Some of the conservative PCUSA congregations are mulling or enacting separation from the denomination due to what is perceived as a drift from Biblical standards and truth. In a nutshell, such schism is neither mandated nor allowed by Scripture, so such congregations seek to respond to a wrong with yet another wrong. Unhelpful, to say the least.
Unfortunately, the more liberal factions in our denomination stand no better. Articles like this one only add fuel to the proverbial fire. First, the language in the intro would have us to believe that the pro-gay ordination folks are simply interested in "equality", while their opponents are heavy-handed and legalistic. When any group asserts that it's side is wholly with merit while the other side is malevolent, something is amiss. Second, the Presbyterian Coalition is described as being "anti-LGBT", which is unfair and incorrect. Indeed, one finds the language of grace extended to the other side of the debate much more often among Coalition and Presbyterians for Renewal writers than More Light, Covenant Network, or, to be fair, Presbyterian Layman writers. I am reminded of the Rev'd Will D. Campbell who was simultaneously chaplain of the Klan and supportive of the Civil Rights movement. He once remarked that while he was not pro-Klan, he was pro-Klansman. The same can be said here: It is possible to be pro-gay, while not being pro-gay ordination. Such a distinction would be helpful to both sides, to be sure.
But the third problem with this article, and with many others like it, is that it assumes that inclusion mandates ordination. In other words, a person who cannot be ordained is inherently not welcome. This conviction is, to borrow the pun from the article, "un-tenet-able", and this above and beyond the gay ordination argument. We don't ordinarily ordain young children, yet they are welcome. We don't ordinarily ordain alcoholics or adulterers, yet they are welcome. We shouldn't ordain the self-righteous and proudly indignant (although we often do), yet they are still welcome. In fact, there are plenty of people who are fine, devout, hard working, and faithful; yet, for whatever reason, they are not chosen for leadership. A person can be lay and still be whole in her or his personhood. Perhaps this is a conviction we have lost in the past decades as anyone who will volunteer for the job is made an Elder. But ordination is not a flippant thing, and it is not available to everyone. As a corollary, those who are not ordained should not receive their lack of ordination as a commentary on their faith or personhood, for it isn't.
As long as articles like this one--on both sides of the argument--paint with too broad a brush and impugn those who don't agree, we will tend for schism, with trouble ahead for all.
Unfortunately, the more liberal factions in our denomination stand no better. Articles like this one only add fuel to the proverbial fire. First, the language in the intro would have us to believe that the pro-gay ordination folks are simply interested in "equality", while their opponents are heavy-handed and legalistic. When any group asserts that it's side is wholly with merit while the other side is malevolent, something is amiss. Second, the Presbyterian Coalition is described as being "anti-LGBT", which is unfair and incorrect. Indeed, one finds the language of grace extended to the other side of the debate much more often among Coalition and Presbyterians for Renewal writers than More Light, Covenant Network, or, to be fair, Presbyterian Layman writers. I am reminded of the Rev'd Will D. Campbell who was simultaneously chaplain of the Klan and supportive of the Civil Rights movement. He once remarked that while he was not pro-Klan, he was pro-Klansman. The same can be said here: It is possible to be pro-gay, while not being pro-gay ordination. Such a distinction would be helpful to both sides, to be sure.
But the third problem with this article, and with many others like it, is that it assumes that inclusion mandates ordination. In other words, a person who cannot be ordained is inherently not welcome. This conviction is, to borrow the pun from the article, "un-tenet-able", and this above and beyond the gay ordination argument. We don't ordinarily ordain young children, yet they are welcome. We don't ordinarily ordain alcoholics or adulterers, yet they are welcome. We shouldn't ordain the self-righteous and proudly indignant (although we often do), yet they are still welcome. In fact, there are plenty of people who are fine, devout, hard working, and faithful; yet, for whatever reason, they are not chosen for leadership. A person can be lay and still be whole in her or his personhood. Perhaps this is a conviction we have lost in the past decades as anyone who will volunteer for the job is made an Elder. But ordination is not a flippant thing, and it is not available to everyone. As a corollary, those who are not ordained should not receive their lack of ordination as a commentary on their faith or personhood, for it isn't.
As long as articles like this one--on both sides of the argument--paint with too broad a brush and impugn those who don't agree, we will tend for schism, with trouble ahead for all.
posted by The Parson | 1:59 PM
2 Comments:
Good work, Parson
Thank you, Larry.
Post a Comment
<< Home