“Ordination of Women and of Gays: Are They on a Par?” by Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Calvin Seminary Forum, Spring 1994.
Flannery O’Connor knew that “it seems to be a fact that you have to suffer as much from the Church as for it.” Now even the Pope is taking a few tentative steps to admit this in recommending repentance for “the lack of discernment, which at times became even acquiescence, shown by many Christians concerning the violation of fundamental human rights: over the ages. One level of explanation for such oppression by “Christians” is noted by an Asbury Seminary professor who recently wrote: “Our church subculture has erected dozens of barriers that separate many people from the possibility of becoming disciples” of Christ, and “virtually all these barriers are essentially cultural barriers and hve little or nothing to do with ‘the faith once delivered to the saints.” It’s crucial to remember this historical context as we turn to Plantinga’s article. Of course, churches aren’t alone in abusing people. Wherever institutions of whatever kind exercise authority, opportunity for abuse is often indulged. But abuse at the hands of churches is uniquely egregious given Christ’s unconditional love, to which also he calls his followers.
Plantinga is professor of systematic theology at Calvin Seminary, a school of the conservative Christian Reformed Church, and he is a member of the four-man editorial board of this new publication. He advocates opening ordination to women and keeping it closed to homosexuals. Taking note of a “line of talk” he judges “unsavory”, namely the argument that ordination of women could lead to ordination of homosexuals, he offers some unsavory polemics of his own by inventing quirky definitions and reviling and misrepresenting homosexuals and homosexuality.
He defines as “lifestyle gays” all who honestly acknowledge their homosexuality and who would live in accord with the only sexual orientation they can experience. Confusing gender role and merriment (he misspells it “gaity”) with sexual orientation, Plantinga makes the unbiblical assertion that “femininity belongs to creation, gaity [sic] to the fall”. Drawing a long and untenable parallel between homosexuals and revilers “to help us gain clarity on the differences between orientation and practice”, he erroneously assumes that the expression of homosexual orientation is analogous to the expression of anger. Even though he says he knows that homosexuals don’t choose their homosexuality and that “Christian homosexuals discover their orientation with a sense of alarm … and understandably feel deeply alienated from the culture that reviles and despises them just because of their orientation”, he refuses to utilize the most obvious parallel to homosexual orientation and practice: heterosexual orientation and practice.
The professor engages in reviling: e.g., calling any hypothetical gay candidates for ministry a “militant flamingo from Act Up” and anachronistically labeling “lifestyle gays” the very “emblems in Romans 1 of human darkness and disorientation”.
Plantinga asks: “Should Christian Reformed men who respect their mothers and daughters link them with people who practice and defend a sexual disorder?” Saying that “the comparison is distasteful,” he fails to see that some of those mothers and daughters – not to mention fathers and sons and other family members – are, themselves, some of these so-called disordered ones. He does admit that his own denomination has “homosexual offenders”, but adds he’s thankful that “in traditional church settings very few homosexuals commit themselves to lifestyle gaity [sic]”, by which he evidently means that he won’t mind homosexuals so long as they pay the price of hiding what goes to their very core experience as human beings – something he does not expect of himself and fellow heterosexuals. So much for the Golden Rule.
He ends rather flippantly: “We never read that ‘in Christ there is no gay or straight.’ ” This is a reference to Galatians 3:28, a Pauline text that conservatives have only lately used in changing their stance against ordination of women. But if Paul’s statement does not translate to “no gay or straight” – the first century knew no such categories – it does indeed literally translate to “no male and female”, whereby Paul discards theological significance to the heterosexuality of the creation story to which Plantinga appeals in his assault on homosexuals. But, of course, this debate does not hinge on Scripture – not even on interpretation of Scripture. There are towering biblical themes of inclusion that dwarf all traditionalist proof texts. Like so many other issues in church history, it is a debate that turns on the distribution of power. Whether the issue was slavery, Apartheid or women’s ordination – issues on which his Dutch Reformed tradition has changed – all the Bible verses once used to oppress are still in the Bible. But their use has changed with the times and not even Plantinga would think of reviving them for those previous purposes.
He observes that what he (mistakenly) thinks is comparable to homosexuality today, is said, in the Bible, to be an “abomination”. He points out, however, that “lots of other things in Scripture are abominations” and mentions, for example, “lying and stirring up dissensions among fellow believers”. So, how long will it take for the stirring up of dissensions over homosexuals in the church to go the way of the prejudices against women ministers and racially integrated marriages and congregations?.