Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Homosexuals, ordination of
Section E. Social, moral and religious

The first decade of the twenty-first century has seen a heated debate within the Anglican Church about whether it should allow the ordination of openly gay clergy and bishops. The Church of England, the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada have accepted some gay clergy and, in 2004, Gene Robinson became the first openly gay minister to be made a bishop (the Bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church). However, the Anglican Communion worldwide is split on this issue, and in 2008, there was a boycott of the Lambeth Conference, such was the strength of the schism. Those opposed believe that homosexuality is against Christian teaching and have declared themselves in a state of ’impaired communion’ with their liberal counterparts. The arguments here focus on the Anglican Church, but can be easily adapted to apply to other faiths.

Pros

[1] One of the merits of the Christian religion has always been its ability to adapt its principles of love and inclusion to societal values as they evolve. It is now clear, scientifically and sociologically, that homosexuals are not ’deviant’ or ’diseased’, but equal, normal members of human society. There is no reason why they, any more than women, should be excluded from serving God and society as Christian ministers. Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are sometimes guilty of the misuse of their God-given sexuality in abusive and unloving ways. However, it is not right to bar all homosexuals from ordination any more than it would be right to bar all heterosexuals from ordination on the grounds of the misconduct of which some are guilty.

[2] The Bible (especially the Old Testament) contains many regulations (e.g. regarding diet, cleanliness, clothing, circumcision, etc.) that Christians do not feel obliged to follow. The biblical opposition to homosexuality should be treated by Christians like these other forgotten ’purity rules’. In biblical times, homosexuality was not socially integrated and maybe existed in unstable situations detached from love and open to abuse. That is no longer the case, so the view should be rethought. Jesus himself, the central figure of authority in the Bible for Christians, never made any statement against homosexuality.

[3] Many parts of the Christian community are happy for their ministers to have sex purely for recreation — i.e. married ministers using contraception. It is therefore illogical to deny homosexuals the right to ordination on the grounds that they have non-reproductive sex. If celibacy is required, then it can be practised by those of any sexual orientation.

[4] The argument that homosexual sex is wrong because it is outside the sacrament of marriage is circular. It should only remain outside the sacrament of marriage if it can be established on other grounds that homosexuality is wrong.

[5] Since heterosexual ministers who condone homosexual love within their congregation are not (generally) sacked, it is illogical to sack celibate homosexuals for holding the same view.

[6] A large minority of the Christian community is homosexual. These gay men and lesbians need spiritual direction as much as heterosexual Christians do. It is right that there should be a significant minority of homosexual Christian ministers who can truly empathise with the needs of this portion of the Church.

[7] The Church risks rendering itself irrelevant and out of date if it does not reflect modern views. Church attendance is falling in many Western countries and part of that is due to the illiberal stances that the Church takes, which put off young people. Allowing gay ministers would resonate with the young who have grown up expecting equal rights.

Cons

[1] The strength of the Christian religion rests on its ability to stand up for unchanging moral standards in a changing and morally degenerating world. Homosexuality is a misuse of natural gifts from God, a rejection of His design, and even if it is socially tolerated, it cannot be an acceptable way of life for a Christian minister who must stand as a moral example to the members of the church and provide a role model of Christian living. The existence of a ’gay gene’ does not make homosexuality morally right any more than other biological predispositions (e.g. to aggression, alcoholism or promiscuity) make their outcomes morally right. The analogy with the ordination of women does not hold either: people have no control over their gender, but they do have control over their sexual behaviour.

[2] The Bible, the authority on which Christianity is based, condemns homosexuality. If Jesus had wished to see the age-old Jewish condemnation of homosexuality overturned, he could have taught his disciples accordingly. In other cases (e.g. rules about the Sabbath), Jesus was prepared to challenge the orthodox view. However, he did not do so in this case. Therefore, we must assume that he was happy with the Old Testament view. The condemnation of homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament in St Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

[3] It is also clear from the Bible that sex is intended to produce children. The Bible condemns ’fornication’, which is the use of sex for pleasure rather than procreation. All homosexual sex falls into this category and those who practise it cannot be role models for the Christian community.

[4] Sex is also something that should take place only within marriage. Marriage is a sacrament of union between a man and a woman for procreation. So again, homosexual sex is necessarily outside the ’proper’ Christian life.

[5] Even non-practising homosexuals are unacceptable as Christian ministers since they condone a form of sex rejected by the Bible and Christianity as against the natural purpose given to sex by God.

[6] Homosexuals should indeed be given spiritual guidance by Christian ministers, but simple affirmation of homosexuality is not the Christian answer. Lesbians and gay men need to be encouraged by ministers to overcome their urges and to live in a truly Christian way. The simple existence of homosexuality is not an argument for ordaining homosexuals. The clergy are there to lead and guide, not as a representative microcosm of society.

[7] Many people are attracted to the Church precisely because of its opposition to our increasingly permissive society. Even if some people are deterred, the Church is not a commercial organisation that should change its policies in order to attract more customers; it must uphold the scripture and do its best to spread its message.

Possible motions

This House would ordain homosexuals.

This House believes that the road to God is not necessarily straight.

This House calls for a representative clergy.

Related topics

Gay marriage, legalising of

God, existence of

Homosexuals, outing of

Churches in politics