Resources on A and O

Resources and analyses on
Amendments A and O

Amendment A is defeated [5-11-01]

The presbytery voting on Amendment A, which would have deleted a list of categories of persons who cannot be excluded from membership in the PC(USA), has finally yielded a result. The amendment has been defeated by a very narrow margin.

The amendment reflected a move at the 2000 General Assembly to side-track an overture which would have proposed adding "sexual orientation" to the list of factors which could not be used to exclude people from full membership, including "race, ethnic origin, worldly condition, or any other reason ..."

By this defeat of the removal of all the earlier categories, the church has turned down an effort to ignore our church's history of exclusions on the basis of factors such as race and ethnicity. We may hope that this is a modest sign of hope that we may yet move to be more fully inclusive of people who are still excluded on the basis of their sexual orientation.

More Light Presbyterians offers a comment, too.

Check out our earlier reports on Amendment A.

For current votes, click here.

On Amendment O (the "ministry gag order" on same-sex holy unions):

	Doug Nave sees many hopeful elements in the defeat of Amendment O [3-15-01] Witherspoon member Doug Nave sent this note soon after the deciding votes were reported that meant the rejection of Amendment O. After analyzing the patterns of voting, he considers some of the implications of the debate thus far, and urges continued efforts for the remaining presbytery votes. His conclusion: "It really is time to remember the fundamental reasons why we're a church, to stop debating sex and start doing service."
	God's Open Blessing -- As the voting on Amendment O, which would ban the blessing of holy unions, draws toward an end, Dr. Sarah Melcher, a Presbyterian pastor now teaching Hebrew Scriptures at Xavier University in Cincinnati, offers deeply biblical reflections on "blessing." She concludes: "Nothing in the biblical text encourages us, as sinners before God, to limit our blessings to only those who fulfill our human notion of righteousness. Without Christ, none of us are righteous before God." [3-13-01]
	The Reformed understanding of the freedom of conscience has been discussed as presbyteries have debated Amendment O, but is a matter of far broader import. For one thing, numerous overtures to the 213^th General Assembly deal with G-6.0106b on the basis of conscience. Dr. Sarah Melcher looks at Calvin's Institutes to help us consider this issue. [3-13-01]
	When people oppose Amendment O, a major reason seems to be their recognition of the human cost of such exclusion. Elder Millie Sieber of Cleveland, Tennessee, as the mother of a gay son, represented that cost clearly in the discussion in East Tennessee Presbytery. [3-10-01]
	The Tampa Bay chapter of The Witherspoon Society has prepared a brochure offering brief reasons for opposing Amendment O, along with a list of resources.
	How do we listen to sister churches from overseas? Parker Williamson has recently published an article, "How Christians around the world see the PCUSA," in which he quotes a number of conservative church leaders overseas to argue that any move toward accepting gay and lesbian people as full members of the PC(USA) would lead to a break in relations with many sister churches. Gene TeSelle offers an analysis of this "strategy of the Presbyterian Right for passage of Amendment O," pointing to the selective right-wing voices he cites. Doug King adds a few more thoughts about the need to be faithful to God's love in our own situation, even as we respect the ways in which other churches have been faithful in very different situations.
	The Rev. Francis Pritchard spoke recently to the Presbytery of San Diego, raising prophetic questions: Has this debate on Amendment O saved one soul? Or made our witness stronger in our society or around the world?
	Doug Nave warns that voting on Amendment O still needs attention
	Roger Gench of Baltimore preached recently on the importance of holy unions as affirming our Reformed commitment to covenantal relationships.
	What are the arguments on the other side? Presbyterians Together, a coalition formed for the purpose of passing Amendment O, is distributing a packet of materials in support of their case. Rollin Kirk, pastor of North Presbyterian Church, St. Paul, Minnesota, offered comments on the material.
	Outlook urges rejection of Amendment O as "bad polity" [1-5-01] In the January 15 issue of Presbyterian Outlook, editor Robert Bullock has joined with William Stacy Johnson to recommend the Amendment O should be rejected by the presbyteries -- partly as an "act of unity" on an issue about which Presbyterians are still not of one mind, and also because the amendment is "unnecessary."
	Barbara Kellam Scott adds that Amendment O also restricts pastoral freedom, as well as the freedom of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender people.
	The Tampa Bay chapter of Witherspoon Society has sent a letter to members of their presbytery, urging them to reject Amendment O partly to send "a message to our children," that (among other things) "we publicly support those who, in the covenant tradition of our faith, wish to make a public commitment of fidelity to the person they love."
	Nineteen former Moderators of the G.A. -- well over half of all living former Moderators -- have recently issued a Pastoral Letter to the Church, urging rejection of Amendment 00-O, the "ministry gag order," as a serious infringement on the rights and responsibilities of pastors and sessions to provide appropriate worship and pastoral care for their congregations.
	Click here for a longer, lawyerly, and very helpful comment on Amendment O.
	And click here for a new statement by Attorney Doug Nave.
	For some thoughts on dealing with "O" in our presbyteries, click here.
	For earlier theological reflection on holy unions by Chris Iosso and others, click here.
	Click here for some early thoughts by your WebWeaver, soon after the 2000 General Assembly passed these overtures.
	Covenant Network has a very helpful collection of resources on Amendment O
	Voices of Sophia
	More Light Presbyterians
	To see what folks on the other side are thinking you might visit Presbyterians Together, a coalition of groups formed specifically to further the passage of 00-O. They have assembled a massive collection of material.

On Amendment A

Janet Tadano Arbesman, a minister member of the Presbytery of Grand Canyon, raises questions about the supposedly neutral comments on Amendment A, offered by some of the Stated Clerks. It is less than objective, she suggests, and ignores the realities of our history. Their interpretation would thus strike another blow against any progress toward becoming a truly inclusive church.

Advocacy Committee on Women's Concerns urges opposition to Amendment A

Voices of Sophia

Click here for some early thoughts by your WebWeaver, soon after the 2000 General Assembly passed these overtures.

Two unfortunate amendments going to presbyteries

If we can't move forward this year, at least let's not move backward!

commentary by Doug King

Two controversial actions of the 212^th General Assembly resulted in amendments to the Constitution which are now being sent to the presbyteries for confirmation or rejection. In both of these cases, the progressive values of Witherspoon lead us to urge that the GA actions be rejected. But why?

A ban on holy unions: Amendment O

The first and most notable action of the Assembly was to approve Overture 00-26, from the Presbytery of San Joaquin. This is now sent to the presbyteries as Amendment "00-O," which would in effect ban all holy unions or other celebrations of faithful, committed relationships, unless they fit the classic definition of "a union between a man and woman."

Specifically, the question going to presbyteries is this:

Shall new "W-4.9007" be added to the Book of Order to read as follows: [Text to be added or inserted is shown with as italic.]

"W-4.9007
"Scripture and our Confessions teach that God's intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness. Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall not take part in conducting, any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God's intention as expressed in the preceding sentence.""

So what's the problem with this?

This amendment would remove all pastoral discretion in dealing with couples -- whether same sex or not -- who want to affirm their commitments to one another without a legally sanctioned "marriage." That may be because the couple are of one sex, and same-sex marriage is not recognized by civil law where they live. Or it may be, as Harold Brockus points out in an article in the forthcoming Network News, that the couple are of different sexes, but have other and compelling reasons for not becoming married in the eyes of the law. Whatever the reasons, our church has traditionally respected the right and duty of pastors and sessions to make decisions in matters such as these.

This amendment could clearly be interpreted to rule out pastoral care in just about any situation where individuals are not in compliance with "B." An unmarried mother who wants her baby baptized; a member who wants a funeral for a partner who has died from AIDS; an unmarried couple who wants to join the church -- you can see the progression already. In the earlier debates on B, conservatives said B was a standard for ordained clergy who needed to be models for others, not the rank and file membership. Now B is being cited to justify denying of pastoral care to members who aren't in compliance with it. What with our historic commitment to open membership being under attack, it won't be too long before "sinful" behavior is used to exclude folks from membership. (Yes, we recognize that only certain kinds of "sin" are really of concern to those who propose such changes. But the "laws" don't take those nice distinctions into account.)

Just as same-sex unions are gaining some general respect, even in the legal systems of some states, the church would seem to turn it back on people who undertake serious, faithful commitments to one another -- even while condemning them for their supposedly unstable relationships. The church would once again stand against the progressive trends of our society. While our church calls for faithful, committed relationships, we would refuse to support them among people whose orientation leads them into same-sex relationships. We seem to be taking a stand in favor of promiscuity, at least for a large number of couples.

As attorney Doug Nave points out:

Our ministers bless, and our congregations pray for, persons joined together in any number of endeavors -- including men in armies, friends on a picnic ground, contestants in a football game, and members of Congress. When did we decide that it would be inappropriate to bless two men or two women who have made commitments to try to build a life of fidelity and love together? Do we really think that killing an adversary in battle, political maneuvering for legislative gain, or other goals are more worthy? [For a more extended and very thoughtful comment from Doug Nave, click here.]

Those who support this amendment call for the Presbyterian Church to "take a stand" against the cultural trends of our day. Often this is appropriate and necessary. But which trends shall we oppose? Those which humanize our society and extend human rights to groups of people long excluded? Shouldn't we rather resist those values inherent in our "free-market" economic system, which continue to expand the gap between rich and poor, between developed nations and those less developed?

Those who urge a strong stand against contemporary culture when it includes in our social life groups formerly excluded, seem perfectly willing to affirm the cultural values which are most damaging to human dignity and to justice.

As the Advisory Committee on the Constitution pointed out, this amendment essentially is fixing something that (if you don't approve of same-sex holy unions) "ain't broke." The Book of Order, the Book of Confessions, and the Bible are all cited as defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. The clear intent of this amendment to the Directory for Worship is to prohibit absolutely any celebration of and support for efforts by same-sex couples to create healthy and faithful relationships.

A step backwards from an inclusive church: Amendment A

Overture 00-60, from the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area, sought to add "sexual orientation" to list of categories of persons who shall not be denied membership in Presbyterian churches. The amendment proposed by the overture was sent to the full Assembly with approval of the Committee on Church Polity, by a vote of 37/8/4. However, after a messy floor debate, a motion was moved to delete all the groups mentioned, rather than including the new category.

Thus the amendment going to the presbyteries for action as Amendment A is:

Shall G-5.0103 be amended to read as follows: [Text to be deleted is shown with a strike-through; text to be added or inserted is shown as italic.]

"The congregation shall welcome all persons who respond in trust and obedience to God's grace in Jesus Christ and desire to become part of the membership and ministry of his Church. No persons shall be denied membership ~~because of race, ethnic origin, worldly condition, or any other~~ for any reason not related to profession of faith. Each member must seek the grace of openness in extending the fellowship of Christ to all persons. (G-9.0104) Failure to do so constitutes a rejection of Christ himself and causes a scandal to the gospel."

This action seemed to reflect the mood of commissioners, who simply did not want to deal with issues of sexuality in any way. The amendment gave them an "easy out," by deleting the specific factors of "race, ethnic origin, and worldly condition," and leaving in place a vague and general affirmation that our congregations shall welcome everyone.

The flaw in this amendment is that it ignores the realities of our church's existence. acknowledge that our church is human and has its failings. But more, it affirms that we are striving to overcome some of those failings. Just as race and economic factors have in the past made some people feel unwelcome in Presbyterian churches (and have indeed made some Presbyterians act with a lack of hospitality), so now sexual orientation leaves some people feeling excluded.

The Assembly seemed unready to welcome gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender folks into our church. Well, so be it ... for now. But at least let's not turn our backs on history, and pretend that "We're all one in Jesus" is sufficient. Let's encourage our presbyteries to reject this step backwards, and to affirm that in the face of historical realities, we will continue striving to become a genuinely welcoming church.