I’m beginning to think that the issue of homosexuality in the church is having a rather different affect that it was supposed to. What if the conversation is forcing us to reconsider the notion of ordination?
Yesterday I was reading a Twitter post (and I wish I could find it) that said, in essence, there were something like 130 prohibitions on heterosexual relations and 6 on homosexual relations. It made me really wonder if we’ve demonized a specific group in order to turn a blind eye towards our own brokenness.
And then today, Out Of Ur posted an article highlighting the decision of the Episcopal church to:
“remove any restrictions on the ordination of clergy in same-sex relationships.”
It was, naturally a provocative decision that challenged a historical idea that homosexuals could not be ordained. They were the one group that could not pass muster. The decision produced a strong reaction from the good Bishop of Durham, NT Wright.
“The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.
Any time we create a distinction, such as ordination, it must then pass the test of a threshold. And ordination is going through that. Homosexuals, which the broader church considers to be in active disregard for the concern for homo sexual relations, presents a unique scenario where someone is seeking out leadership of a community that would in some cases actively call it to corporately deny the very act it personally upholds or practices.
This situation is creating a unique problem. Does ordination require a specific level of commitment to a moral code of some sort? Is there a threshold? It’s an intriguing question. Because if it does, ordination no longer becomes as Wright would suggest “a gift of sheer and unmerited grace.” It becomes an act dependent on performance to a code. It becomes something earned, a transaction based upon a specific set of actions. I would then ask, do we want a threshold? Do we want to create a threshold that is then applied back onto us?
My problem is this. With the Great Commission, Jesus seemed to ordain those who we would least consider likely to be ordained. He chose the average, the poor, the tax collector (equal in regard to today’s homosexuals), and the zealot. He chose them all. There was no threshold. Jesus seemed to think that everyone could become part of the priesthood of all believers. It was in participating with Jesus that changed their heart. Jesus began with broken people, people who didn’t get it, people who were human beings, created in the image of God.
And I’m not talking about throwing away ordination. I think the process has significant merit. But in its current context, it requires a tremendous threshold to overcome. Becoming a leader in the church is not based upon following Jesus and then stepping into the Great Commission, but upon a specific set of criteria that theoretically anyone could obtain through force of will.
What if we got back to the idea that anyone could become ordained, that anyone could become part of the priesthood of all believers? What do you think? And the moment you say no to homosexuals, which is a criteria based upon an act, you must then apply that criteria (that a single act could disqualify you) back on to yourself in other areas, ones that you are potentially hiding, or will commit in the future.
Interested in your thoughts.
