Evangelicals and the Question of Same Sex Attracted, Celibate Ministers

 

Evangelicals are facing a divisive challenge.  Evangelicals are still settling questions of their identity.  They used to be a movement in mainline, Protestant churches calling for Biblical authority and faithfulness, Christ-centered theology and devotion, conversion, and moral and missional activism.  Over the past 50 years, they have been becoming institutions that have separated from unorthodox, mainline denominations.  Various questions have had to be addressed in these changes, including one of the major questions of Western culture leading to orthodox churches distinguishing themselves from mainline denominations that have become unorthodox: the question of homosexuality and gender theory.

One of the specific issues now in focus for Evangelicals is whether same sex attracted individuals who are celibate may be considered for ordination.  A good overview of where things stand for several denominations has been offered by ‘Ready to Harvest’.[1]  This very particular question relates to several issues.  It is something of the tip of the arrow, behind which are a number of theological and ethical matters that need to be addressed first.  These include:

1.     Does the Church recognise non-biological identity in sexual matters?  Is it acceptable to speak of ‘gay Christians’?  Is sexual identity a matter of nature or nurture?

2.     Are both desires and acts moral matters and, specifically, are sexual desires considered sinful when the act to which it is related is a sin?

3.     Should persons seeking ordination be questioned as to their orientation and desires or only to their acts?  Should they be held to the standard of ‘struggling well with the flesh’ or ‘examples of holiness’?

4.     Does the doctrine of justification by grace through faith have to do only with forgiveness or also with transformation?  What is the relationship between justification and sanctification?  As with the previous question, this leads to the question, ‘Should those seeking ordination be examples of ‘justified sinners’ or ‘sanctified saints’?

5.     To what extent is the minister a priest in the sense of a representative of holiness, as in Leviticus 21, or a person ordained to perform ecclesiastical services that do not depend on his (or her) own righteousness?

The challenges facing Evangelicals on these matters go beyond these significant questions.  Evangelicalism was conceived as a movement in which different theological traditions came together around core commitments.  This diversity included differences over ecclesiology (including ordination) and the doctrines of justification and sanctification. 

Even within a tradition, such as the Reformed tradition, there were those who leaned more toward a theology of ‘justification of sinners and those who leaned more toward a theology of regeneration.  These fundamental differences are now showing themselves in the current debates over same sex attracted (desire) persons who are celibate (acts) and seeking ordination (understood differently in different traditions).  To take one example, consider John Calvin, standing at the fountainhead of Reformed theology.  How should his statements on justification and sanctification be read as applicable to the current question?  He does not apply his theological points to the issue of ordination.  In the 16^th century, Protestants were defining justification over against a semi-Pelagian stream of theology in much of Catholicism that emphasised righteousness by works.  Wanting to reject righteousness by our works, they emphasised God’s grace and our faith.  In doing so, many Protestants, particularly Lutherans, drove a wedge between justification and sanctification.  This theological move in the 16^th century has led to some Evangelicals today answering our question about ordaining same sex attracted, celibate men (and women) as follows: ‘We are all sinners; we are saved by grace through faith and not works; we all struggle with sinful desires, so our standard is to reject sinful acts; ordination standards call for ‘struggling well with sin’ not purity such that the minister is more an example of God’s grace than holiness and purity, particularly in matters of desires.’

We might, however, ask whether this position is one that someone like John Calvin would have gone on the current issue.  I would argue ‘No’.  The answer has less to do with Calvin’s views on ordination than on his understanding of justification.  They key to understanding Calvin is that he located the theology of justification under the larger theological category of regeneration.  We might especially think of Johannine soteriology in terms of being ‘born again’, but this is also Pauline theology, and Calvin is right to put the emphasis on regeneration.  This theological move puts justification and sanctification together more closely while avoiding the Pelagian errors of his day.  For those thinking of Protestant theology mainly in terms of Lutheranism, Calvinism, and, later, Wesleyanism, I would suggest that key Anabaptist churchmen also stand as Protestants insisting on a closer relationship between justification and sanctification.  Thus, Calvin does not stand alone in his theology, and his theology has wider agreement with Anabaptists, Wesleyans (including the Holiness Movement and Pentecostalism), and Lutheran Pietists on this matter.  Each may express things slightly differently, but none wanted to turn salvation into a mere contractual declaration of God (justification) that was not necessarily linked to sanctification.

This, I would argue, is the basis for an Evangelical version of Protestantism.  It goes beyond the doctrine of justification by grace through faith to show the link of this doctrine has to sanctification such that the two cannot be separated.  The attempt to decouple justification by grace through faith from sanctification is the opposite of Evangelical teaching in its various traditions.  This theological error is today being played out around the questions of separating desire from acts in ethics and separating ‘struggling well with sin’ from ‘holiness’ in the matter of ordination.

In the rest of this essay, I will present part of John Calvin’s argument to show why I believe that he would come down on the side of calling ordinands to standards of holiness in a way that would illustrate to congregations not only the doctrine of justification by grace through faith but also of sanctification.  This theological issue is not the only one that must ultimately be addressed.  Already the Donatist Controversy included other issues, particularly the doctrine of the Church and schism, not just issues of sanctification, ordination, and ministry.  The trouble we face is trying to apply the answers from this controversy to one more akin to a greater controversy of orthodoxy, such as the Arian controversy.  We might begin to address the current matter with a look at Calvin on one of the underlying theological issues, justification.

In Book III, chapter XIV of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, the theological discussion turns to the matter of ‘The Commencement and Continual Progress of Justification’.  Calvin considers four classes of persons: the idolater destitute of any knowledge of God, the initiate belonging to Christ only in name but denying God by sinful actions, the hypocrite concealing the iniquity of his heart, and the person regenerated by the Spirit of God who devotes himself to true holiness (III.XIV.1).

In the first class of persons, some are intemperate while others act justly, moderately, and with equity.  That people destitute of any knowledge of God can distinguish between what is just and unjust and can even perform just actions is a testimony to the fact that God has engraved this upon the human heart.  True virtue, even for unbelievers, is a divine gift (III.XIV.2).

Nevertheless, following St. Augustine, such persons deserve no merit for the good that they do; they, in fact, deserve punishment because they pollute God’s pure gift with the impurity of their hearts.  Note here that the distinction between desires and acts in in view, and good acts are rendered sinful when performed out of wrong desires.  What makes a person’s actions good is not simply the act but also the goal of the act, and the right goal of all actions must always be to serve God.  The idolater’s performance of a good rises out of a heart that pursues ambition, self-love, or some other irregular disposition.  Calvin writes, ‘…moral duties are estimated not by external actions, but by the ends for which such actions are designed’ (III.XIV.3).

The Biblical basis for this view is cited by Calvin from John and Hebrews:

Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life (1 John 5.12)

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Hebrews 11.6).[2]

Moreover, righteousness is at best a counterfeit righteousness if good is done through human works rather than by means of God’s grace.  The doctrine of justification by grace, not works, means that the good a Christian does is by means of a transformative work of God in his life.  Calvin points to several further Biblical passages to make his point (III.XIV.5):

“Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” (Romans 11.35, quoting Job 35.7; 41.11)

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2.10).

‘… [God] saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began (2 Timothy 1.9).

4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3.4-7).

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace (Romans 11.6).

Calvin’s understanding of conversion is that it entails regeneration by the Spirit of God, and therefore he rejects the idea that the second and third classes of persons are persons of faith—Christians (III.XIV.7).  Justification by faith is not separable from regeneration.

Given this theological argument, I would argue, Calvin would not have approved of ordaining same sex attracted, celibate persons to ministry.  The issues are twofold.  First, ordination standards should not separate justification from sanctification.  The two go together, as do desires and acts.  If the believer is to be identified by fruits of righteousness, not just confession of faith, how much more might this be expected of ordained ministers?  Second, regeneration entails a new identity in Christ that cannot carry an adjective of any desire contrary to the righteous calling of believers.  The terms ‘gay Christian’ or ‘same sex attracted minister’ fail to capture the essential teaching that, in Christ, we are new creatures (2 Corinthians 5.17).  Calvin rightly understands that sanctification involves a process and is not some instantaneous change—or not always so.  However, the standard for Christians is not someone merely avoiding sinful acts while entertaining sinful desires.  The grace of justification continues in the Christian’s life with ongoing sanctification.  Someone settling into a life of same sex attraction, though celibate, is someone putting a roadblock in the path of sanctification.  This was precisely the move of the Pharisees, whom Jesus criticised primarily for their use of the law to condone their actions without addressing their hearts.

Some of us who are Evangelicals may prefer how other traditions have worked out the relationship between acts and desires, justification and sanctification, or faith and works, but all Evangelicals should agree that these are inseparable.  The ‘same sex attracted though celibate’ standard for ordinands fails to grasp the fundamental relationships of these convictions.  It narrows the work of grace, undermines the call to holiness of the heart, and holds up a sinful identity as example to believers.

Related Earlier Essays: 

'Platonists, Stoics, and Paul on Gender Fluidity, "Side B Christians", and "Conversion Therapy",' (18 April, 2022); https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2022/04/platonists-stoics-and-paul-on-gender.html.  

‘The Character of Ministers in the Pastoral Epistles,’ (13 May, 2024); https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-character-of-ministers-in-pastoral.html. 

---

[1] Cf. ‘Ready to Harvest’ (23 June, 2024); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjaLm4MMbpI (accessed 23 June, 2024).

[2] Quotations of Scripture are from the English Standard Version translation.  Calvin cites parts of these verses.

Communal, Doctrinal, and Ethical Unity: Some Fundamental Clarifications

 

The word ‘unity’ is bandied about so much that one might imagine it needs no definition.  It is held up as a primary value that sums up a whole system of values, most notably, for some, the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.  Understood through this triad of values, unity is communal and dispenses with unity around doctrine and ethics.  In fact, doctrine is not highly valued, and traditional ethical convictions are even considered an obstruction to unity.

Communal unity is a value in Scripture.  One pertinent text is Philippians 2.1-11.  In this letter, Paul is concerned that two women, Euodia and Syntyche, agree with one another in the Lord (4.2).  ‘Agreement’ and ‘in the Lord’ point to the value of unity.  Thus, the earlier passage has contextual application in this church.  In Philippians 2.2, Paul says, ‘… complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.’  This ‘one mind’ sort of unity is not doctrinal or ethical but communal.  Paul is concerned that Christians in the church have love for one another and reject selfish ambition and conceit.  They are, instead, to show humility, regarding others as more significant and looking to everyone’s interests. Paul then holds up Jesus as the Christian’s exemplar for such communal values.  He showed believers how to humble Himself for the sake of others.

In the same letter, Paul addresses a doctrinal issue.  Some Judaizers have sought to introduce a doctrinal difference.  They want Gentile believers to be circumcised if they are to be Christians, essentially arguing that converts needed to become Jews and come under the Mosaic covenant if they are to be Christians.  Paul saw this as a rejection of the Gospel, which understands salvation to be God’s work and not our work.  Paul does not apply his language of communal unity from chapter 2 to this situation.  Now that the issue is doctrinal, he uses an entirely different tone.  Unity is not going to be found in allowing for differences, let alone seeing strength in diversity.  Rather, Paul says, ‘Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh’ (3.2).  Philippians 2.1-11 does not apply when salvation by works of the flesh is introduced into the church over against the work of Christ.  Communal unity when there is doctrinal disunity is to be rejected.  Paul had argued this before in his letter to the Galatian church on the same issue.  He begins the letter with a strong tone that continues throughout, saying,

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—⁷ not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹ As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (1.6-8).

A third type of unity is unity in ethical teaching.  In 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, Paul rejects sexual ethics at odds with Scriptural (Old Testament) teaching.  As with doctrine, Paul has an equally exclusionary word for those introducing innovative teaching that would have come from culture rather than the Word of God.  He says,

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one (5.11).

Communal unity is rejected when it comes to doctrine or ethics.  Philippians 2.1-11’s communal values do not apply. In fact, if applied in doctrinal or ethical matters, they are destructive for the church.

Some matters are matters of indifference.  People need to be led by their consciences in such cases, and there is room for different approaches by well-meaning believers.  Knowing doctrinally that Greek and Roman gods do not exist, one may purchase food in the market that had been sacrificed to a god.  This was not to participate in idolatry.  If, however, some new convert still struggled to come to the view that there is only one God and that these gods he had worshipped do not exist, eating food sacrificed to idols in front of him would not only not be kind but could reintroduce him to idolatry.  In this case, a matter of indifference could rise to the level of doctrine and ethics.  Note that Paul does not argue that one person should eat the food and the other person not eat the food when community is in view but that the one who knows idols do not exist should cease to eat for the sake of the weaker individual.  This is the argument that we find in 1 Corinthians 8-10.

An application of these distinctions in Paul between communal, doctrinal, and ethical unity should guide the Church in general.  Communal unity should not be confused with doctrinal and ethical unity.[1]  Applying communal unity to doctrinal and ethical matters is contrary to Paul’s teaching and undermines doctrine and ethics in the Church.  Mainline denominations have, however, confused these types of unity.  In so doing, they have divided the Church rather than accomplished communal unity, rejected Christian doctrine, and introduced immorality, even blessing sinners in their sinful relationships.

---

[1] An example of this confusion might be found in Bishop Martyn Snow’s recent misuse of Philippians 2 to advocate for diverse sexual ethics in the Church of England.  Cf. Martyn Snow, ‘LLF [Living in Love and Faith]: Unity Matters—It Really Matters,’ Church of England Newspaper (6/6/2024); https://www.churchnewspaper.com/llf-unity-matters-it-really-matters/ (accessed 20/6/2024).

The Different Faces of Freedom in Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Western Secularism

 Introduction

The three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have different emphases that lead to very different understandings of freedom.  This essay briefly examines how the emphases of devotion, submission, and witness relate to notions of freedom.  It then contrasts these with the emergent Secularism of Post-Christian, Western society.  The goal of the essay is to point out that these different belief systems lead to different understandings of freedom.  The essay covers these topics in broad strokes to identify emphases in the different perspectives and thereby provide some understanding of the conflicts between various groups.  It also challenges any generic use of the value of ‘freedom’ without further definition.

Judaism

Judaism is a religion of singular devotion to God by His chosen people.  Israel’s narrative in the Old Testament moves from God’s calling and promise to Abraham and his offspring to God’s liberating Israel from Egyptian slavery to God’s redeeming His people from exile and returning them to their land.  Since Judaism holds that there is only One God, who is the Creator, and that His choosing of Israel as His people is for universal purposes, the religion is not isolationist or selfish.  It points beyond itself to God’s mission towards all peoples.  Since Judaism’s own historical narrative tells the story of Israel’s failure to be devoted to God, to obey Him and to love Him, it points beyond its own devotion to God to an offer to people from all nations to become His people and devote themselves to Him.  Without the narrative of Israel’s failure to devote herself to God, the ethnic focus of covenantal election becomes one self-righteousness and privilege more than a requirement of devotion to God.  Without the conviction that God is the only God over all nations and all creation, the election of Israel becomes a presumption of privilege and overrides the emphasis on devotion.

These characteristics of Judaism shape its understanding of freedom.  Freedom is the freedom to be devoted to the One true God, not subjugated by other people and their religions.  Freedom is also a freedom from one’s own sinfulness in not being devoted to God.  Freedom is not a human freedom of choice but a natural freedom that comes by living according to God’s laws revealed in creation and in His Law.  Freedom is not prior to devotion to God but follows from it.  As God’s chosen people, Israel does not subjugate other nations to force them to obey God’s Law but witnesses to them of what freedom means when a people is devoted to God.

Therefore, freedom is understood as freedom to be this people amidst the nations.

Islam

Islam is a religion of submission to Allah.  The Quran lacks a narrative and is full of commandments to submit to Allah and to force others to submit by the use various kinds of force (from taxation to military force).  Devotion in Islam takes its form in the simple creed that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet, in prayers, in fasting, in performing the Hajj (a pilgrimage to Mecca), and to almsgiving, but devotion is expressed especially through enforced submission, whether Sharia Law, jihad (‘striving’ through an internal, spiritual struggle and an external, military enforcement), and worldwide expansion of Islam.

Therefore, for Islam, freedom is a counter-value.  It does not separate state authority from religious and social life.  Coercing (including killing) people for religious uniformity is better than social unrest or civil strife (al-fitnah; cf. Quran 2.217).  The Quran says, ‘Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture,1 until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled’ (Quran 9.29).[1]  The tax, jizyah, was imposed on non-Muslims.

Christianity

Christianity is a religion of witness to God’s salvation in Jesus Christ offered to all that they might believe and be saved.  Therefore, freedom is freedom to live a quiet life as Christians (compare Judaism) while praying for and bearing witness, not enforcing submission, to this salvation (contrast Islam).  It resolves the problem of being an ethnic religion of Jewish privilege, and it resolves the problem of sinful disobedience.  It rejects the way of enforcing submission, like Islam.  It is a religion of universal witness to what God has done in Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death for sinners that all might be saved.

The characteristics of Christianity as a religion of witness can be seen in Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2.1-7:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, ² for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. ³ This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴ who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁵ For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man¹ Christ Jesus, ⁶ who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. ⁷ For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth (ESV).

The universal character of Christianity is not stated in terms of universal submission but in terms of universal witness.  Prayer entails asking God to use people in powerful positions to allow Christians to lead a peaceful, quiet, and dignified life—rather like Judaism’s focus on freedom to be devoted to God as His people.  Yet this life is not inwardly focussed but outwardly directed: it is so that Christians might participate in God’s universal mission.  The mission is carried out through proclamation of the Gospel, through testimony.  The Gospel is first and foremost about what God has done in Jesus Christ to save sinners and bring them to a knowledge of the truth.

Christianity’s focus on witnessing to what God has done to save sinners involves an understanding of freedom that is public, evangelistic, and non-coercive.  By being public, freedom is not the freedom to believe something privately but to practice devotion to God without constraints in every context.  Freedom means not to be coerced into doing what is against God’s commandments and freedom to live openly as Christians.  By being evangelistic, freedom requires the freedom to proclaim the testimony of God’s salvation in Christ Jesus to all people everywhere.  By being non-coercive, people are converted to Christ not by enforced submission but by personal faith, conviction.  The Church is a voluntary community of persons singularly devoted to God, submitting to His commandments, and receiving by faith the Good News of salvation in Christ Jesus.

Western Secularism

The secular and now post-Christian West takes a different view of freedom.  In a worldview that promotes diversity, the exclusive claims of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—each in their own way—sets such religions against culture.  Many secularists would prefer no religion in society, though they might permit religious practices begrudgingly.  They tend to insist on religion being private, not public.  Through taxation, laws, and government entitlements, secular governments suppress religious devotion.  Freedom is set over against religion if it becomes anything more than private beliefs and practices.  Judaism is particularly singled out as an offensive faith because of its ethnic focus and belief that God has chosen the Jews as His treasured possession.  What could be more offensive to a secular society’s promotion of diversity?  At best, Judaism might be allowed in a sort of ghetto, but not in the public square where diversity is a primary value.

Western secularism also promotes equity, which is understood not as equality but as the suppression of some in order to promote others in the name of equality.  Over against its own convictions about freedom as a freedom from religious authorities, secularism tends to suppress Christianity and promote Islam, the very religion that practices suppression.  Muslims can ride this wave of support for only so long until their religion emerges out of the blind spots of Western secularism.  So few know anything about Islam that they only see it as a minority religion practiced by non-Western people that an open society should include.  They are embarrassed by their own history of opposing the spread of Islam and wish to right this perceived wrong.  The irony of secularists supporting Islamic immigrants and countries abroad has led to bizarrely contradictory practices.  (The recent elections in Europe may indicate that some Europeans are waking up to the inconsistencies of their own belief systems.)

The Western Church, if defined in terms of the once mainline denominations, have embraced the third value of Western secularism: inclusion.  First dismantling their own, historic doctrines and practices, they then welcome new teachings and practices.  From ‘Pride’ flags at churches to same sex blessings to reading the Quran in churches, these once Christian denominations have refashioned themselves into secular expressions of culture.  They have turned from worldwide witness of the singular Gospel of Jesus Christ to a worldwide welcome of all who practice inclusion and embrace.

Thus, for Western secularism, freedom is an expression of the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.  These new values are different from the understanding of freedom and equality set out in the Age of Enlightenment.  They no longer are about the individual’s freedom from coercive authorities, whether religious or government, but are now expressions of social coerciveness.  Secular society is increasingly requiring devotion to its values, submission of some groups to others in the name of equity, and opposition to the public witness of especially Christian faith.

---

[1] Online translation: https://quran.com/at-tawbah/29; accessed 22 May, 2024.

What of Same Sex Attracted, Non-Practicing Ordination Applicants?

 One issue facing Evangelicals today is that of the ordination of same sex attracted, non-practicing individuals.  Gender theory has rattled the Church in many ways, and for Evangelicals, this is perhaps now the primary issue that needs to be resolved.  A denomination will not be able to maintain its unity by not addressing such a matter.  In fact, the issue is about to be brought up next week at the Evangelical Presbyterian Church's General Assembly in the United States.  Evangelicals remaining in the Church of England are allowing same sex attracted yet non-practicing ministers in their ranks.

As this matter faces churches, denominations, and Evangelical groups of various sorts, I would like to bring two of my previous essays to readers' attention:

'Platonists, Stoics, and Paul on Gender Fluidity, "Side B Christians", and "Conversion Therapy"' (see here)

'The Character of Ministers in the Pastoral Epistles' (see here)

At stake are fundamental theological and ethical issues and a proper approach to ordination and to pastoral care.  The issue presents itself as a single matter, but it is intricately connected to other matters of the Christian faith and Christian practice.  It is an issue driven by Western culture and pressured by its powerful institutions.  In the process of coming to a view on the matter, Christians will have addressed their understanding of the Gospel, justification and sanctification, and the nature of Christian ministry.

The topic involves various theological and ethical considerations and is important for the Church to decide rather than leave open.  However, I do not believe it is complicated.  I offer my earlier essays as guidance to a clear view on this matter facing Evangelicals in our day.