Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Gay Ordination in the Presbyterian Church Message-ID: Date: 4 Apr 91 05:37:49 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA Lines: 86 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu >The situation of homosexuality is a particularly difficult one (again, >assuming for the moment that the act is not itself sinful), because >there are two dangers to be avoided. I agree with you that if someone >is tempted to homosexual activity but feels it is wrong, it's a bad >idea to encourage them to violate their conscience. Ahem. Let me follow this reasoning. If "the act" is not sinful, but someone feels it is wrong, then having a gay minister will encourage that person to violate his or her conscience. Sorry, this has to be one of the lamest analogies I've ever seen. Is it a "bad idea" to have an minister who is a member of an interracial couple to minister to a congregation because some of the members think that is wrong???? I'm glad I was sitting down when I read that. >However there are >a number of people who are already practicing homosexuals, and who >consider themselves beyond the pale of the church, and sometimes >failures as a human being. (I'm basing this on testimonies of >homosexuals posted in this group in the past.) It could help such >people to see homosexual pastors. You must be talking about private email you've received, because I have never seen any "homosexual" post here claiming to be a failure as a human being (unless turning your back on a bankrupt institution which has nothing to offer you in the first place and getting on with your life is anything but a sign of mental health.) -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu [It's unclear whether you are replying to me or to the original posting. What you quote is from me. My response, in the portion you quote, acknowledges that we need to avoid encouraging people to violate their conscience. However I then proceed to say that this argument is not sufficient to prohibit ordination of homosexual pastors. Where I agree with the original posting is that "liberal" positions such as those allowing homosexual ordination should be carried out with due concern for the impact on members whose understanding has not progressed as far as that of our leaders. For example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has a very strong policy requiring ordination of women. However when churches are unable to bring themselves to ordain female elders, this is treated as a pastoral issue. We do not have storm troopers descend upon that church to force them to elect leaders that they cannot in good conscience follow. Instead we counsel with them over a period of time. I believe this is in agreement with Paul's handling of Christian freedom. It is clear from Galatians that he is not prepared to give up his understanding that Christians are free from the Law, but it is also clear from I Cor 8 that the exercize of that freedom should be tempered by concern for others. I do not mean to imply that any of our homosexual correspondents is a failure, nor that they currently consider themselves to be such. Indeed those that I know to be homosexual (my knowledge of the sexual orientation of our contributors is obviously limited) seem among the better balanced people contributed to this group. However I recall a posting indicating that this present happy situation was reached after a good deal of self-doubt. It was my conjecture in the response that you quote that having homosexual leaders in the church might prove helpful in this regard. If I have misinterpreted things, and homosexuals growing up do not experience any particular threat to their self-esteem because of their homosexuality, or if having homosexual leaders in the church would not provide encouragement in such situations, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. Of course none of these considerations is relevant to someone who considers homosexuality to be immoral to begin with. However before you respond to my comments above with yet another set of arguments on why homosexuality is a sin, please remember the context of my comments: The original posting said that even if homosexual activity is OK, homosexuals should not be ordained because of dangers to the weaker brethren. The only way to evaluate such a claim is to assume that homosexual activity is OK, and see whether the impact on weaker brethren alone is sufficient to prohibit ordaining homosexuals. If the original poster in fact considered homosexuality sinful, and was not willing to consider the situation seriously from the point of view of those who do not consider it sinful, then he was engaged in a dishonest rhetorical device. I always do our correspondents the honor of assuming that they are being honest in their postings. --clh]