After discovering that the Presbyterian Church -- PC(USA) -- leaders had finally gone all rational over the direction to take with Israel and Caterpillar Tractor Co., etc., , I had such high hopes for the PC(USA). Unfortunately, they have me all confused again: Presbyterians OK Leeway for Ordaining Gays. No, I'm not saying that it's wrong to ordain gays, if your church's constitution allows it. But I am a bit confused about how, on the one hand, Presbyterians are instructed that fidelity and chastity are crucial in its leadership, and that, on the other hand, the law can be overridden when they feel like overriding it.
Either the laws of the church are for everybody, or they are for nobody, right? This new development, in my mind, raises a couple of concerns:
(1) If a minister has an extramarital affair, but it's heterosexual in nature, will it be overlooked as equal to a homosexual liaison, "because it is true love"?
(2) Jesus, it is said, forgives the penitent sinner. His words, after forgiveness, are translated as "go, and sin no more." If a minister (or anybody) continues to sin according to the laws ostensibly set forth by God, and makes no bones about it, can he truly be seen as penitent? The spirit should at least be willing, shouldn't it? And if he is unwilling, does that not say he asks for no forgiveness, because he sees no sin, or does it simply mean he cares nothing for forgiveness, so long as he gets his physical satisfaction? How, if he sees his continued actions as no sin, and asks no forgiveness, is he to be forgiven? If he is unforgiven, how can he lead? Is it not comparable to sending a leper to cure influenza patients?
I do not understand how a church can have a clear set of laws, and allow for a certain few to disregard them. And I do not understand how they could allow themselves to be forced to bend to the will of so small a minority -- a minority who are clearly violating the spirit and the letter of the law.
Most of the people I know are inherently good and generous. But few -- myself included -- have the strength of character to lead. That role requires incredible sacrifice, if it is to be done well. To be a minister is to hold the law of one's God above all else, and to guide one's flock toward that same goal.
Love, yes. Forgive, yes. But also, if you have laws and principles, for crying out loud, do your darnedest to live up to them, or stop pretending that you have a right to tell the rest of your people how they should live their own lives. The devil, they say, is in the details. Little tiny things, like looking the other way when somebody cheats at backgammon, eventually erode even the finest of purposes. Bigger things, like continuing to endorse what the law says is wrong, can collapse civilizations. Well-meaning people, who want to accept and love each other, may bring down the very structure of their society. Or, to put it another way, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I suppose this is why I have never been able to bring myself to accept wholeheartedly any of my friends' invitations to join them in weekly praise. I do not trust the human guides. I have yet to find a fair and decent way out of this dilemma.
HT: Hugh Hewitt
disclaimer, in the form of afterthought: I have no objections to anybody, of any particular sexual identity, being a leader. But the law should always be considered before one individual's or one minority voice's feelings.
And, celibacy is easy, once you get the hang of it. I've been doing it for years (fifteen, now!), and not without temptations. After some of what I've read out in the blogosphere, more people ought to try it.
No comments:
Post a Comment