Seminary professor's predictions on homosexual clergy in PCUSA

The Layman Online ^ | May 18, 2005 | Paula R. Kincaid

[kaehurowing]

Seminary professor says PCUSA task force will follow Lutherans on ordaining active homosexuals

By Paula R. Kincaid

The Layman Online

Saturday, June 18, 2005

EDINA, Minn. – "All mainline denominations are heading toward the rapids," said Robert A.J. Gagnon as he opened his workshop on "Scriptural Authority, Church Unity and Sexual Conduct" at the New Wineskins Convocation on Thursday.

Gagnon at his Thursday workshop. "The United Church of Christ is has already gone over," he said, then asked, "Who's next?"

His opinion – in order: The Episcopal Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of American, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and then the United Methodist Church.

"Who knows when the Baptists and others will come on down."

Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, then gave an update on where the PCUSA is today.

"The church continues to want to hear all the voices until we get it right," Gagnon said. "And once that happens we won't hear the rhetoric of hearing the voices anymore. We will hear that the church has spoken."

Gagnon said that those in favor of ordaining homosexuals and blessing same-sex unions are using "incrementalism" or incremental coercion, which means they get as much as they can go for, take that gain, and then take new steps.

Task force predictions The Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is "not going to recommend a complete eradication of the current policy on sexuality," Gagnon said.

He predicts that the task force will follow the example of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which is recommending that the church not change its current policy that expects unmarried ministers to abstain from sexual relations and defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. But a Lutheran task force says the ELCA should allow exceptions from that policy.

"And what are the exceptions?" he asked? "If you are in a committed homosexual union and you want to be ordained or have that union blessed, that is the exception."

"To me that sounds like they gutted their whole policy," he said.

Gagnon said that the PCUSA's task force was "selected to achieve a desired result - the loudest voices tend to be on Covenant Network side," he said, adding that the PCUSA is "not going to appoint me to task force."

If the PCUSA follows the lead of the ELCA, then the denomination's standards on ordination becoms "merely a matter of local option … a sneaky local option variant," he said. "That is the kind of thing we can expect from the task force. … I hope and pray that they affirm the current policy, but I don't think they will."

Gagnon said that since the main policy would still be in place, the membership of the PCUSA might let its guard down. The General Assembly, he predicts, will approve the task force's recommendation, "and then it will be up to the courage of the people in the presbyteries, and there I have no idea what will happen."

"I want to think presbyteries will be smart enough to turn it back," he said. His odds on that: 60-40. But if presbyteries approve allowing exceptions, "Then it is all over."

Gagnon said there needs to be "a holy agitation about this issue in the church … these are things that matter … the church itself is at stake on this."

He recommended fighting in a loving way and a holy way. "We are engaged in a battle not against flesh and blood but about principalities - people are being used in this."

Gagnon said that the best analogy for homosexuality in Scripture is incest. "It's a good example because it is held with similar revulsion in Scripture."

He said the requirement for a sexual counterpart – a sexual other half – is the most foundational sexual requirement given in Scripture.

In I Corinthians 5, the Corinthian church has a problem – "a man has his father's wife." And Paul's response in verses 4-5: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

"Paul doesn't ask if it is a committed union, or do you intend it to be long-term and monogamous," Gagnon said.

"We know based on Paul that the whole issues of love and commitment and permanence of the union is secondary to meeting certain requirements," he said. Paul didn't want the relationship to be long term – he wanted to end it.

"And it is the same thing with homosexual practice," Gagnon said. "Making it long-term or committed doesn't make it okay. … The Scriptural requirements have to be met."

Scripture In I Thessalonians, Gagnon said that Paul spends the first three chapters giving thanks for the Gentile converts. Then he gets around to discussing moral expectations.

Chapter 4:2-8: "For you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us his Holy Spirit."

"It's quite clear in looking at this text that it is an extreme offense to violate these commands," Gagnon said. "If you reject these commands and say 'I'm going to do what I want to do,' then you reject the God who gave you the Holy Spirit."

Another Scripture reference cited by Gagnon was I Corinthians 6:9-11: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

"And the church is currently deceiving people," Gagnon said.

He quoted from verses 18-20: "Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's."

Sex, Gagnon said, is a holistic experience and when you merge with another and Jesus is in you, then you involve Jesus in immorality.

Gagnon used the example that if his daughter wanted to touch a hot stove, and he said "go ahead, knock yourself out," then he would be jailed, or his daughter would be taken away. "But we think nothing of people engaging in behavior that has eternal repercussions."

Another Scripture cited by Gagnon was Ephesians 5:3-6: "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. … For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person … has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient."

"And the task force, that is already talking positively about committed same-sex relationships, has already violated this passage," said Gagnon.

The task force, he said, should be disbanded and the ordination policy should be left in the constitution.

"Grace isn't about saying you can do what you want – it is your business," he said. "Grace is about coming alongside people and helping them along the journey to the kingdom of God. … Jesus said if anyone wants to be my disciple let him or her take up his cross … that doesn't seem to me like a mild reform of one's life. Nothing less than death is being asked of us. There is a part of the Christian life that involves denying intractable innate urges."

"What we are fighting for – in the sexual issues – it nothing less than the meaning of grace … nothing less than the Lordship of Jesus Christ in our lives," Gagnon said. The fight over homosexual ordination and same-sex unions just happens to be the presenting issue.

"Jesus is asking right now – how faithful do you want to be?" Gagnon asked. Allowing exceptions, he said is only going to intensify the struggle.

"Think about do you want to lead people to a church that puts them in jeopardy of their eternal life if the church does go over on this issue? Is it OK to engage in behavior that is duplicitous in God's eyes?"

[Unam Sanctam]

"Grace isn't about saying you can do what you want – it is your business," he said. "Grace is about coming alongside people and helping them along the journey to the kingdom of God. … Jesus said if anyone wants to be my disciple let him or her take up his cross … that doesn't seem to me like a mild reform of one's life. Nothing less than death is being asked of us. There is a part of the Christian life that involves denying intractable innate urges."

"What we are fighting for – in the sexual issues – it nothing less than the meaning of grace … nothing less than the Lordship of Jesus Christ in our lives," Gagnon said. The fight over homosexual ordination and same-sex unions just happens to be the presenting issue.

So true...

[newgeezer]

By jove, I think he's onto something.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"And the church is currently deceiving people," Gagnon said."

Truth.

[Rutles4Ever]

This will become a free-for-all which will deepen the chasm between wishy-washy, finger-to-the-wind American approach to religion (including the Catholic Church population in America) and the Roman Catholic Church, southern Baptists, and conservative Anglican groups.

Satan desires division, not unity. But his grand scheme may have a fatal flaw in that those who truly wish to follow the apostolic tradition will gravitate back to Rome. These liberal "innovators" like the ECUSA will form sects of "Christianity" which bear almost no resemblance to either the biblical or traditional history of Catholic or Protestant Christianity. Thus, we may truly see a bona fide, united Christianity one day if only because this unfolding, cascading catastrophe has proven that without central teaching authority, religion can be moved by the whim of man, to paraphrase Benedict XVI.

I hope and pray that my Protestant friends will one day come back to Rome. Until then, there is much common ground upon which we can fight the battle against these heinous errors in the spiritual condition of society. The wage of sin is destruction, and while we are called to enter the "ark", those who scoff at our commitment to serving God will meet the same spiritual fate as the detractors of Noah. Pray for God's mercy upon them and us.

[polymuser]

If the PCUSA follows the lead of the ELCA, then the denomination's standards on ordination becoms "merely a matter of local option … a sneaky local option variant," he said.

That is exactly where the ELCA is headed, and they will then have 'non-geographical synods', meaning liberal and conservative congregation groupings. Effectively, two opposing doctrines within one denomination. All in the name of 'unity'. LOL.

I wonder: will choosing 'local option' be a choice of a congregation's council (many lay people), or by the pastor alone?

[polymuser]

"When we look at your country, we can see that liberalism is dying. Liberalism does not build churches. It draws the life out of churches. We see that, and we can help you. For a long time, we were silent. We emphasized good relationships with the Presbyterian Church (USA), but now we must speak the truth to you, and we must pray for you."

That's from this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1427044/posts

[siunevada]

There is a part of the Christian life that involves denying intractable innate urges.

Catholics heard it yet again in today's Gospel reading at Mass:

Jesus said to his disciples:
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few."

[Mark in the Old South]

As a former Protestant I have to point out this is inevitable. There is no anchor to tradition, it is all about how you feel or what you think the Scriptures say on the matter. So there will be Homosexual ministers, the ban will go the way of birth control and divorce in the Protestant denominations and soon to follow will be adult-child sexual relationships.

[kaehurowing]

"...soon to follow will be adult-child sexual relationships."

I think we will get "polyamory" first. That's already in the works in liberal United Methodist and UCC churches.

[catholic]

I am a convert and agree with you completely.This is why I am a Catholic.

[amosmoses]

You mena there is no divorce in the catholic church? That is if you are not wealthy enough to be granted an "annullment"?

[Mark in the Old South]

You point out a valid abuse, however that does not excuse the Catholic abuse of annulments nor does it validate the Protestant heresy on divorce.

What you may not be aware about the annulment process (and I think you for the opportunity to point out) is the this abuse is almost entirely confined in the United States. Something like half of all annulments in the RCC takes place in this country. Hardly a condemnation of the RCC but a very black eye on this country. One can be forgiven for forming the opinion the corruption in the American Catholic Churches is from close proximity to pro divorce Protestants.

[amosmoses]

Your comments comparing the RCC in America vs elswhere may be valid, but I dont know of any "pro-divorce" protestants. Lumping conservative/orthadox protestants with every heretic that comes along is like lumping central american "liberation theology" priests with all catholics.

[Mark in the Old South]

They may not be pro divorce in rhetoric but they are pro divorce in action and attitude. This is one of those example where a desire for tolerance is a de facto method of encouragement. By soft words on the matter they get more of the behavior not less. Rare is the pastor who speaks out strongly on the subject because far too many are divorced themselves. In my search for a new home after leaving the Episcopalian/pagans I noticed this little trend. Almost half of the pastors I encountered were divorced. My sampling included Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical (complete with tongues) and several others. There was a time (not so long ago) one would never have met a divorced minister even in the Episcopalian Church.

It is even rare to hear a Protestant Church publicly read Christ's words on the subject.

[Wallace T.]

The Biblical teaching regarding the qualifications for the role of elder calls for that man to be the husband of one wife (Titus 1:6; I Timothy 3:2). I doubt you would find a divorced man as pastor of a conservative SBC church, or for that matter in an independent Bible church, a church affiliated with the conservative Presbyterian bodies like the PCA, churches in the Nazarene or Holiness tradition, or the conservative Lutheran groups like the Missouri or Wisconsin Synods. The mainline Protestant churches and the liberal/moderates in Baptist ranks are only a little behind the ECUSA in their slide into apostasy. Many charismatic churches, although not liberal, are antinomian and pay more attention to the "movement of the Spirit" than to Holy Writ. I suspect the churches you surveyed were mainly liberal ones.

[Mark in the Old South]

That is very interesting but with several hundred Protestant sects it is a little unreasonable to expect my comments to address every variable. The fact is most Protestants are presently in Churches that de facto support or tolerate divorce as practiced in this country. I am glad to have given you the opportunity to point out where your Church differs from the pack but the comments I have made are factual as far as a general statement can go (within reasonable limits)

The problem I point out is your Church is no safer than a UMC member is today. They may be ahead of you today but there is no certainty it will stay that way. In addition to divorce I pointed out birth control. I am not so old (mid 40's) but I remember when birth control was a shocking depravity and was spoken against in many conservative Churches. Outside of RCC I can think of no Protestant faith that does so now. Perhaps yours is a rare exception?

[little jeremiah]

later pingout.

[Wallace T.]

There is no certainty that any church, the RCC included, will not slip from long held doctrinal standards. The traditionalist wing among Catholics regard what they call the Novus Ordo Mass to be an even greater abomination than birth control or abortion. They regard the language of the consecration of the bread and wine in Communion to be invalid and thus not truly the Body and Blood of Christ. The so-called Rad Trads do not even regard any of the Popes since Pius XII as legitimate. These traditionalists are hardly Sola Scriptura Protestants, but hold to the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium. They believe that they, and not the mainstream of the Catholic Church, are the true guardians of Catholic beliefs and traditions.

Roman Catholicism is as much plagued by dissent and fracturing debate as are the churches that derive from the Reformation.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "There is no certainty that any church, the RCC included"

Not according to Holy Scripture. We have a few assurances, however that does not mean a large group of "cafeteria Catholics" will not try to move the Church in a direction it is not destined to go. In fact there may be a majority of such //cough// "Catholics" who move in the wrong direction. In fact it is prophesied that only a remnant will be left in the end times. You point out Traditional Catholics and you are right to do so. At present the number of "Catholics" that hold to Traditional Doctrine seems to be heading to that Remnant status.

Re: "The traditionalist wing among Catholics regard what they call the Novus Ordo Mass to be an even greater abomination than birth control or abortion. They regard the language of the consecration of the bread and wine in Communion to be invalid and thus not truly the Body and Blood of Christ. The so-called Rad Trads do not even regard any of the Popes since Pius XII as legitimate."

I am of that Traditional wing but you are incorrect to suggest that the movement sees the Pope in the manner you describe. Those that do are called Sedevacantist (the seat is empty) That is too far for my liking or comfort, I was once Protestant and do not see the need to be High Church Anglican again. The Pope will be the center of the Church until the end. That is not to say there will not be more than one claimant to the papacy. I expect to see this evident in a future Pope but that is not the case now and this is just my personal expectation. It is not an obligation on the faithful.

Re: "They believe that they, and not the mainstream of the Catholic Church, are the true guardians of Catholic beliefs and traditions."

It is interesting you bring all this up about the Traditionalist of the Church (one wonders if you have received a private message) but no matter. The only true guardian of the Church is the Holy Ghost; despite the accusations of detractors or the grandiose delusions of others. We all have to take responsibility for ourselves in the end. I am sure the Sedevacantist, Indult, SSPX, neo-cons and general run of the mill Novus Ordo Catholics all attempt to do this, some impose their own will and others surrender their will. Heaven will decide who is right.

The problems in the Church are many but the church is like a college course in Constitutional Law. It may be a big class (100 students) and maybe only 10 students really believe in the Constitution with 90 taking the course only to find out how they can undermine it or use it for personal gain. Perhaps even the Professor (aka the Pope) doesn't really believe in it but he still has to teach it that doesn't not mean it is not a course on Constitutional Law and he is still the professor. Likewise the Church is a worldly organization as well as a spiritual one even if 90% do not believe in it it is still the Church but on a spiritual level the real Church is that 10 who believe. Heaven knows who they are, I do not, but I will stay in the only place the Church teaches THE LAW even if I have to put up with an idiot professor now and again. You just don't get the credit at the local Frat house.