This is a little editorial from the Christian Century written by Martin Marty. It is an interesting tightrope, but I like it. It is from a Protestant perspective. So, leave your RC/EOC/AngloCatholic sensibilities at the door if you got 'em.
Impressed by my own church body's fair-minded materials (www.elca.org/faithfuljourney) but dismayed by the heat of the arguments here as in all churches, from Roman Catholic to Anabaptist, I lapse into a wishing mode. I wish we could start this one all over, this time dealing with it not only as what Martin Buber would call an "I-It" dispute but in a conversational "I-Thou" form.
The "It" people in both camps write and read lengthy biblical, theological and psychological documents that cancel each other out. A fundamental mistake made by those homosexual people who would be ordained, or those who would support them in this quest, was to let their opponents type their pleas as part of "the [secular] gay agenda" or "the homosexual issue." Put this way, the conflict leaves us at war with each other and poised for divisive denominational votes.
My perspective is that of a senior visitor at theological schools and ministerial assemblies, a wanderer who is open to listening and who gets approached by candidates for ordination. That experience helps me understand why so many moderators, presbyters, bishops, professors, credentialing committees and pastors are seen as "soft." They regularly look into the eyes of men and women who have a consuming desire to serve in the ordained clergy. I puzzle with them about church bodies that proclaim we are all ordained to ministry by our baptism--a.k.a. "the priesthood of all believers"-- and yet set standards of Christian living for ordained clergy that exclude gay and lesbian members of the church who have been "ordained" by baptism.
My friends are bemused by what they call the "hermeneutical" issue: why the six or seven inches of print in the biblical testaments that condemn man-with-man and woman-with-woman sexual relations get treated "literally" while the much more strenuous Jesus-of-the-gospel strictures against divorce are not treated in the same way by most denominations.
Most of the gay and lesbian Christians with whom I meet don't spend much time scrambling to pick up allies on a "gay agenda" or "homosexual issues" front. They are more likely to speak in puzzlement about the mystery of their own sexual identity, as unsought as was that of their heterosexual counterparts. They denounce homosexual promiscuity as much as others denounce, or should denounce, heterosexual misconduct.
Some cry when they talk about the portrayals that demean the quality of their covenanted partnership. Though they don't bring it up, people in the parishes where they worship and where in ordained-by-baptism ways they minister point to the exemplarity of their grace-filled lives. We hear that he or she is "exactly the kind of person" or, in the "I-Thou" world, the person we would like to be our minister. Most of those I meet speak with far more clarity about their life in Christ, their call under the Holy Spirit, than do those who do not have to defend their very being, as gays do.
Jesus observed the Sabbath, but also knew when the "Thou" before him called him to transcend the boundaries of Sabbath rules. It is called "loving," a loving that needs to be extended to gay Christians.
Copyright 2004 Christian Century. Reproduced by permission from the March 3, 2004 issue of the Christian Century. Subscriptions: $49/year from P.O. Box 378, Mt. Morris, IL 61054. 1-800-208-4097
Posted by tripp at March 20, 2004 06:57 AMI know that Marty means this in the most positive way possible when he writes of ordinands that there are "men and women who have a consuming desire to serve in the ordained clergy." But it seems to me that this sort of thing ought disqualify one from ordination. It is so easy to read such a thing as from God when in reality it may just be self-oriented. The heart is a deceitful thing.
But, alas, this sort of "burning in the bosom" factor has been a part of Protestant vocational theology since the Great Awakening and its lesser hisotrical offspring.
I know. It was always one of the things I was asked about when going through my own vocational discernment. "Do you have a burning desire to serve God in this way?" A positive answer seemed to be an all-important necessity.
But I wonder about important men of God from history, like Chrysostom, who fled from ministry.
I know it's not an either/or thing. It's not as though it should be a requirement that one have a passionate avoidance of ministry. But this "passion as authenticator" motif seems troublingly problematic.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at March 20, 2004 07:26 AMI see your point. And yet, how does one respond to a vocational call? This is tricky. As you say, there is no prescribed method of response like "A true priest, he runneth from the LORD for 40 days and nights. This is how ye shall know he is a true priest." So, we are going to see various responses and some that simply look like someone trying for a job. You know? It is true. I also think about that Italian tradition of the oldest son becomming a priest, or in the Middle Ages (and such), younger sons becomming monks because it was a good career choice, one providing education and political power (!) if they were in the right monestary. This does not mean that holy people were not engaged or called. But this dynamic that you mention is hardly new. It has always been. The Sons of Zebedee may be our first example, you know? It is interesting! This is a constant struggle in following Christ. It is that loss of self into the Godhead.
In a Protestant framework, when the priesthood of all believers is the motif, how can one hold back ordination? It certainly makes no sense in Baptist theology as far as I can discern. There is no sacramental aspect to "priestly" ordination. Those ordained are called to a specific job, if you will. It is pastoral, yes. It even serves as example, yes. But it's primary theological core is no different than Joe Smith sitting in the pew. This is the piece I think Marty sets up well and is worth my attention as a Baptist if nothing else.
Now, I wonder what the congregations were looking for in a pastor that thse people fulfilled their desires. Was it the fruit of the Spirit? One would hope. Was it a good manager with plenty of fundraising experience? That certainly has its perks, but is this a call for a Christian? All we can do is guess from Marty's article and take it on faith that the good professor, as he is no intellectual slouch, has thought about the fruits.
Posted by: Tripp at March 20, 2004 07:42 AMNot exactly on message, but something that always bothers me about how we treat clergy: Aside from the issue of homosexuality and gay people (assume we aren't in the room for a moment), I ask:
Are our ordained clergy professional Christians while the rest of us are the amateur Christians?
No, of course not. But we often make this unspoken dichotomy about the clergy. They should be different from the rest of us.
And somewhere in the mix, we want them to be less human than the rest of us. They are living the life the rest of us cannot because we're weak and they're special. It's a phony distinction when we (laity) use it to give ourselves a bye in living out the gospel even as we pile a mountain load of expectations on our paid clergy.
Which may explain, in part, why we look at ordination as being more important than our baptismal vows.
(Takes off Invisibility Cloak)
I am probably misreading your last sentence, Tripp, but who cares who or why or what MM was thinking in terms of gay people and parishes where they may serve.
Personally, I blame God for gay people staying in the church, responding to the gospel, working out their/our salvation in fear and trembling. I know its tough for non-gay folk, its divisive, its troubling. Scriptures take on new meanings in addition to old ones. Politics gets brought into the mix.
Re-thinking gay folk and the church is not a new thing. It's as old as the desire and response of Gentiles in the first century who answered a call to become Christian.
It's the hand we are dealt, gay or straight, right now. I doubt that there are committees in heaven, with lots of handwringing, arguing who is worthy of being in Christ's church, but instead a great confidence in God's love for his people, and a great expectation that we are all salvageable and useful for ministry in a variety of forms.
Posted by: Don at March 20, 2004 09:43 AMHow is the last sentence not clear, Don? The idea is that instead of assuminng that Marty has not though this through biblically, we can assume he has even if one is predisposed to disagree with him. Marty is a smart guy. This does not necessarily mean he is right, but it causes me to take him seriously.
That is all. Does this help, Don?
Posted by: Tripp at March 20, 2004 10:46 AMTripp -- I'm sorry. How is it not clear to me? Hmm...
I suppose the first reason that comes to mind is that I assumed that he had thought about it biblically/theologically.
When you asked, Now, I wonder what the congregations were looking for in a pastor that thse people fulfilled their desires, the question didn't make much sense to me. Is there an assumption that a parish that called a gay clergy person was looking for something in their minister/priest/pastor different from parishs that would never call a gay person? Or an assumption that gay people called to ministry do it for reasons different from straight people?
You may not have meant that, and I apologize if I am misreading it.
Martin, talking about gay clergy, wrote Most of those I meet speak with far more clarity about their life in Christ, their call under the Holy Spirit, than do those who do not have to defend their very being, as gays do.
Doesn't that say he did think that these clergy were exhibiting fruits of the Spirit?
Which brings to mind a line out of an old Elaine Mays/Mike Nichols routine: there are good lepers and there are bad lepers and we shouldn't lump them all together.
Posted by: Don at March 20, 2004 05:30 PM1. Always lump lepers together. ;-)
2. Re: fruit, you and I are on the same page with that, I misunderstood your initial question.
3. What is a church looking for in a priest? Are they looking for a spiritual leader or a manager? Does it matter? These questions have absolutely nothing to do with the sexual preference of a pastor at all. It was just a question to flag the issue that Marty is assuming that the churches in question we asking the right questions. Again, nothing to do with being gay or not being gay...just a flag for the sake of flag throwing.
hmm..this is quite interesting
Moveable type needs to go, better blogs use Wordpress!
Posted by: lesbian members at November 15, 2005 10:27 AMring tones A s'il in debt may not mayster his ring tones by giving his scarifies or chattels to his straytis in d'usse to have the compulsions at their colosse. to the Project Writers Literary Charivaresque Als
Posted by: ring tones at January 14, 2006 01:45 PM