Posted on 03/13/2006 11:43:15 AM PST by sionnsar
One of my favorite Integrity arguments goes something like this:
The Church has always ordained homosexual ministers. Most lived in secret, non-celibate, homosexual relationships. They served the Church well. Now we must put away dishonesty and bring to light what has hitherto been hidden in the darkness. Ordaining non-celibate homosexuals is the honest thing to do.
This is, IMHO, one of their more amateurish efforts.
It begs the question in two ways.
First, is it even possible to “serve the Church well” while at the same time living in continuous unrepentant disobedience to her teachings, not to mention those of the bible?
Clerics are not, after all, institutional functionaries with the luxury of compartmentalizing their personal and public life. To live in continuous unrepentant disobedience to the Church is, by definition, not “to serve the church well.”
The argument is very similar to the one Bill Clinton’s defenders used during the Monica Lewinski scandal:
So he sexually manipulated a young female employee half his age in the oval office between official functions and lied about it, he’s still a great president.
It didn’t work well for Bill Clinton. It is even less effective for ordained ministers in the Body of Christ.
Second, can’t the same be said of any other behavioral pattern? There have been “functional” adulterers, embezzlers, thieves, murderers, drunkards, and drug addicts in holy orders too. Most were “forced” into secrecy. When it comes to leading services, making decisions, preaching, teaching, counseling, adulterers (to use one example), no doubt, did their jobs “well.”
They just slept with other men’s wives off the clock.
Shouldn’t we now be “honest” and openly embrace heterosexual adultery? The church has, after all, always ordained heterosexual adulterers?
Moreover, just to play along, there is now scientific evidence that heterosexual promiscuity is an inborn genetic/biological predisposition. Men, by “nature”, are driven to have sexual relations with many different women.
God obviously “created” men for adultery. Men cannot, in fact, be “fully human” without it. Shouldn’t someone call the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music? Surely we need a public rite?
All joking aside, the question is not whether there have been functional non-celibate homosexuals. The question is whether this was and is a good thing. The bible, Tradition, and the unanimous voice of the church across the ages and across denominational lines says “no”.
For that reason it wouldn’t make one bit of difference if every cleric in the past engaged in secret non-celibate homosexual relations.
Homosexual sex is inherently sinful and disordered regardless of who does it or how well that person does his day job.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Man cannot serve both God and screwing
This is coming to a vote (again) probably this summer in the Presbyterian Church.
I think a vote on the issue should be postponed.
But why postponed? Shouldn't we face this issue, make a decision and resolve it? Last year I would have said "yes" to that. In fact, last year a similar motion was voted upon and defeated, albeit narrowly. This year it is back. So what was the point of voting on it last year? Those who did not get their way just pushed it onto the agenda again. If they are defeated this year, they will do the same next year. I say, don't bother voting if it doesn't mean anything.
/rant
I thought the honest thing to do would be for those priests to declare their sin before God and seek whatever help is available to them. Endorsing sin is not honest; it's destructive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.