To Ordain or Not to Ordain?

  

The Cumberland Presbyterian Church is in the middle of a controversy that other denominations have already addressed.  We avoided it for as long as we could.  We turned a blind eye and acquired deaf ears when the topic was nearing a tipping point for denominational discussion.

Camps formed, then entrenched themselves, and now are ready for battle.  How long will this take?  Will the denomination divide?  Is anyone truly ready to listen or are we content just to beat our own drums?

I offer this to the general discussion, but consider it likely that many—probably most—will quit reading or denounce it without reading it in its entirety upon encountering any point that causes dogmatic thinking to be challenged.

And there will be challenges for all concerned.  This is not a message to comfort the afflicted but to afflict the comfortable.  Some need to check out here for the sake of not having your comfort zone disturbed.

Let’s address what most call the Arkansas Amendments.  I begin by addressing the elephant in the room.  The amendments take aim at practicing homosexuals and their fitness for service as a pastor in all forms or as an elder. Deacons are not addressed.

Let me say from the beginning, if the amendments are adopted, we as a denomination will be completely biblical.  We will be biblical! The problem is that we will also be the biggest hypocrites since the Pharisees.  If fact, we will have raised the hypocritical bar a good deal.

The problem is that the wording of the amendments aims a shotgun, not a rifle.  It addresses all sexual relationships outside the boundaries of marriage and not just homosexual relationships.  Perhaps the shotgun syntax was intentional, perhaps even biblical.

Just what am I talking about? We get that homosexuality is a sin thing.  Read Leviticus.  We shouldn’t adopt the world’s take that we have outgrown this thinking or that as the death penalty is no longer imposed for this offense (at least in this country) so the offense is no more. We need to remain biblically based in our thinking and doctrine.

We understand that the amendment is talking about a continuing relationship not just a past experience.  If a one-and-done approach was administered, those who have murdered, stolen, dishonored their parents or other prohibitions listed in the top 10 directives, would be disqualified from our ordained ranks and our numbers would shrink considerably. 

Yes, I know we don’t have many murderers who have been ordained, but we have many testimonies of people fully immersed in a sinful lifestyle who repented and received life in Christ Jesus and went on to ordination.  One-and-done does work when we are looking for reasons to exclude.  All have sinned and fall short.  We know that part.

I think we are talking about a continued homosexual relationship, but what about adultery?  That could be a one-and-done, but what about those among us who are ordained, yet continue in an adulterous relationship?

What?

What about those divorced Cumberlands who have remarried and as such continue in an adulterous relationship?  Are they too disqualified for ordination in any form?

Hold your holy horses!  We have a plethora of exceptions that have been written into this biblical view.  Besides, with the number of divorced people who we have welcomed into our ranks, this is politically not viable.

My mistake.  I thought we were being biblical, not political or practical. So, what should divorced people who have remarried do, divorce again?  I thought God hates divorce.

That would be ridiculous.  Remarried Cumberland Presbyterians would only need to divorce if they wanted to be ordained as a pastor or elder.  Then they would need to abstain from marriage just as the homosexual desiring to be ordained would abstain from having sex with same-sex partners.

C’mon man!  I thought that you were inclined to the conservative side.  I am, but I won’t use that as an excuse to be a hypocrite.

But that stuff about adultery came from Jesus. It wasn’t that way in the original law.

If discounting the words and teachings of Jesus were a viable response, that might be worth considering.  Instead, I ask you to consider this.

Much of the Law of Moses served to mitigate the evil in the human heart.  Jesus wants us to replace our evil hearts with the divine heart of his Father.  It’s that whole repentance thing again.

Let’s move on to the shacking-up category.  I’m guessing that’s included in the scope of the amendment.  What if the shacking up has continued to the point of being a common-law marriage?

Do committees on preparation for ministry need to add a question concerning this to their applications?

So where does this leave us?

With a thinning of the ranks, that’s where.  Only the most pious may be ordained within this denomination. 

God might call you, but you can’t answer his call here unless you are single or in a traditional marriage for the first time.  No same-sex relationships.  No divorced and remarried.  No shacking up.

You might think, I can live with that, and maybe we can.  But why stop at sexual sin?  Shouldn’t we address others?

If someone is a serial killer, the world will likely take him or her out of our ordained ranks. That’s an easy fix, but what about pride, self-righteousness, and gluttony.  Should we put out a BOLO on those for the next go-round of amendments?

I don’t know if I can start running 7 miles a day again.  Back in the days when I was lean and mean, that would be no problem, but these days, I’m just mean.

Some of us who carry extra weight might say that God made us this way.  Isn’t that the secular justification for accepting homosexual behavior?  This keeps getting messier.

Perhaps, every 3 years we should focus on a handful of sins for disqualification from ordination and thin our ranks even more.  This wouldn’t be excluding anyone from our denomination.  Race, color, sexual orientation, fat or skinny, tall or short—whosoever will may come.  You just can’t be ordained.

We need to publish a taxonomy of sin so we can address them in an orderly fashion.

I’m somewhat tongue-in-cheek here, but not entirely.  If the choice is between whosoever will may come but you might not be ordained because of selected sins or whosoever will may come but only the purest of the pure may be considered for ordination (few are called but fewer—perhaps none—are chosen), I would take the latter.

Things are so clear when we can shape God in our own image and make his instructions conform to our own. But if we truly want to be biblical in our faith and practice, then we need to thin our existing ordained ranks and ordain ever so few—if any—in the future.

Are we willing to do that?

Yes, I know that I am a stick in the mud.  I have been accused of being tactful twice in my life but was acquitted on both counts.

Some will say that I don’t truly understand God’s word—or more likely I don’t conform to your understanding of God’s word—the one that includes the taxonomy of sin.

Here is what I understand.  These things miss the mark.  They transgress God’s ways.

Homosexual relationships.

Divorce.

Remarriage after divorce.

Shacking up for sex.

We are called to minister to people in all of these areas.  These are only sexual sins.  We all fall short of God’s glory in so many other ways, but the continuation of these ways seems to be what is at issue here.

The challenge is to ordain a clergy worthy of the calling that they/we have received. Our history is one of whosoever will may come.

We all come to God out of disobedience.

But if the homosexual would just repent and seek the ways of God going forward, there wouldn’t be a problem.  That’s not fair!  That’s too much to ask!

Yes, there is a problem that many don’t think that repentance is needed.  What God said long ago on this matter is no longer valid and not a sin.

That dog don’t hunt!  That’s not biblical. It’s still a sin.

Let’s apply the same standard to divorce. All the divorced person needs to do is confess that his or her divorce was a sin and seek the ways of God going forward, which would include abstaining from remarriage and sex.

That’s not fair!  Getting married again after divorce is not a sin! That thinking is not biblical! But it is. Abstaining from marriage after divorce is biblical but very inconvenient to so many Cumberland Presbyterians. 

Should the same standard not be applied to both groups of people as we consider the proposed amendments?

Much of the law mitigated the evil in our hearts.  Jesus came to lead us to a wholesale exchange of our hearts of stone for those of flesh. Jesus wants us to have a heart that he can shape into a divine heart.

Personally, I don’t really want to see a gay pastor leading a flock. I am less bothered by a gay woman than a gay man.  Perhaps, that’s because God only mentioned men in Leviticus.  More likely, it’s just that toxic masculinity thing that’s going around these days. I am less bothered by a divorced and remarried pastor.  I am less bothered by a couple that is shacking up—it seems that most that I have encountered who are seeking God through Christ are headed toward marriage.

That’s my hierarchy, not God’s.  If we could just go with my hierarchy, I might be happy.  That is until I looked in the mirror and saw a hypocrite.

If we are going to abide by the law, let’s abide by the whole law not just the parts that we like the most.

Is it even possible to have someone who is qualified to be a pastor?  None are good save God himself. All have fallen short of the glory of God.

But God has called many to serve him and some of those were called as pastors.  Of those whom God has called, none were qualified.  Some might have had a big DISQUALIFIED stamped on their resumes, but God called them.

Can we continue as a denomination known for our grace and connectional nature or will we be divided by human decision and weaponize the law or ignore it all together?

Should I prepare to surrender my ordination or start picking out my phylacteries?

If the choice is between whosoever will may come but you might not be ordained because of selected sins or whosoever will may come but only the purest of the pure may be considered for ordination (few are called but fewer—maybe none—are chosen), I would take the latter.

Better to fulfill our commission, take the gospel to the world, and make disciples—even disciples that will have to wrestle with the old self for all of their days—than to make God’s directives in our own image and be the best hypocrites of all time.

If we pass these amendments, let us prepare to reduce the ranks of pastors and elders among us—not because of a denominational divide but because of widespread disqualification of those now serving or hoping to serve.

We can beat our chests all day and proclaim that we are biblically correct, knowing full well we are more hypocritical than the Pharisees ever were.

Paul listed his religious credentials and said that they would stack up to anyone’s, but that he counted them as dung.  That’s manure in these parts. What is our ordination worth if we apply our own taxonomy of sin to qualify or disqualify?

We might need to do the same if our credentials, specifically ordination, are a stumbling block to our commission.  If we invite people into the church (which belongs to Jesus) but say in the Cumberland part of that church, this far and no farther, have we not made them twice as much a child of hell as we are? Have we not placed ourselves in the place of God?

You can be a member but your sin is worse than the sin of others and grace only goes so far, at least where ordination is concerned.

For this protracted pontification to have any merit, it should include something of a recommendation.  I do pray that we come up with something better, but here it is.

Adopt the amendments.

Cease immediately the ordination of pastors and elders who:

Practice homosexuality.

Are divorced and not reunited with their original spouse.

Are divorced and remarried.

Are shacked up for sex.

Over the next 3 years, pastors and elders should surrender their ordinations if they:

Practice homosexuality.

Are divorced and not reunited with their original spouse.

Are divorced and remarried to another spouse

Are shacked up for sex.

 

Tom, you are crazy!  That may be true, but I’m biblical.

These mentioned above are just the sexual sins.  If we are serious about qualifying or disqualifying someone for ordination, then every 3 years, we will select 5 more sins for this purpose. Let’s start with lust.  Maybe it was included in the amendment, but let’s be sure.

We can’t skip gluttony.  This one will disqualify many.  Let’s throw in anger, jealousy, and selfish pride.  Those are all sins that often continue beyond ordination.  I’m just throwing these out there as a starting point, but we need to start somewhere.  It will take a committee at least 2 years to sort out the next 5 sins and we have people to disqualify!  Time is of the essence. The purge must begin now.

Sometimes, I am not sure if I am tongue-in-cheek or not.

So where does that leave us?

If God has called you to preach, then preach.  You will not be ordained to preach by this denomination, but you can still answer your call.

If God has called you to serve, then serve.  You will not be ordained to serve by this denomination, but you can still answer your call.

We can still answer our callings, serve in this denomination, and bring glory to God but we will do it without the human validation of that setting apart by God and for God.

This sounds radical, mainly because it is, but the concept of mercy and grace is no less radical and that’s what we have been commissioned to take to the world.  We are sent into the world to call sinners to repent and if our ordinations and institutionalism become a stumbling block to that, then we need to count all of that as dung and get back to the business of going into the world without a denominational ordination, but with these words.

Repent and believe the good news!

Should we go this route, we will surely need other constitutional revisions with regard to administering the sacraments and marriage, but these are not terribly debilitating changes.

As stated previously, I hope someone comes up with something better, but I’m also considering buying the domain name phylacteriesRus.com.  Business looks promising.

We must pray for greater understanding and discernment by us all.  We will figure this out only if we stop building our ramparts and start listening to God and to each other.

Amen.