Avoiding Some Church Troubles

Tony Campolo January 14th, 2008

Every denomination in America is facing the real possibility of schism because of differing views on the place of gays and lesbians in the Church. Almost all churches, including most Fundamentalist churches, are open to homosexuals attending their worship services. Even homophobic Christians welcome gays and lesbians in the hope that they will hear the Gospel and maybe get saved. Those who are convinced that those with homosexual attractions can be changed through "coming to know Christ," and being empowered to change through the help of the Holy Spirit, are especially ready to accept gays and lesbians as listeners on Sunday mornings. The conflicts arise if and when homosexuals seek to join these churches and become active in congregational ministries. Eyebrows are raised when gays and lesbians offer to teach Sunday school classes or lead youth groups, because some church members wonder whether gays and lesbians, either by example or teachings, promote alternative lifestyles to what are usually referred to as "traditional family values."

Such conflicts become even more pronounced when "practicing" homosexuals present themselves for ordination. All across the country, gays and lesbians who are in committed lifetime relationships are asking to be ordained for pastorates in mainline denominations. And all across America there are horrified reactions to the mere suggestion that such ordinations be permitted.

It is hard to predict how arguments over the places that gays and lesbians should occupy in churches will be resolved. What seems unthinkable now might gain wide acceptance in a few decades. Consider the reality that some fifty years ago persons who had been divorced and remarried were barred from most pulpits, but today such ministers have become commonplace. Some eighty years ago, divorced persons were often excommunicated from the membership of many churches. But today, divorced and remarried persons are seldom excluded from even very conservative churches. If they were driven out of churches, the losses evident in Sunday morning congregations would be dramatic. Most churches have come to accept divorced couples as full-fledged members and have very few, if any, problems with such persons occupying key roles in church leadership. Given how attitudes can change, who can say if, for better or for worse, the same kind of acceptance of gays and lesbians could become normative in most churches?

Presently, there are wide diversities of opinions on such questions, and in the face of all these arguments, I would like to make a couple of proposals that might lower the level of tensions on these matters.

First, I would like to propose that we do away with the practice of maintaining church membership altogether. As outrageous as this might seem at first, I want you to consider the fact that in most instances church membership is meaningless. When two-thirds of those who are listed on church rolls are absent on Sunday mornings, and the level of commitment of significant proportions of those who do attend is shallow, it has to be acknowledged that church membership is hardly an indicator of true Christian discipleship.

In all probability, the early church did not maintain church rolls, but simply added to their fellowship "such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). In simple language, I propose that churches should not be comprised of those who are recommended by committees and approved by perfunctory congregational votes. Instead, the Church should be defined by those who are regularly a part of worshiping communities. Following such a suggestion certainly would end a lot of hassles over who should or should not be considered as bona fide members. Church would be defined as those who actively participate in the life and ministries of the churches.

Secondly, I propose that we do away with the concept of ordination. This seems like a viable option in the face of the fact that so many of the pastors of the fast-growing churches in America never went to seminary nor gained ordination from any denominational organization. Furthermore, I find nothing in the Bible that denotes that there should be a clergy with some special designation through ordination and who then belong to a select group who are the only ones worthy of administering Holy Communion. Personally, I believe in the priesthood of all believers, and that every Christian is ordained to ministry (I Corinthians 12:18-31). If you agree with me, and believe in such doctrines (and most Christians do), then why do we have a separate religious caste designated as "reverend"?

I suppose it's my Baptist upbringing that motivates me to think like this. As a Baptist, I was brought up to believe that each local congregation should decide who should occupy the various leadership roles in the church, and no denominational hierarchy had a right to interfere. Following through with these suggestions would end a lot of denominational squabbles and allow individual Christians to belong to fellowships of believers who do not violate their personal convictions (Baptists call this "soul conscience").

What I am proposing is that we simply recognize the realities of our times and acknowledge that church membership hardly clarifies whether or not a person is really a Christian; and that a denominationally recognized ordination is no real mark of somebody who is a faithful and effective preacher of the Gospel.

|

This entry was posted on Monday, January 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am and is filed under Christians, Church, Homosexuality, Leadership, Tony Campolo. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.