| Why I oppose Amendment 10-A |
| Written by Kevin Germer | ||||||
| Monday, 03 January 2011 17:42 | ||||||
|
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of wanting to uphold an ordination standard that keeps others from holding the office I hold.
It’s uncomfortable for me because, to an extent, I know the darkness in my heart. I know that my sin is real and severe. And I don’t believe that the people who are barred from ordination by our current standards are any more sinful or more in need of God’s grace than I am. A part of my discomfort also has to do with the fact that I’m usually too concerned about what others are thinking of me. I basically want you to like me. And so I worry: Will you think that by opposing this amendment I’m really opposing gay people? Will you think that I’m doing serious injustice to my brothers and sisters who have been called by God? Will you think I’m being a bit self-righteous and judgmental? I confess that my heart is prone to self-righteousness. But, as best I can tell, I’m not opposing this amendment in that spirit. I think the gay people who know me would trust that, and I hope you will, too. Gay people are members of my church and members of my family and among my dearest friends. Many of those I know have remarkable gifts for ministry. I have no desire to oppose them. In fact, I want to love them well. I want to see them flourish. I want to see them thriving in ministry — perhaps as officers in the church, if God so calls them. But, I must add, provided they are committed to sexual chastity. And this seems to be where the major area of disagreement is. Some of us think that homosexual sex is acceptable, even good, within certain contexts. Others of us view it as a form of sexual behavior that should be resisted, everywhere and always. All of my reasons for holding this latter view have to do with the way I read and understand Scripture. When I turn to the Bible, I find in it a clear prohibition against homosexual sex. You’re probably familiar with the handful of verses in both the Old and New Testament that address the issue explicitly. I won’t rehearse the arguments and counterarguments about those verses now. Suffice it to say that I’ve not been persuaded to abandon the church’s historic understanding. And so I can’t help but see this proposed amendment as an attempt to affirm a form of sexual behavior that God explicitly forbids. And it’s not just that the verses that address homosexual sex prohibit it. My opposition to the behavior grows out of the way I understand the big story that the Bible tells. Where does the fact of homosexual attraction fit into this story? Is same-sex attraction a part of God’s intention and design for human sexuality? Or is it, rather, another indication that our world is not as it should be? The Bible shows us a world that is broken, full of sin, in desperate need of redemption and healing. An aspect of our brokenness is sexual brokenness. I participate in this brokenness, and so do you. Sin distorts our sexual desires. Sin taints our sexual behavior. I see no reason to think that our basic sexual orientations are somehow immune to sin. One of my concerns is that by changing our denomination’s position on homosexual practice, we would obscure the scope of our sinfulness. We would be calling something good, which God calls sinful. I don’t want to do that. I’m also concerned that passing this amendment would obscure the greatness of the gospel. One of the beautiful things about Jesus is that he loves sinners. He welcomes outcasts. He is radically inclusive and prodigal with his grace. He loves us so much that he comes to stand in our place and to take upon himself the penalty for our sin and rebellion. I’m so thankful that Jesus extends his grace to each of us, heterosexual and homosexual. But I’m also thankful that his grace doesn’t stop with acceptance — that in the end, God doesn’t accept us as we are but as Christ is. He doesn’t affirm us in our sin, but goes to work transforming us, making us new creations, finally free from sin. The gospel is powerful, not because it affirms us as we are, but because it changes who we are. I don’t want to obscure the greatness of the gospel by denying its power to transform sinners like me. Brothers and sisters, I need a gospel and a church that call me to repentance and faith. I don’t want to be affirmed in my sin. I don’t want to be told by God, or by you, that I’m fine just the way I am. And I don’t think I would be loving my gay brothers and sisters if I were to affirm and encourage homosexual sex. Do I want sexually broken people serving as officers in the church? Absolutely. As far as I know, we’re the only ones available. But I want our ministry as ordained sinners to be characterized by ongoing repentance and faith. Which is why I hope you’ll join me in voting against this amendment. KEVIN GERMER is pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church, Richmond, Va. He delivered this address to a The Presbytery of the James meeting in October 2010. Your Responses (3)
Rev. Tracy L. Edwards
said:
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
Allardt, Tennessee I want to offer a perspective I have not heard anyone mention concerning the abolishing of the fidelity/chastity clause in our constitution. As a pastor in our community, I serve on our local Foster Care Review Board, which is an advisory board to the court system on foster care cases in our county. First, every case involves drugs or alcohol at some level. Second, in a majority of the cases that come through; the parents are not married (unchaste) or the children have multiple fathers (infidelity). Every month, we sit and listen to the fallout of unchastity and infidelity and witness firsthand the damage it causes families and most importantly the children involved. It is devastating to watch. If we remove fidelity and chastity from our constitution, how can we possibly have any credible witness to the people and families involved in such tragic situations? How could we possibly as a church serve as a voice of healing and witness to the broken families when we would not be holding ourselves or our leadership to the standards God has set out? I can not support the striking of the fidelity/chastity standards from our constitution. |
Ben Sloan
said:
|
Columbia, SC "I support ordaining any who we believe to be led by God." Really? So you would support no standards for ordination except the feeling that we are led by God? I know some insane people who wish to be in ministry. I know some unrepentant sex abusers (in the Catholic tradition) who wish the same thing. Is there not some boundary here? The boundary should not be what we feel, but what do the scriptures indicate. Certainly no one is perfect who is ordained, but those who are to be ordained have been willing up to this point to say that where my "feelings" disagree with scripture, I submit to scripture. Repentance and submission to what has been revealed and proven over the years is the key. |
Kathi Thomas
said:
|
Hays County, TX As a straight Christian Presbyterian Mom, I urge you to read this: http://www.oshkoshpresbyterian...dment-10-A I support ordaining any who we believe to be led by God. As the pastor who wrote the agove article says, if you want to start listing "sins", the list is very long, and, in truth, none of us could serve. I don't believe the homosexuality is a sin, but simply the way others were made. I was made left handed, I simply AM left-handed. My friends who are gay and lesbian didn't make a choice, they were born that way. Many of them beat themselves up for years, and finally accepted that God loves them as they are. The part in the old "Amendment B" that said that ordained people have to live in a monogamous marriage or in celibacy is truly evil. In most states, it is not legal to even have civil unions between people of the same gender, although churches can perform "holy unions." (I believe a promise before God is much more binding than a promise before people.)What Amendment B actually did was condemn homosexual people to a life by themselves. As Presbyterians, do we do that to our pastors? No, and many, if not most, think that the Catholic Church is wrong to demand that of their priests. Why would we do that to anyone, simply because of who they love? Note that there is a difference between someone who sleeps around and someone who is in a serious committee relationship. Have you ever asked your single about to be ordained elders and deacons if they are celibate? If not, and you do vote against Amendemnt 10-A, then you need to add that to your list- you MUST ask every single person if they're celibate and every married one if they've committed adultery. It is only fair. Kathi |
Write a Response
