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 212th
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.
