a few theologians and
churches have chosen instead to devise biblically supported arguments in
favor of "just" limitations in the conduct of war.
Third, to understand ordination as we
Presbyterians do, and then deny it to a class of persons - perhaps on the
specious grounds that the great God of glory and grace "cannot" call them -
is to exclude, reject, and hurt persons of good faith and commitment.
Over the years, I have witnessed the church's rejection of the considerable
gifts and contributions of gay and lesbian seminarians, professors,
ministers, teachers, elders, and deacons. The cost in lost talents to the
church has been significant, but the costs to those persons whose gifts and
contributions have been spurned has been cruelly and extraordinarily high.
(Quite rightly, I think, the rejection is received, in effect, as an
invitation to leave.) Now, it may be that a theological argument can be
constructed for keeping in place policies and procedures that make for this
measure of suffering and hurt. But, as these practices appear not to accord
with the rule of love, the arguments that sustain them would have to be
exceptionally strong indeed. If there is any doubt (in this instance anyway)
it would seem better to err on the side of love.
Again, to refuse to endorse same sex
relationships is to refuse them the measure of social acceptance and
recognition that heterosexual relationships enjoy. Such acceptance and
recognition helps to strengthen and support relationships of fidelity and
mutual responsibility. (Think, for example, what it can mean for a man or a
woman to be joined in matrimony before a community of family and friends.)
To withhold it is (in effect and unChristianly) to discourage (or at least
fail to support) impulses toward fidelity, responsibility, and mutual care
among a significant portion of the population.
Finally, some Presbyterians who largely
agree with the points I have made here nevertheless refrain from pressing
the issue for fear that the church may split. (For a tense circumstance
that may be cited by people on all sides, see the current strife among
Episcopalians over the ordination of Bishop Robinson.) As I have already
indicated above, the current stance of the Presbyterian Church (USA) can
only be maintained at a very high, continuing, painful, and cruel cost to a
particular group of persons. At such a cost, it is at least theologically
questionable to uphold the visible unity of a particular denomination. Yes,
the unity of the church is a considerable value. It points to one Lord and
one baptism. Moreover, when people and groups join together in Christ
despite important differences and even conflicts, they testify to the
possibility of a loyalty and a witness that cross barriers and boundaries in
order to make for reconciliation, new community, and more abundant life. As
a professor in a Presbyterian seminary, I am also keenly aware that any
significant split or diminishment would pose considerable practical and
financial risks to many of this denomination's most important institutions
and involvements. Even so, no Protestant can value the visible unity of the
church above all else. To do so, of course would be to turn one's back on
the principle of the Reformation itself, and also to turn the church into an
idol. The fundamental question is whether the church truly witnesses to the
gospel of grace.
We'd appreciate hearing your
comments on this paper, and if you're willing, we'll post them here.
Just
send a note!
|
| |
| |
|
If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!
Please consider making a special contribution --
large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.
Click
here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through
PayPal.
Or send your check, made out to
"Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon
Bookkeeper:
Susan Robertson
9650 Clover Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55347 |
| |
|
An index of
our reports
from
BECOMING NEIGHBORS:
An Invitation
to Global Discipleship
A Witherspoon conference
on global mission and justice
September 16 - 19, 2007
Louisville, Kentucky |
| |
|
Check out our report from the
Conference
on
Terror, Torture,
and Security |
| |
|
