Calvin Synod Herald, 1991 (91. évfolyam, 1-6. szám)
1991-05-01 / 3. szám
CALVIN SYNOD HERALD — 5 — REFORMÁTUSOK LAPJA A Position Paper on Homosexual Ordination On behalf of the Synodical Council of the Calvin Synod: Rev. Dr. László M. Medyesy Chairperson of Committee of Ecumenism and Social Action We, the members of the Synodical Council of the Calvin Synod, Conference of the United Church of Christ, are compelled to take a theological position on the issue of homosexual ordination to the Christian ministry. It is our responsibility to provide guidance and teaching to the members and Congregations of our fellowship, which embraces primarily Hungarian Reformed Christians. We are quite aware of the fact that the question of homosexual ordination is a divisive issue in contemporary American Protestantism. Nevertheless, the Conference Council at its December, 1990, meeting in Lorain, Ohio, requested that I, as the chairperson of the Committee on Ecumenism and Social Action, prepare a short position paper for discussion at the next Synod Assembly in Ligonier in 1991. During the March, 1991 meeting, also in Lorain, the Council had discussed, to a considerable extend, the submitted report and with certain modification declared it as an opinion of its own and ordered its publication in order to assure an informed, compassionate, and biblically based discussion on the matter. The Associated Press just announced (February, 1991) that after three years of deliberation a special commission on homosexuality in the Episcopal Church approved the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals and lesbians to the Christian ministry. A similar report was received from the Religious News Service which carried that a task force of the Presbyterian Church USA has recommended that the church should open its pulpits to practicing homosexuals “despite evidence that laity and clergy in the 2.9 million member denomination overwhelmingly oppose such a move” (Christianity Today, March 91). Sexual task forces, with similar recommendations, have been functioning in other historical Protestant denominations, contributing to a distressing polarization between the “traditionalists” and the “liberals” in such organizations. May it be said that it is beyond our competence to analyze or explain the roots and cause of homosexual behavior. Is it an inherited or an acquired characteristic? Is it appropriate to place blame on anyone (the homosexual person, parental roles, the environment) for such a situation? Can we question the sincerity or the permanency of committed life-long homosexual relationships? Do we have the right to investigate and judge someone’s intimate, private sexual preferences? We shall focus on only one aspect of this complex problem: is it appropriate to ordain a homosexual person to Christian ministry? Our normative confession, the Second Helvetic, in its XVIIIth Chapter deals with the qualifications for ordination and ministerial lifestyle that must be intentionally upheld as a role model before a congregation. From the list of requirements one is particularly relevant for us. An ordained servant must be exemplary with “an honorable lifestyle”. A minister, as a shepherd of a flock, by merit of the position, projects an image and example. A minister is expected to fulfill, in his/her area of private life, all those Biblical values and statements that the church publicly announces. In doing so there is an articulated or inarticulated appeal among the flock to follow the role model, the spiritualmoral accomplishments of the “shepherd” which should be as close as possible to the one revealed in the Scriptures. Should a homosexual relationship be elevated in the Christian community as an exemplary lifestyle to be imitated. Historically our Reformed Church rejected the inclusion of homosexuality into the framework of acceptable Christian life. It was not out of “homophobic” tendencies or of lack of concern but from a Biblical foundation. Let us see shortly the Scriptural objection to homosexual relationships. In the book of Genesis one reads of the creation of humankind. (Genesis 1:26-28) In the creative process of God the couple male and female, had a unique function: to be fruitful and multiply. This original charge from God has not changed in time. Obviously a gay or lesbian relationship does fall short of this ideal, since it is incapable of procreation. Therefore, on this basis, it is not condoned as a valid lifestyle for Christian ministers or laity. Notably, the people of the Old Testament seem to have displayed repulsion toward homosexuality. It is quite certain that the customs of sacred homosexual protitution, associated with pagan religious practices, made Judaism religiously inimical toward homosexuals. King Josiah destroyed with force the houses of male prostitutes (II.Kings 23:7). Homosexual relations among the chosen people were considered abominations and punished with death (Leviticus 20:13). In the New Testament the strong opposition to homosexuality survived. Homosexuals, the “malakós”, the effeminate (KJV) “will not inherit the Kingdom of God” declared Apostle Paul (I.Cor. 6:9). Jude in his short letter (v. 7) recalls the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah and all those who “indulged in unnatural lust.” These references see the original order of creation as a natural, normal standard and consider deviation from it unacceptable. First Timothy 3:2 and 12 refer to the preferred sexual life of potential bishops and deacons. It is advised that each may be married to one wife and have children. These qualifications have encouraged Ordained clergy to uphold a viable, attractive family life model for the church members. Our church historically has always
