This is generally a good post:
However, it falls apart in the final paragraph:
So then what about people who have experienced same-sex attraction and yet aspire for pastoral ministry in an evangelical church? The biblical qualifications for church leadership do not say anything about any particular pattern of temptation to sin. No one is excluded on that basis. The biblical qualifications are centered on holiness of character (see 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1). Same-sex attracted persons–like all other sinners–can have self-control and holy character through the power of the Holy Spirit. That is the power of the gospel in spite of anyone’s particular pattern of temptation. I have seen the grace of God up close in such people’s lives, and I am grateful for them and their ministries.
This is significant in part because Denny Burk is president of CMBW. In addition, Burk is frequently an echo of Albert Mohler and Russell Moore. So his view may represent the SBC elite position.
Much could be said by way of response. I'll content myself to a few observations:
i) If I'm a compulsive gambler, it's foolhardy for me to work as an investment banker or church treasurer. The temptation is strong to embezzle funds to cover my gambling debts. If I'm a recovering junkie, it's reckless for me to work in a pharmacy. If I'm a recovering alcoholic, it's reckless for me to work as a bartender.
ii) Doesn't the Roman Catholic church demonstrate the danger of putting homosexuals in positions of authority over underage boys? Why take a gratuitous risk? Why tempt fate?
iii) If a denomination has no ban on homosexual ordinands, then that's an invitation for homosexual predators to game the system.
iv) It might be objected that straight elders are sometimes guilty of sexual sins or crimes. No doubt. Since, however, 99% of men are straight, you can't exclude straight men men from ministry. That's a necessary risk. By contrast, ordaining homosexual men is a gratuitous risk.
To revert to my initial illustration, it would be silly to say that because you don't have to be a compulsive gambler to embezzle funds, we shouldn't exclude compulsive gamblers from investment banking. Silly to say we should treat job applicants with a history of compulsive gambling the same way we treat applicants who have no such liability.
It's tiresome to see evangelical leaders so lacking in elementary moral discernment or practical common sense.
Laws and policies likely differ from state to state and hospital to hospital, but at a bare minimum I know medical students who have abused substances (e.g. drugs) in the past are strongly discouraged from entering a medical specialty like anesthesiology which deals with some of the most potent drugs in the entire hospital.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, if a physician is ever caught abusing a drug, then his or her medical license is in jeopardy. Likewise individuals (e.g. colleagues) who fail to report an impaired physician could be considered negligent and face legal recriminations too. To say nothing of an institution who has an impaired physician working for them; they open themselves up to liability charges, and most certainly if any patient comes to harm.
If doctors take such pains to guard against addicts in their profession (and much more could be said), which deals with physical health, then shouldn't those who deal with spiritual health be even more concerned to protect those under their care?
In the case of the medical profession, they're drawing lines in the sand in regards to someone's actual past behavior. However, you seem to be suggesting that analogous lines need to be much stricter when it comes to pastoral professions. It's not so much what someone has or has not done, but what they may be tempted to do based on a professed "weakness".
DeleteI'm not sure how one goes about this in practical terms, though. Someone may have expressed a fondness for earthly goods and luxuries, but if they have managed to keep their personal finances in order and have not gotten into excess debt because of those desires, I'm not sure why they couldn't be placed into roles of financial responsibility. Even though, at least in Christian terms, a love for earthly luxuries is a weakness.
That being said, I might agree that it if one had to choose between two candidates for a church finance director position, it would be more prudent to choose the candidate who willingly drives the 20-year-old Saturn when they could afford a BMW, even if both candidates are equal on paper and have equally sterling reputations.
James
Delete"In the case of the medical profession, they're drawing lines in the sand in regards to someone's actual past behavior. "
Well, there are LGBTQs who have had "actual past behavior" too. A sexually deviant past. Not all, but some or many.
"However, you seem to be suggesting that analogous lines need to be much stricter when it comes to pastoral professions."
At least I hope we would be equally concerned.
Of course, if you're implying there are points of analogies and points of disanalogies, then I agree.
"It's not so much what someone has or has not done, but what they may be tempted to do based on a professed 'weakness'."
I think it is a matter of what "someone has done" in the past. Sure, they may be penitent, and we accept them as penitent Christians, but in general that doesn't mean we should place them in a position where they're tempted to sin again.
"I'm not sure how one goes about this in practical terms, though. Someone may have expressed a fondness for earthly goods and luxuries, but if they have managed to keep their personal finances in order and have not gotten into excess debt because of those desires, I'm not sure why they couldn't be placed into roles of financial responsibility. Even though, at least in Christian terms, a love for earthly luxuries is a weakness."
If someone has a history of theft or kleptomania or similar, though penitent, it generally speaking wouldn't be prudent to place them in a position where they're tempted to steal.
I think there's a distinction to be made between those who have disordered desires (to put it euphemistically) but haven't acted out their disordered desires and those who have acted out their disordered desires. The latter is worse than the former. However, the former isn't without significant "problems" (again, to be euphemistic).
DeleteIf someone discloses they struggle with homosexual desires as well as pedophilia, but has never acted out their desires, we still shouldn't want to see them as a boy's youth camp leader or similar (to use Lydia McGrew's example).
Nobody ever wants to say the obvious here, but if your pastor cannot go on a men's camp retreat or take boys or young men on an overnight event without special accommodations for sleeping and showering (no cabins, no common showers at a camp, etc.) because he has same-sex attraction, he shouldn't be your pastor. A pastor should be able to be a sufficiently manly man that these practical issues don't arise and that he can minister to men, at least, in a wide variety of situations. Obviously his ministry to women will have more limitations, but that's always been the nature of the pastorate.
ReplyDelete