How We Came to Ordain Practicing Homosexuals
Many
evangelicals loudly condemn us for ordaining practicing homosexuals but we
didn’t just decide to do this one afternoon on the spur of the moment. It
happened over the years and came about gradually.[1] When we finally did ordain a
practicing homosexual the whole thing seemed like a natural next step. Of
course we now have the wisdom of hindsight so we can now see that a lot of our
small decisions over the years led us to where we are now. At the time we never
dreamed these decisions had anything to do with leading us to where we are now.
You conservatives may loudly reject us for ordaining practicing homosexuals but
you probably use your energy to examine yourselves to see if you are on the
same track we were on. Some day in the future you conservatives will be writing
something exactly like this—telling how your own conservative denomination
eventually ordained practicing homosexuals. Here is how it happened for us.
1. We compromised on divorce. Divorce became so common among our people that we simply
quit condemning people who walked away from their marriages and remarried
someone more appealing to them. “Divorce happens” we said. And it does, yet we
gradually came to accept that people could carry on an affair, discard their
spouse, remarry and do it all without any repentance. All the arguments we made
then to accept divorce and extra-marital affairs came back to haunt us later in
the homosexual issue. We heard our own words back: “Start with people where
they are;” We need to be a grace-based church;” We must accept and love people
no matter what.” We came to compromise
what the Bible says about divorce and marital unfaithfulness so it was easier
to compromise on what it says about homosexuality. We laid the tracks for a
natural extension of this grace-based-response to homosexuals eventually.
2. We quit believing Christians can overcome sin. In our distant past we taught that any Christian could
overcome any sin. As we sacrificed that idea we adopted the more popular notion
that sin is unavoidable among Christians. Once we all accepted sin as “normal”
we had established the platform for practicing homosexuals to argue, “You have
your sins and I have mine.” Once we gave up on the idea that Christians can be
delivered from any sin we lost the battle—we did this long before we ever even
talked about ordaining homosexual ministers. We began to believe all sins are
equal in the sight of God—that there are no level and degrees of sin. Believing
that no sins were worse than any others in the sight of God we came to accept
that any sexual sin is equal with any other sin so the practice of
homosexuality is no worse than struggling with impure thoughts, telling “white
lies,” struggling with vanity, or participating in gossip. Since we bought the
popular idea that all sin is the same, it left us open to the argument that
“homosexuality is no worse than the sins other Christians commit.”
3. We accepted sexual satisfaction as an entitlement. We did this first among married
couples, then singles and finally homosexuals. Once we accepted the notion that
people have a right to sexual
fulfillment it was only a matter of time until we had to provide for homosexual
fulfillment too.
4. We had no response for “God made me this way.” Once we held to John Wesley’s
doctrine of “Christian perfection” (teaching could deliver a Christian from
their natural inclination toward sin enabling obedient living). When we
abandoned that doctrine we had little to say to a person who believed they were
“naturally” a homosexual. We “dealt with” our own sins rather than seeking
deliverance so homosexuals expected us to accept their “dealing with” their own
sins too.
5. We did not parse “gay” from “practicing gay.” We let people get away with using
“homosexual Christian” without insisting on a clarification on whether they
were speaking of a homosexual orientation
or homosexual practice. Once we
accepted the phrase “homosexual Christian” why would we not accept the phrase
“homosexual minister.”
6. We adopted the other side’s terms. We abandoned the term “homosexual” and adopted the
softer term used by the media—“gay.” We’ve used that term ever since. Now we
wish we’d kept the original term.
7. An increasing number of our loved ones “came out.” We Christians have always been more
liberal with our own relatives then with others. As more of us discovered
practicing homosexuals in our own family and desperately wanted them to have a
place in the church—especially when they wanted
it—we quieted down on calling it sin.
8. We talked about it too much. We got so worked up about homosexuality that we pushed it
to the top of the agenda for constant discussion in our meetings and
conferences. I suppose we should have brushed it off and treated it like all
other sin instead of elevating homosexuality to the top of the church’s agenda.
Eventually lots of people simply got worn out and wanted the noise to go
away…they wanted peace and most were willing to compromise to get it.
9. We adopted a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy. There have always been same sex life partners
in the church—mostly women and we continued the don’t-ask policy of our
parents. We didn’t ask if they were homosexual simply because they lived
together and owned a home together. Eventually we simply had to extend the same
policy to two males living together too. How could we ask two guys who have
lived together if they were touching each other when we never asked two women
living together the same thing? If a same-sex couple–women or men—didn’t “tell”
we didn’t “ask.”
10. We ordained several non-practicing
homosexuals.
Since we had come to accept that the orientation was not wrong—just the
practice—eventually we were forced to have “ordained homosexuals” in our
denomination. These ministers called themselves “gay ministers” but said they
did not practice sexual relations with the same sex. That seemed to work, but
it softened us to accept the term “gay minister” and it was only one more step
to accept these “gay ministers” when they “slipped occasionally like everyone
does.” We already “worked with” heterosexual ministers guilty of marital
unfaithfulness so it was logical to do the same for these “gay ministers” who
had fallen too.
11. We got mixed up in civil rights. We thought we were doing the right thing to get involved in
political movements denying civil rights to homosexuals but in retrospect all
we did was allow the nation to settle issues that we in the church should have
settled. We acted like our own future was all tied up in what the courts or
legislators did—and as we lost those battles we eventually lost in the church
too.
12. We believed personal sexuality was a private matter. This happened long ago for married
couples—what right does the church have to ask what couples do in their
bedrooms? We eventually adopted the
identical stance for same-sex couples leaving what they do in their bedrooms to
their own private tastes. If they didn’t tell—we didn’t ask.
13. We were not able to remove the first practicing homosexual minister. Eventually one of our ordained
ministers “came out.” It is obvious to anyone who has studied church history
that it is harder to remove a person from ministry than to keep them out in the
first place. We tried to remove this minister but he was such a wonderful
person and “so effective at ministry” and “such a loving person” that we failed. We had already adopted a
“grace-based approach” sin so it seemed natural for us to “work with him” and
“help him cope” like we did everyone else. So the minister was eventually
(though begrudgingly) accepted. We consoled ourselves that “what they do out
there in that district” didn’t affect us—we
would never accept a practicing homosexual here
we told ourselves.
14. We eventually ordained a confessed practicing homosexual. Having failed to remove a practicing
homosexual how could we keep others from entering the ministry? We (at first)
delayed their ordination a few years and sent them to counseling but eventually
we came to ordain other practicing homosexuals to the ministry of our church.
They were not widely accepted but some
churches and districts would accept them—so we left that between those churches
and their pastors.
15. Now we have our first practicing homosexual here. I guess we knew it was coming eventually. Now
it is here—our new pastor is a practicing homosexual. Some of us don’t like it
but what are we going to do? So here is how most of our members are treating
it. They are saying that we treat all members and ministers alike in our
denomination—“we’re all practicing sinners and we all deserve acceptance and
grace.” A few want to leave this church now saying we’ve lost the battle. But I
think we lost it long ago. Some are thinking it is time top leave and join
another denomination—but we’re not sure if other denominations aren’t on the
same track too—just ten years later.
So, what
would you say to the people this
column represents?
So what do you think?
During the first few weeks, click here to comment or read comments
By Keith Drury & Chris Bounds
March 10, 2009
www.TuesdayColumn.com
[1] This article is a compilation from numerous
conversations by Keith Drury and Chris Bounds, with pastors and laity in
denominations who have moved toward ordaining practicing homosexuals, primarily
in the