Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
My denomination just held their annual meeting and decided that gay clergy were an asset to the denomination. The elders say there is nothing they can do about it. Unless I have a problem with gay ministers, is there really a "limitation" placed upon our assembly?
|
And it is true that at some parts of the spectrum there have been some particularly disturbing things like that one come up.
But even on that one there is a certain level unclarity in what that statement means. In earlier days of the "coming out of the closet" craze, there was at least some discussion of having the desires for the immoral aspects but refraining. If it means that people who have a propensity toward such things but are struggling against it, then I might have qualms, but not be entirely closed to the idea. If it means openly participating, then I would suggest that you have stumbled into Corinthian before Paul set them straight.
And there is something to be said for the kind of "cover" or help that the affiliations of groups like the Baptists, or the even looser affiliation of Bible churches provides without directing in the way that some of the older groups do. And where the denomination simply provides the preacher, there is a different level of control than just those that direct the doctrinal positions.
And we can nit-pick over particular items in particular groups and discover how we think that a broad acceptance of denominations does not deal with specific things in specific cases. But, while you can surely point to where the following statement is not all-encompassing, the groups in which you find the kind of positions and requirements that you mention tend to be at the older end of the spectrum (like Anglican) or there has been or will soon be a separation within the group over such a thing.
Yes, that means one more separation. But if you feel the need to be as strong on open, continuing sin of the kind that Paul spoke to Corinth about, you may have to consider the separation necessary for the purity of the assembly. If there are theological problems, including the morals reflected in the theology, we were never asked to simply go with the flow. And if that means that Corinth had, as a whole, ignored Paul, then I have a hard time thinking that Paul would have chastised any who separated from that and assembled together in exclusion of the sinful brother. But not in exclusion of those in the other assembly that simply did not exclude him.
It's not as simple as we like to think. As an assembly in a group that can do as you have suggested (and since I have no point of reference, I cannot say that they are allowing open homosexual lifestyle, or just those who will remain single but still struggle with the desires) should others who would disagree simply separate in all ways from you (generically)? Should they shun the group? How about the local assembly within that group? If there is no such pastor locally? If there is? With or without a denominational wrapper, are they something worse than any of the churches in Revelation 2 and 3? Not saying that I would make them my regular assembly of choice, but how do we deal with that?
Is the kind of rhetoric that we employ in discussing the issue evidence of a lack of loving neighbor as self? Are we convinced that it is important enough to "fight" about rather than take it down at least one level to debate and convince? Or down another to discuss?
Note that I am not suggesting agreement with the position of this denomination. But how we deal with it is important. It might be that the better choice of action is to remove to a different group. But maybe not. It also might be that the "position" of the group is more of a misguided olive branch to entice certain among the unsaved to take the stoppers out of their ears, and not so much a statement that they have a bunch of gay pastors ready to be deployed. I do say misguided. There are better ways to be loving to sinners of any kind than making their sin seem to have been removed from the list of sins.
OK. You have pointed to something distasteful. It is not trivial. But how prevalent is this one? And is that it? I'm sure it is not. I didn't throw out the challenge expecting to hear crickets. And I have not argued this one away. Still, even while this position remains in effect, is your local assembly benefited by the group. And does this potential really affect you? And if so, why do you remain? Is it because you are weighing the totality of factors and not just one?
Or are we going to get out tar and feathers for every group with a flaw. (I can see it now, every denomination and independent assembly will soon be seen covered with black tar and chicken feathers. Wouldn't that be an eye opener. Get rid of the denominational label and you still get dinged.)