Homosexual Clergy question

[LuxPerpetua]

Does anyone know the official reasons churches are citing for ordaining homosexual clergy?

I know that the United Church of Christ (I think), the Episcopal church, and now, it seems, the Methodist church are approving of openly homosexual clergy, but are there any other denoms at the moment jumping on this "bandwagon" ( :rolleyes: )?

[countrymousenc]

There are other denoms examining the question. I think the ELCA is one of them, seem to remember reading that at their official website. There doesn't actually seem to be an official statement as to why from any of them. Proponents for allowing non-celibate homosexual clergy have decided that it is unloving and discriminatory to bar anyone from the vocation of ministry because of the person's sexual orientation, and that, if a homosexual couple is monogamous, their relationship is no different from that of a faithfully married heterosexual couple in God's eyes.

This implies that Christendom has misinterpreted the Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior prior to this, meaning that the Church cannot authoritatively and infallibly interpret what the Bible says. The question is not whether a pope or bishop is infallible, the question is the Church herself. If they are right, the Church has erred for nearly two thousand years in calling all homosexual behavior sinful. Therefore, the Church has proven not to be trustworthy in deciding what is sinful (if these people are to be believed.) If the Church does not know what is sinful, then the Church does not know from what we need to be saved.

[Bulldog]

The Presbyterian Church in America (pcusa.org) is currently going through a gig conflick about gay clergy. The way its looking, they probably will eventualy ordain gay clergy.

[Lotar]

I think all the denoms that ordain women will eventually ordain homosexuals.

[nadroj1985]

If the Church does not know what is sinful, then the Church does not know from what we need to be saved.

I'm not sure this necessarily follows. The Church has been wrong before, but it's still considered to be right by most Christians in its view of salvation.

[countrymousenc]

I think all the denoms that ordain women will eventually ordain homosexuals.

I think you're right. In ordaining women to the priesthood, those churches have already broken with Tradition, and denied the Church's ability to rightly interpret the Bible. We shouldn't be surprised at anything else they do.

[seebs]

The question is not whether a pope or bishop is infallible, the question is the Church herself. If they are right, the Church has erred for nearly two thousand years in calling all homosexual behavior sinful.

Yes. This is one of the heavy burdens Protestants must bear; we have accepted that it is possible that "the Church", as a whole, may yet have errors to be led out of. We have had this debate before, on many issues. Modern churches teach that historical positions on slavery were wrong. Protestant churches teach that historical positions on many issues were wrong. Different churches teach differently on many issues.

We will not know, for some time, whether we are being led astray or led into all truth as promised. Many of the things we have come to doubt about historical teachings have worked out well; some, perhaps, not so well.

It would be a lot easier for us to seek the truth in this matter if we were more consistent in seeking understanding of differing positions. The people who are wrong on this issue - whoever they are - nonetheless appear to be sincere in their desire to seek God's will in this and other issues.

It is humbling reading documents from other debates within our history. Debates over the ordination of women continue to this day. Debates on the nature of war, and how far to take the injunction not to resist the evil man, continue.

[Plan 9]

Has anyone else noticed that there are already three threads on this subject just on the first page? Wouldn't it be more productive to stick to one? For instance, some of the answers Lux is seeking are in the Methodist thread. :)

[countrymousenc]

Lux isn't only asking about Methodists.

[Lotar]

People are outraged about this now but five years from now it won't even hardly be mentioned, just like the ordaination of women. So many sects have now adopted the historical critical method of interpretation of scripture. They hold nothing as absolute and bind themselves only to the "spirit" of their confessions, or the "message" of the gospel; and even then what that message is is open to interpretation. This has opened them up to heredoxy and apostacy.

[Plan 9]

Lux isn't only asking about Methodists.
Since Lux wants to know the "official reasons", as she put it, that thread would make a fine starting place, especially since she specifically mentions the Methodist church in her OP. :)

[countrymousenc]

Perhaps we should leave that up to Lux, don't you think?

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Lux


This is very troubling with the churches of today seems people have forgotten some simple things:

"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)

Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.

Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Peace to u, Even though I feel troubled inside:prayer:

BBAS

[SpiritPsalmist]

I think all the denoms that ordain women will eventually ordain homosexuals.I find this a very odd statement. . .I strongly disagree. I know many scriptures that backup woman being used to preach the gospel. There are none that back up laying hands on one living in sin and sending them forth to preach the Word.

[Plan 9]

Perhaps we should leave that up to Lux, don't you think?
Of course. :)
In the meantime, it might be nice if someone besides Bulldog attempted to address the OP? Were the OP being addressed, this would be a helpful thread indeed and I would be the first to support its continued existence.

Bulldog, where should I go on that site to find the relevant material, please? I can't find it. :blush:

Lux, if you were to PM Origen (United Methodist) and Polycarp1 (Episcopalian), both of them seem quite knowledgeable about their respective denominations, and I feel sure they would be happy to explain. :)

[Lotar]

It is not odd at all.

Why do certian sects ordain women? Because they re-inturpret scripture and say "Well, Paul probably never meant for that inturpretation," and so on.

Those who accept homosexuality do it on the same basis. "Sodomite was probably refering to permiscuos behavior or prostitutes" etc.

They are both rejections of the historical interpretations.

[SpiritPsalmist]

It is not odd at all.

Why do certian sects ordain women? Because they re-inturpret scripture and say "Well, Paul probably never meant for that inturpretation," and so on.

Those who accept homosexuality do it on the same basis. "Sodomite was probably refering to permiscuos behavior or prostitutes" etc.

They are both rejections of the historical interpretations.Again, I strongly dissagree. Jesus allowed woman to preach the gospel.

That's a blanket statement about many groups you know nothing about. I belong to a church that ordains woman. I know we will not ordain homsexuals or any other person who is living in sexual sin.

[SpiritPsalmist]

Also *speaking as a MOD*

LET'S NOT BITE AND DEVOUR ONE ANOTHER.

Thank you. :)

[Lotar]

Time will tell.

Lux asked for who and why, and I gave my answer, like it or not.

All of the sects who ordain or are considering ordaining homosexuals also ordain women, and they all do it on the same grounds, which, unless I am mistaken, are the same grounds your denom uses. They do it because they don't consider it a sin.

[Bulldog]

.

Bulldog, where should I go on that site to find the relevant material, please? I can't find it. :blush:

That's my fault, actually. I was just intending to give the church website, so that people would know what the church was. :sorry: Here are some links to things about the PCUSA and homosexuals:

http://www.layman.org/layman/news/news-from-pcusa/ga99-oldenburg-opposes-standard.htm

http://www.thelutheran.org/9908/page52.html

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/18_120/107760348/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.sdadefend.com/Presbyterian.htm

Note: Some of these may be biased.

[countrymousenc]

Here is the link for the official UMC website:

http://www.umc.org/

[Plan 9]

That's my fault, actually. I was just intending to give the church website, so that people would know what the church was. :sorry: Here are some links to things about the PCUSA and homosexuals:

http://www.layman.org/layman/news/news-from-pcusa/ga99-oldenburg-opposes-standard.htm

http://www.thelutheran.org/9908/page52.html

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1058/18_120/107760348/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.sdadefend.com/Presbyterian.htm

Note: Some of these may be biased.


Bulldog, I was very pleased to have the Presbyterian site link!
Thank you so much for providing me with more. I really appreciate your kind assistance. :)

[LuxPerpetua]

I've looked over the Methodist thread, and from what I can tell it was mostly personal discussion rather than any official statements given by the heads of the churches involved (I have no idea of such statements having been issued, but I assume that the clergy heading these churches would have justified their voting in some way, but I may be mistaken here).

I'm not interested in discussing the ordination of women (being female has never been a sin, and at least I believe there is interesting evidence supporting female ministers in some forms of pastoral leadership) or the ordination of repentant homosexual people (who, although they believe homosexuality is wrong, cannot commit themselves to heterosexual relationships) but rather I am interested in the *official reasons* churches have given for ordaining openly, non-repentant homosexuals when this seems in violation of Scripture (Titus 1:5, 1 Peter 5:1, Romans 2, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, just to name a few verses). What I'm really wondering is, are these churches looking at these verses through a lens of historical relativism (meaning, that they should only be applied to the church at that particular time in history) or are they questioning the accuracy of the translation of Scripture in the passages dealing with homosexuality, or what? I think I am just personally confused since it seems that Scripture is fairly blatant on the sinful nature of homosexuality, so I don't know what I'm missing that has caused so many churches to change their minds in this regard.

[praying]

This implies that Christendom has misinterpreted the Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior prior to this, meaning that the Church cannot authoritatively and infallibly interpret what the Bible says. The question is not whether a pope or bishop is infallible, the question is the Church herself. If they are right, the Church has erred for nearly two thousand years in calling all homosexual behavior sinful. Therefore, the Church has proven not to be trustworthy in deciding what is sinful (if these people are to be believed.) If the Church does not know what is sinful, then the Church does not know from what we need to be saved.


I venture to say we (the believers) are the Church. The Church is not an entity in and of itself. It is run by men (mostly) and women who like the lay people are not infallible. They may, and in most cases are, be more studied then the lay person in theology but they are not above us.

[SpiritPsalmist]

Time will tell.

Lux asked for who and why, and I gave my answer, like it or not.

All of the sects who ordain or are considering ordaining homosexuals also ordain women, and they all do it on the same grounds, which, unless I am mistaken, are the same grounds your denom uses. They do it because they don't consider it a sin.Actually, that part of your answer was not necessary since lux did not say anything about woman preaching the gospel ;) It did not come up until you mentioned it.

I go to a non-denominational and the reason they allow woman to preach the gospel is because God ordained it. "Your sons AND your daughters is what "is written". Jesus used woman to preach the gospel. . .would you say then that Jesus must not have considered it a sin?

For the sake of lux's thread though I won't derail this anymore. . .I just wanted to address your statement as false. IMO :)

[LuxPerpetua]

Thanks Bulldog and countrymouse for the links ;)

[Plan 9]

I've looked over the Methodist thread, and from what I can tell it was mostly personal discussion rather than any official statements given by the heads of the churches involved (I have no idea of such statements having been issued, but I assume that the clergy heading these churches would have justified their voting in some way, but I may be mistaken here).

I'm not interested in discussing the ordination of women (being female has never been a sin, and at least I believe there is interesting evidence supporting female ministers in some forms of pastoral leadership) or the ordination of repentant homosexual people (who, although they believe homosexuality is wrong, cannot commit themselves to heterosexual relationships) but rather I am interested in the *official reasons* churches have given for ordaining openly, non-repentant homosexuals when this seems in violation of Scripture (Titus 1:5, 1 Peter 5:1, Romans 2, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, just to name a few verses). What I'm really wondering is, are these churches looking at these verses through a lens of historical relativism (meaning, that they should only be applied to the church at that particular time in history) or are they questioning the accuracy of the translation of Scripture in the passages dealing with homosexuality, or what? I think I am just personally confused since it seems that Scripture is fairly blatant on the sinful nature of homosexuality, so I don't know what I'm missing that has caused so many churches to change their minds in this regard. First of all, as far as I can discover, the United Methodist Church has never knowingly ordained a practicing homosexual minister.
The UMC is as much about the individual personal opinions of its members, both laymen and clergy, as it is about the official statements our church "heads" because we all send delegates to conferences, at which they vote. So, yes, you pretty much have to pick through it for Origen's posts, which, IMO, are the best explanatory posts there, and he provides links to the relevant statements contained in our Book of Discipline.
Our General Conference meets toward the end of next month, this subject is on their agenda, and changes to our Book of Discipline may, or may not, result from decisions made there.
However, I believe that Origen has made a good start in the other thread at addressing the questions you've brought up in this post.
United Methodists themselves run the gamut from ultra-conservative to liberal, so consulting the Book of Discipline is always your best bet, in any case.
This is only my personal opinion, of course. ;)

Bye, Lux. Seeya around. :wave:

Thanks again, Bulldog! :bow:

[Bulldog]

Thanks for the compliment, Plan 9. :)

[Origen]

Does anyone know the official reasons churches are citing for ordaining homosexual clergy?

Your question is framed a bit awkwardly. Do churches cite reasons for ordaining left-handed clergy or red-headed clergy? No, because it's not a problem; it's the right thing to do. When mainline churches began to ordain women, they may have offered explanations about why they were changing their position; but the bottom line was that it was/is the right thing to do. Similarly, the mainline churches are more or less slowly correcting their position on the ordination of homosexual clergy.

I'm not as familar with the other mainline churches as I am with the United Methodist church, so I can't speak to what information they have released.

First, it would be a mistake to consider the acquittal in Washington state as a change of position for the whole denomination of the United Methodist Church nationwide. Analogously, a state court in, for example, Tennessee could find that the sale of firecrackers is legal, but that doesn't mean that that ruling is binding on New York. Only our national legislative assembly which meets every four years (called General Conference) can speak for the whole church; there's no Methodist Pope or Archbishop who is going to make some sort of announcement.

So, understanding that the trial court in Washington speaks only for that body, and understanding that this may be more detail oriented than you were looking for, here are some details about how they reasoned for acquittal:

Excerpt a from United Methodist News Service feature article:

Presiding Officer Says Trial Was Fair, Honorable (http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=2&mid=3794)

Many people are viewing the verdict by the clergy jurors of the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference as an action by the entire United Methodist Church.

In an interview with United Methodist News Service, Grove said it is important for people to distinguish the difference between an annual conference and the denomination in understanding the verdict.

First, he said, a clergy person is a member of the annual conference, and the conference is responsible for determining the "suitability" of clergy or candidates for ordination and conference membership. The decision about suitability is made at the annual conference level.

...

Before the proceedings, Grove questioned the clergy of the Pacific Northwest Conference who made up the pool of potential jurors "to determine if they would be able and willing to set aside any personal convictions or feelings (and) apply the relevant portions of the Book of Discipline."

Some who felt they could not set aside their feelings were excused. Those remaining in the pool "committed themselves to abide by the provisions of the Book of Discipline, which I believe they did," Grove said.

He said he does not think the trial court was insincere in its efforts. "This is why I think the decision should be respected, even if it is not agreed with."

He said the trial court found Dammann not guilty based on the testimony heard about Paragraph 304.3 (http://www.umc.org/Calms/Discipline.asp?mid=2886&Number=304) in the Book of Discipline, where the phrase, "since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," is found. "They received testimony that caused them to doubt whether the paragraph has force given the fact that the word 'since' refers back to the Social Principles," Grove said.

The 2000 General Conference declared that the Social Principles represent the official position of the church "but they are not church law," Grove said.

The court also brought a not guilty verdict based on Paragraph 2702.b (http://www.umc.org/Calms/Discipline.asp?mid=2886&Number=2702). The jurors, in their interpretation, could not find that "declaration ... but as I understand their interpretation, they said that while they found those words in the Discipline, they did not find the declaration which is referred to."

Before the 13 members of the trial court began deliberations, Grove ordered that after they reached their verdict and before they reported it, they must draft a statement explaining their decision to help the church understand their reasoning.

"If we look at their statement, it indicates that they did not believe that there is in the Book of Discipline itself a declaration but a reference to one because of the word 'since.'" He said testimony indicated that the declaration is in the Social Principles, which have been ruled as not being law but an instructional guide with prophetic statements that represent the church's position on social issues.

The Presiding officer, Bishop Grove, in the article above makes reference to a statement issued by the trial court (jury). Here is the text from that statement (http://www.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=2&mid=3762):

"The only charge brought against the Rev. Karen T. Dammann is 'practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings,' under Paragraph 2702.1b (http://www.umc.org/Calms/Discipline.asp?mid=2886&Number=2702) relating to the Judicial Complaint of Bishop Elias Galvan. While sustaining the specification that Rev. Karen Dammann is a self-avowed practicing homosexual, we, the trial court, do not find the evidence presented by church counsel to be clear and convincing that Karen Dammann has engaged in any 'practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings.' We cannot sustain the charge.

"We, the trial court, reached our decisions after many hours of painful and prayerful deliberation, and listening for and to the word of God. We depended on the prayers of the whole church, which undergirded our process. We depended on the leading of the Holy Spirit.

"We have made every attempt to be faithful to the Book of Discipline in its entirety. We have taken very seriously the mandate to presume innocence unless there is sufficient evidence to bring a different verdict. The church's obligation is to present clear and convincing evidence to sustain the charge. We searched the Discipline and did not find a declaration that 'the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.'

"We did see in the Discipline many declarative statements. An example is: 'Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community, and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination.' (Section 6 of The Ministry of all Christians, section VI, 'Called to Inclusiveness,' Paragraph 138 (http://www.umc.org/Calms/Discipline.asp?mid=2886&Number=138), p. 93, second paragraph)

"Although we, the trial court, found passages that contain the phrasing 'incompatible with Christian teaching,' we did not find that any of them constitute a declaration.

"We realize that the church is divided regarding issues of homosexuality. We, as the trial court, are far from unanimous regarding biblical and theological understandings.

"The beginning sentence of 'Our Theological Task,' Paragraph 104 (http://www.umc.org/Calms/Discipline.asp?mid=2886&Number=104), Conclusion, p. 85, says: 'Doctrine arises out of the life of the Church - its faith, its worship, its discipline, its conflicts, its challenges from the world it would serve.' In this spirit, we have engaged in this judicial task."