A Living Watershed

A Member’s Personal Reflections on His Church’s Call to a Gay Minister

Dear Friends,
This week I want to share with you a rare account of a Protestant church wrestling concretely with whether or not to call an openly gay man to be their minister. The account was written by a friend of mine named Chris Avis, a member of the United Reformed Church of England, who lives in Exeter. It captures so well the emotions aroused by this issue that I believe it deserves wide circulation. I hope you agree. John Shelby Spong

In my experience, emotional roller coaster rides and a church meeting rarely coincide but an extraordinary (in both senses) church meeting at my church early in 2006 was a powerful exception to the rule. Attendance was double the church meeting norm and a palpable tension was in the air. The previous Sunday, members had worshiped under the leadership of a man who had been invited as a possible candidate to fill the pastoral vacancy and now the church meeting that would in our tradition require at least 80% in favor for the call to be made. This candidate had lived with his partner for over 30 years and discussion would now ensue on whether the applicant's qualifications and experience suited the demanding challenges of the job. That was the theory.

The Debate
Our interim moderator chaired the meeting with consummate skill and sensitivity, prefacing the discussion with some familiar words from 1 John, Chapter 4, including. "Whoever loves God must also love his brother." Discussion began on the candidate's vestments from a man who was "absolutely sickened" and reckoned that this minister "would not have looked out of place in a Roman Catholic Church." Well, at least the quality of the debate could only improve now and it did when the next speaker said that she had found the candidate to be "friendly, truthful and broadminded. He has obviously looked carefully into this church and its surroundings with a view to the future. He has enormous experience with social services, young people, local government and has preached in all sorts of churches. We would be missing a tremendous opportunity if we did not call him." A male contributor commented that, "We would have to go a very long way to find someone who would match our requirements as well as this man does."
A lady then expressed concern for the safety of the families, stating that after much "open-minded research into homosexuality," she had concluded, "that Jesus was right in advising Christians not to partake in homosexual practices. I'm not against homosexuals at all, but I don't think it's right for them to be ordained to be a role model for families. It would be much better if they had a normal relationship, preferably with children."
Unfortunately, this lady's research had left her ill informed both biblically and sexually. If Jesus criticized homosexual practices, no biblical author recorded it. The condemning of the ordination of homosexuals seeks, in effect, to veto the power of the Holy Spirit who does not restrict calls to serve the church according to sexual orientation. As the next speaker pointed out, "I wonder why our church trains homosexuals at its seminaries and theological colleges if they are not going to be allowed to be ordained?" She added that most ministers have the same share of family problems as everyone else, even though people may not know about it. "I think this man has huge experience for the things we want to do," she added. These informed views were reinforced by the next speaker, who said that her children are "very aware of different sexual orientations and would have much less trouble than a lot of us older people in accepting a gay minister. Not so long ago, women ministers were treated with the same biblically backed rejection," she added.
"Whichever way I vote," said a man, "somebody's going to leave this church. I think that is dreadful. Am I going to have my priorities with the candidate or with those other members who feel so strongly in opposition that they are going to leave the church? I will vote with them and I also would leave this church."
Another countered this thinking by saying, "I also think it is dreadful that some have left our church over this matter but their departure was less because of having to decide on accepting or rejecting a gay minister and more because of deeply ingrained fears that prompted flight rather than the courage to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt and defer any resignation decision until legitimately informed by experience."
A young mother said that because there were no other similar youngsters around, she could not bring her toddler to church at present. Although we were not suddenly going to get lots of young families coming, she felt the candidate was keen to build on the experience, knowledge and skills of our mature membership and that this was an opportunity to be grabbed. A gentleman then reminded the meeting that the candidate had lived with the same partner for 31 years and together they had fostered children. "If that is not a family, I don't know what is. Shame on those who would vote against the candidate on the grounds of his sexuality." This brought a gentle rebuke from the Chair, but it needed to be said.
Then, from a lady, "A test of faith is whether I can make space for difference. Can I recognize God's image in someone who is not in my image? If I cannot, then I have made God in my image instead of allowing God to remake me in God's image."
A male contributor said that he had never fancied another man (much to the relief of his wife) but that had nothing to do with his religion, his morals or his choosing. It was how his creator had fashioned him to be. "To be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual," he said, "is not a choice we make, it is a realization to which we awaken."
A brief interval of comic relief (unintentional) then occurred with a remark from an elderly gentleman: "I fully condemn this sort of carry-on in leadership. It was this kind of nonsense that brought down the Roman Empire."
An irate gentleman felt that we had been forced into an intolerable position, "between a rock and a hard place," he opined, "but I would say that surely such dilemmas are often found at the very heart of Christian life. To desire a comfortable faith lived in full Christian accord is only human but that faith must be courageously open to the Spirit also if we are to follow the spirited example of Jesus." Another man considered that the appointment of the candidate "would send a very strong message to our surrounding communities that we are a loving, accepting fellowship."
I am sure that God possesses what is the spiritual equivalent of a mischievous sense of humor, as the vote to call was carried by exactly 80%.
The meeting was a timely reminder to me of just how thin our Christian veneer can become when deeply held religious views and prejudices are challenged. Karen Armstrong has said that the most stubborn obstacle to Christian living is the ego. Following the example of Jesus means a constant battle to sideline self-centeredness. I believe the creative energy that Christians call the Holy Spirit was present at our meeting (because we were present), though at times that voice of love and reason was lost in egocentricity on both sides of the debate. The main item on the agenda seemed not to be the candidate's suitability for the job, but his unsuitability for the calling.
Several speakers used the threat of resignation as a debating tool, which not only suggested a possible self-awareness of the shaky foundations of their reasoning but also demonstrated a willingness to use strategies unworthy of Christian debate. A vote either way was going to result in pain and resignation for some and when the required 80% in favor was announced, it marked the sad end of an era for some of our loyal and dedicated fellow members. Unable to reconcile fear and acceptance within their perception of our church's developing Christianity, some have departed. The loss to us is great; the loss to them may be more than they currently understand and we long to celebrate their homecoming. Some may have voted for a call with considerable reservations, nevertheless willing to be guided by future experience rather than past prejudice. Perhaps they are the most courageous of all our church members.
In defense of the detractors, I felt that some had to confront openly, perhaps for the first time, sexual issues previously avoided. For many Christians, homosexuality is one of those nasty perversions condemned by the Bible, swept under the carpet of religious conservatism and privately suppressed. Usually the church implicitly supports and encourages this process, responsibility contributed to the raw emotional trauma of some of our debate.
Whenever I sang H. W. Baker's words, "Where streams of living water flow my ransomed soul he leadeth." I used to picture a pleasant walk by a pretty brook with frequent opportunities for refreshing drinks en route. Now I find that the inevitable watershed for our church caused by recent events has changed that serene image for me quite dramatically. The "living water" has become a foaming, rushing river with no safe banks to walk on; the only way ahead is to take the plunge and become willingly carried away by the flow. The majority of us remaining in our church have taken a deep breath and jumped, believing that we will not sink without trace but be buoyed up by faith. I raise my own small glass of living water and drink to that.
Chris Avis