Love the sinner...love the sinner: sexuality, sin and christian leadership

I still am thinking about christianity and sexual ethics - but this strand of thought is how far we allow sexually sinful people into the church - how much do they have to believe before they can belong and more than that, what level of moral perfection is needed to be achieved before they can start to lead...

My musings are inspired this time:

first by Jamie Arpin-Ricci's powerfully honest and beautiful post about his own struggles with feeling attracted to people of the same sex, which if you haven't read it then please check it out Jamie's personal reflection here and his follow up here; and

second this really thought provoking post by Shannon on is black still black and white still white.  I have lots of thoughts on Shannon's post but i think to write them there would be churlish, i don't want to litter his blog with my half formed thinking - and when you're a guest it is not polite to leave wet towels all over the bathroom!  I understand where Shannon is  coming from, it is the script that i have spent most of my life reading off of but am now starting to wonder how much is just my evangelicalism speaking and how much of it really is Jesus...

The question is that classic one of whether to allow gay people to become leaders  - Shannon suggests the position that i am most familiar with of gays being able to come to church but not allowed to lead- just as say a church wouldn't allow  a [serial] adulterer to be a leader etc...

But i am left wondering at what level do we allow sinners into leadership - after all i am guessing that such restrictions on leadership are not placed on people who think lustful thoughts, who find it hard to forgive, who feel pride, gluttony, addictions to work etc etc?  We seem to send out the message that leaders should be morally pure, upstanding examples of the sinless Jesus...

Or maybe i've just the point somewhere along the line?

i'm presuming leadership is not someone walking through the door and being promoted to snr pastor on the spot - but one that has a whole lot of variable roles - and therefore if i am gay i can't lead in any of them, even though God might have given me the gift because being gay is a sin, but if i gossip then that's ok cos that's more acceptable - or is it?

If i was gay and came to such a church i think i'd hear that most loved refrain of heh we love you we just hate your sin - which to the speaker is mighty comforting to tick that loving box but to the listener it sounds like heh i'd like to love you but you're a sinner - we don't love your kind round here...

If i was gay and came to such a church i don't think i would tell anyone that i was, i'd say heh as soon as i do i won't get to use my leader gifts and they are as much a part of me as my sinful nature - but it that is gonna hold me back from serving God then why do i need to reveal that - or bisexual in the sad case of someone who did that and rose right to the top of his denominational tree before stumbling once too often...

In fact i am not sure me with all my struggles with my own sexuality would not have got far in such a church - which was why i never told anyone for yrs and struggled so much - and yes i was in leadership.  in fact when i started sharing my struggles i was asked to stay in leadership which surprised me but allowed me to model honesty, confession, grace and love and to see people come out a little from behind their own masks...

I know from my evangelical back ground that faith is a private matter and that the sins we get most het up about are those obvious private ones - and seemingly minority ones - like sexuality when it is revealed in public, not when it starts off with a lustful look...

I wonder though when we will also scrutinise our own institutions and ask ourselves how much our 'right' actions prolong and promote sin?  How do are black and white rules that ride coach and horses through grace?  Does the system we operate whilst looking righteous actually encourage sin?  Do we ask people to live to the laws that we say are important and define what they are and how they apply and therefore deny them the grace that they were promised when they decided to orientate their lives around Jesus in the first place?

I say we cos i think i am as much a part of the problem here as anyone else in the evangelical church - we do our pharisee bit in the most complimentary way, we are zealous for God, we are passionate about his word, we espouse high moral life and then maybe we wonder why our churches are such shiny happy places for shiny happy well scrubbed people who play the game, manage our sin and say thank goodness we have rules in the bible and we get to enforce them...

But our we missing out on something - if what we focus on determines what we miss then by focusing on sexuality we let a whole lot of other sins slip by... by focusing on law we let a whole lot of grace slip by...

I'm not saying that snr church leaders should not show maturity of character, a commitment to follow Christ etc but wouldn't it be great if we also had leaders who were able to grow by being honest, by confessing, by sharing their struggles and fears with the fear of being disbarred, banned, or sacked?  What would that do to us to learn about mercy and grace, to experience them and to have leaders who have grown up in their faith immersed in them? 

Maybe we need to check that script again and possibly start to think of getting a new one, as for me the same old lines just aren't working...

Comments

[David]

Ahhhh, the same stuff I've been pondering. Imagine that.
Which is why upon reading your pontificating and pondering I simply say, "Good stuff" and then make a lame Star Wars joke.

Well, Good Stuff.
Yoda would be proud.

To ponder further, I'm not sure if we can make a blanket statement on who can or cannot be in leadership. I think it needs to come from building relationship and understand the character of the heart.

[Shannon]

Paul,

You make some very intersting points here but I must say I think many of them simply skirt around the issue of right and wrong, unless of course there is no clear definition of right and wrong. I'm not talking about political correctness or church correctness, just right and wrong.

You point out very well that there are many, including myself that have their own struggles they must work through. I see the difference in the person struggling with greed in his heart far different than the person blatantly engaging in homosexual acts or fornication or adultery or what have you. This is not placing degrees of sin on anything but we all acknowledge the fact we live in a carnal body wrap in the sin nature. We'll all be dealing with that aspect of ourselves until we die. But to deal with lust in ones self and with the help of trusted friends or acting out that lust by sleeping with everyone we can find is two different things. You've heard it said, "Temptation isn't sinful, but acting on the temptation is." A pastor that struggles with lust is far different than a pastor that engages is sex acts fulfilling that lust. Or so I see it.

[Rupert]

Good stuff. I think this is a huge question for me too. I find the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff patronising and unhelpful.

I dream of a church where broken, hurting and messed up people would come as they know that they won't get judged, will get loved, but also hopefully will get some help too. Not that we are ever "sorted", but hopefully we are on the way.

So that does lead me to a question about leadership. I think I see a difference when someone struggles with something, but is moving in the right direction, and someone who just doesn't see anything wrong with what they are doing.

So i don't have a problem with someone in leadership who makes a mistake in some area (eg. have a one night stand with someone or some dodgy financial dealings) as long as they acknowledge what they have done isn't right and take steps to rectify that (eg. getting some help, paying the momey back, taking some time to concentrate on you marriage etc etc) ...

But if someone then moves to a place where they don't see that what they have done is wrong, then i think that does become more problematical ... whether that is gossip, sex, arrogance or anything really ...

Jesus seemed to have all the grace in the world for people who knew they were in a mess, and needed help. But also had the knack of turning away those who couldn't see they broken & messed up sinners (eg. the rich young ruler).

[Shannon]

Rupert,

Very well said!

[Paul]

Guys,thank you - it is one of the things that i love so much about this whole conversation is that we can inspire and encourage each other - i really appreciate your comments/thoughts and the pushing back to go forward...

The key thought that springs to my mind is what are churches about - in that if it is something to do with following Jesus and participating in the kingdom of God then i am assuming that people who come along are interested in persuing a radical redemptive reconciling message - and i guess from that definition a lot of thoughs spring up - including the journey of grace of each of us as we follow Jesus together as a community and see the that redemptive reconciling work played out in each of our lives...

I take your point Shannon about skirting around right/wrong - i think what i was trying to say is that we are never 100% right for 100% of the time [and to that end i don't think we are 100% wrong for 100% of the time either]. I think what i was trying to articulate poorly is that to start banning people from leadership on the basis of one expression of wrong is not helpful but to think about leadership as part of the process of radical redemption, of opening up our lives, of a declaration of public service in which we can confess, explore, love, enocurage and if appropriate kick each up the backside then i think we have a much more healthy dynamic where issues like sexual brokeness [along with any other brokeness] are not handicaps which he have to keep hidden but opportunities for ongoing grace to come pouring in...

My fear is that when we start saying gays are welcome but cos they are sinners they can't lead full stop but people with less blatant sin can then we have a problem - we kick out grace i think and ask people to live under law...

I'd rather we had something that brought out character as David and Rupert both suggest, that explore redemption and realise that leaders are perfect - a la Paul in Romans 7 who still does what he doesn't want to do - but who can model for people what it is like to have liberation in Christ Jesus and an onfolding story embracing story to share of God's kingdom at work in them?

Ok i am making some assumptions there - so please push back at me?

[Shannon]

Paul,

I've done some thinking about this as well since I posted. Yesterday I had a meeting with my intercessory prayer team and brought this issue to them and as we talked I began to realize some things I may have been poor at highlighting.

While I won’t recant what I've already said here and on my blog about this issue because to do so would seem to violate what I believe is foundational in God's word to us. However, I wonder if in my "interpretation" of God's word if I have forgotten one very important note; the person or persons involved in homosexuality or any sin for that matter. Perhaps in my position against homosexuality (the act of it) I have failed to express concern over the homosexual (the person). This is always the danger in such things, I believe. It's so easy to maximize the homosexuality part and in the maximization of that, we run the risk of loosing the person. I began a dialog with my team yesterday on how can be avoid such wrongful maximization? We cannot highlight the problem so much that we loose sight of who is affected by the problem the most; the person or persons. This whole discussion is steering me into contemplating a whole new arm of ministry for us here at Living Springs.

[Paul]

Shannon, thank you so much for that... i love the way you have opened up this discussion with your folks and how you've brought prayer into it as well...

I would not dream of asking you [or anyone else] to recant - that would assume that i am completely right and you are completely wrong and i could somehow twist your arm to make you cry i was right. whereas in reality i am pretty sure that i have got a lot of my thinking wrong and more than that have been challenged and illuminated by your own thinking.

I love the way though that you are exploring the impact on the people involved, how what we say sounds in their ears and how we can be loving and affirming of them as people who are valued by a God who is deeply in love with us all...

Please let me know how your thinking continues to be shaped and what you end up doing as a result...

[Rupert]

Good discussion guys.

Shannon, I think you are wrestling with some great issues there.

I am wondering if our starting point should be "for" something, rather than "against" a particular behaviour?

I wonder what difference it would make if we were FOR people, FOR helping, serving, connecting people to Jesus, etc etc.?

Clearly there are some things that don't help us move towards Jesus, but the goal for every human being isn't to stop gossiping, sex outside marriage, anger, selfishness etc etc - but to move towards Jesus, be changed in the core of who we are, to have the things that are important to Him pulsing in our viens. If we promote that, then i think we will probably achieve the former.

[Paul]

awesomely powerful thought Rupert - i love this tale from David about asking directions to the LGBT office on a uni campus - brings it home how treating people as people and being for them might just work...
http://davidwmfisher.blogspot.com/2007/02/random-thougths.html

[David]

Thanks for the plug.
And I agree Rupert. Good stuff.
I'd rather be FOR and tick off those in church, than be AGAINST and create more walls to the sought.

[Rupert]

Paul - thanks for the link to david's blog. It is a great story. So often i just talk about doing something like that, but never actually get off my bum and do it!

David ... i sometimes think i don't tick off folks in the church enough!