CLGS

A church identifies homosexual behavior as rebellion against God.

By John Aldridge and Elders — response by John (Jay) A. Ekman
Originally published in Open Hands, Vol. 11, No. 4

July 3—We were dismayed to learn of our sister Saratoga Presbyterian–New England Congregational Church's decision to ordain active homosexual persons to ministry as elders and deacons. It is a clear violation of our denomination's position against gay ordination; it is a grave disservice to homosexuals; and it is a basic betrayal of the gospel.

Far from being God's intention for creation, homosexuality is rather just one more example of the general brokenness of humanity stemming from human rebellion against God from the very beginning. This brokenness or sin is the root of our self–centeredness, pride, greed and resultant loneliness, pain and suffering. The breaking of humanity seems even to have affected our genetic makeup, as evidenced by genetic aberrations that may lead to various diseases, alcoholism, violence, and perhaps even homosexuality.

Christians believe that, by his death and resurrection, Jesus Christ brought about a healing of our break with God, paving the way also for a healing of the brokenness of the individual. Healing in this life results in the transformation of a person's character and, sometimes, even physical restoration. At the very least, God provides new strength to live according to his will.

The key to be experiencing this healing is repentance: a recognition of one's brokenness and a turning from one's former lifestyle and dependence on one's self; a turning to the forgiveness, grace and full life offered by Jesus Christ.

By endorsing the homosexual lifestyle without repentance, the Saratoga church is actually undercutting the power of Christ to restore and heal. Far from leading people closer to God and to true wholeness, they are choosing to accept a broken condition as normal, thus leading their people away from God and into further bondage.

Homosexual persons are definitely welcome to worship in our church, and, most probably, in any Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). However, like all the rest of us broken persons, they are called to repent and receive the gospel and allow Christ to lead them in a new way. Ordination of someone who refuses to repent of any broken behavior and refuses to seek to cease such behavior is impossible.

We call on our sister church to turn back from this divisive and destructive new policy and to continue its long history of being a loving and reconciling body. –Rev. John Aldridge and Elders, First Presbyterian Church, Corinth, New York.

Source

This letter (shown below) was published in The Saratogian on Sunday 9 July 1995 and reprinted in More Light Update, December 1995. Used with permission of pastor.

4 August 1995

Dear Pastor, Elders, and Members of the First Presbyterian Church, Corinth:

I am in receipt of your July 1995 letter and I read it in the Sunday Saratogian... I realize that our actions to become a More Light family go against the official stand of our denomination, but it seems to me that in a world rife with prejudice and barriers, the new community of God ought to be able to do better re: the ordination of homosexuals than our military's policy of "don’t ask, don’t tell." I have known too many excellent and creative homosexual pastors and laity to be able to dismiss so easily their contribution to the faith journeys of those within the family of the church.

It is my belief that our church authority is wrong on this issue and that, in a hundred or so years, the national church will treat gay and lesbian ordination in the same way we now treat the ordination and leadership of women and African Americans. As you know, even these latter groups have been, and sometimes still are, the subject of debate and biblical controversy, but much of the earlier passion and prejudice has quelled with time, understanding, and appreciation for the contributions women and African Americans have made. Before that kind of change and openness comes to the gay and lesbian community, an up–to–date conscience, informed by scripture, is ultimately the authority to which I as a Christian yield...

Your letter declares that our stand is "...against the gospel..." You're free to say that, but making such an unequivocal judgment from your faith perspective does not necessarily make the statement any more correct than folks before Columbus declaring "The world is flat."

Your missive also makes it quite clear that you know with certainty the mind–set of the Almighty at the time of creation. I do not accept that the two (different) Genesis creation stories where people were created male and female and where we are also directed to be vegetarians and be fruitful and multiply, are the last word for human understanding of God's creative intentions. As a "child of the fall" I like red meat, and, of all the commandments, "be fruitful and multiply" is one the world's people have kept with dangerous abandon! I also do not hold that it was the Genesis writers' intentions to set all the parameters of all created life. For me Genesis 1 and 2 sets the stage of salvation history: God's good creation being challenged by our free will to create greedy relationships, unloving barriers, and less than well thought–out prejudices.

It is my belief that God made the world good and that healthy community where each individual can develop and share their gifts is a goal of the divine plan. I can not say with a clear conscience that God intended from the very beginning to exclude a group of loving and decent people whose only deviation (which hurts no one) is their sexual orientation. Note: I know that anal sex and the spread of AIDS hurts many–my own nephew died of AIDS prior to the time when "safe sex" was being urged upon the gay community. While I take a very dim view of gays having unprotected sex, I am not willing to allow "the AIDS problem" to taint my general attitude toward homosexuals or their ordination...

...I appreciate your awareness that research into the gene and bio–chemical complexity of our human nature is applicable and should be factored into our understanding of God's truths as contained in scripture. From my vantage point we have to be very careful in...equating behavioral disease with states of being. Your letter seems to lump violence, alcoholism, and homosexuality into one gene genre. You are correct that research is beginning to show that (1) negative social activity like violence and a predisposition to alcoholism might be related to gene defects or bio-chemical imbalances. We also know that (2) certain diseases are related to our biological make–up: Alzheimer's, cystic fibrosis, sickle–cell anemia, etc. And we know that (3) natural hair color, eye color, and male or femaleness are biologically determined.

You and I would apparently disagree as to whether homosexuality should fall into category (1) or (3). While we both believe the healing power of faith can cure some behaviors, it does not correct the underlying genetic [disposition]. Unlike violence and alcoholism, which we agree are destructive to self and society, I do not believe that homosexuals are destructive when acting responsibly according to their heredity. Since the majority of homosexuals I know, like my heterosexual friends, are decent, creative, caring people who have served the church well, I am prone to put their gayness or lesbianism in the last category (3). This obviously affects my attitude toward their ordination and their "need" to be made whole...

When I moderated your session many years ago, I had the pleasure of working with Chris Von Seggern. I know that she, along with other women, makes a wonderful and much needed contribution to your church family. Chris also signed your letter as Clerk of Session. While I believe it can be shown that there are different interpretations and translations [for biblical references on same–sex conduct], it appears to my best reading that there is absolutely no conflict of interpretations in 1 Timothy 2:9–15 regarding women as teachers and leaders or in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 regarding elders being male only, not divorced...

...I would be interested in knowing how you can use a few debatable scriptures to inform your rather unyielding stand on homosexuals while (apparently) totally ignoring a very clear and unequivocal scriptural directive as to the place of women in church leadership and education? You might agree with me and take the position that portions of 1 Timothy are out of date and inappropriate... If we adapt 1 Timothy to fit our positive experience of women in the church, why not factor in the wonderful contributions and decency of gays and lesbians we know and then do the same with New Testament scriptures that could narrowly be interpreted as anti–homosexual?

Well—sorry to take up so much space and time, but I thought your concerns worthy of as thoughtful a response as I could muster at the moment. I would be happy at any time to come personally and share with you folks if you thought that helpful to build bridges of honest Christian understanding...

Warm regards,

John (Jay) A. Ekman, pastor
Presbyterian–New England Congregational Church
(More Light and ONA)
Saratoga Springs, New York

Source

This letter is excerpted from a longer one originally sent to the church in Corinth and later published in More Light Update, December 1995. Used with permission of pastor.