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 16th
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 16th
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?
[2] Quotations of Scripture are from the English Standard Version
translation. Calvin cites parts of these
verses.
Comments