The rationale given for this position was a denial factually that gender orientation is in any way a given, and a denial theologically that God would ever create someone with a homosexual orientation. Thus anyone who felt that they were of homosexual orientation was either self-deluded (and thus unfit for ordination) or was wilfully making excuses for their sinful choices and desires (and thus unfit for ordination).
Another example – simply the most recent I have come across: Stephen recently posted a link to the “Bridges Across the Divide” website (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/index.htm) and in reading through that website I came across the following quote from John Rankin, President of the Theological Education Institute (whatever that is) and a member of a Presbyterian church in the US:
“I think Lureen has also raised a very interesting issue when she said she is a lesbian regardless of her practices or her acts, which is an ontological statement, a statement of being. She says that that's who she is. And I think ultimately that's what the question is about, whether debating within the Presbyterian Church or other denominations. Who are we? What is it to be made in God's image? Can someone be made in God's image according to the order of creation and be homosexual by identity. Or a fornicator by identity. And I believe in both cases the answer is no.”
So by all means, where it is possible to establish a common position that sexual orientation is not a bar to ordination, then let us press on to discuss other issues, but we cannot assume that such a common position can be assumed either within the UCA or Christianity more widely, and we cannot stop pressing the debate on that point where it is necessary.
One further thing. If I understand you aright Andrew, your last posts seem to indicate that the reason you do not feel actively homosexual people can be qualified for ministry is that they are exercising their sexuality outside of marriage. Is that correct? And your way of dealing with this is either to offer marriage to homosexual people, or else to overturn the link between ordination and marriage (or celibacy). Is that correct?
If this is correct, I have to say that I find it rather bizarre that you are choosing to deny active homosexuals the opportunity to enter into the particular ministry reserved for those who are ordained, not on the basis that they are (objectively) unfit for such ministry within God’s kingdom, but rather on the basis that the church (UCA) has erred by not offering marriage to homosexuals or has erred by not overturning its position on ordination and marriage. In other words, you seem to be putting the letter of the law, and moreover a law you have said you feel is wrong, above the spirit inherent in the gifts and calling of such people to ministry. That doesn’t seem to me to be the kind of solution Jesus favoured in dealing with law and spirit. Or have I misunderstood some aspect of your position?
Cheers
Linz
Psssst! Did you hear that Andrew Alder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said this:
With regard to the first, the views of these people seem to keep coming up, so I think we should (again) discuss them a little. Let's assume they do exist, despite the underwhelming lack of any evidence, and I'll try another tack. Please take it as intended, an attempt at communication.
I do wonder who these people might be? But they seem to be keeping their views a very closely guarded secret, so let's respect their right to privacy. (;->
And don't you think that the UCA, as an inclusive church, should show them some compassion? Their only offence is thoughtcrime. Admittedly, their thoughts are misguided. But put yourself in their position. They hold a belief that many people in the UCA, including EMU and I suspect RA and UN, publicly denounce, and which *nobody* defends.
So strong is the revulsion to this belief among UCA members that the issue is regularly raised just to attack it, despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone actually holds the belief that is being attacked. So it's understandable that those who do hold it dare not allow their beliefs to be generally known. Surely theirs is a lonely and miserable existence, and we should assure them of our love and respect. (;->
Now seriously, folks...
As a serious point, there probably *are* a few people who hold this belief. They have chosen not to enter the debate, and frankly I think this is a good decision as they have little to offer it. And we *should* make sure that we make them *welcome* if they *do* speak up. I dream of a UCA where this would be possible, but we're not there yet.
I think we are in practice unanimous that orientation is *not* a bar to ministry, and should move on.
YiCaa
If Bill Gates had a penny for every time Windows crashed... wait a minute. Bill Gates DOES have a penny for every time Windows crashed!
--
Rev. Lindsay Cullen
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An old(!) website... www.lindsaycullen.com
