New reflections on Amendment O
by Doug Nave
Doug is an attorney currently practicing
in London, England. He is also a
trustee
of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City. His earlier
comments on Amendment O were published on this web site and in the
Summer 2000 issue of Network News. He shared these updated
comments after presenting some of the arguments in a workshop at the
Covenant Network Conference in Pittsburgh in early November.
These are the major sections of his discussion; click
on any one of them to go directly to that section.
1. The Substance of
Amendment O
2. Amendment O and Our
Ministers and Sessions
3. Amendment O and Our
Ordination Standards
4. Amendment O Would Overturn
Longstanding PC(USA) Policy
5. Amendment O Denies Our
Fundamental Belief in Freedom of Conscience
6. Amendment O Is Bad Polity
Conclusion
Greetings, friends --
This e-mail is a long overdue response to those at the
Covenant Network workshop on overtures who asked for a copy of an e-mail
I sent laying out some of my thinking on Amendment O. With apologies for
the delay and thanks for your interest, it is set out below. Please feel
free to pass it along to anyone else you think might find it of
interest:
As we enter the period in which the presbyteries will
begin voting on proposed Amendment O, I hope that many will have the
wisdom either to vote to take "no action" or simply to table
the proposal and decline to vote on it at all. That perhaps would enable
some of our presbyteries to avoid yet another destructive debate about
homosexuality, about which we clearly have a range of different and
deeply held views. A refusal to vote or a vote to take "no
action" would count, as a practical matter, as a vote not to amend
our church law, since a majority of all presbyteries -- and not simply
those voting -- is required to change the Book of Order (G-18.0301(d)).
More importantly, such action would send a clear word that we reject the
politics of division, that we will not allow others to force us into
confrontation, and that we affirm our historic polity of governance by
the authority of broad-based consensus rather than by the power of
narrow majorities. Indeed, as discussed below, our fundamental
conviction that our members enjoy freedom of conscience in matters not
considered "essential" to our faith and polity would seem to
require this.
That said, if a presbytery insists on having a debate,
I offer below some of my own thinking on the many difficulties created
by the proposal.
1. The Substance of
Amendment O:
For those presbyteries that wish to debate the merits
of homosexuality head-on, I hope it will be recognized that Amendment O
goes far beyond the ordination rules that we have debated previously and
that some might regard -- however painful to the persons involved -- as
a means of defining our institutional identity. Rather, in Amendment O
we reach beyond the church into the homes of our members and deliver a
sharp word of rejection to people at what can be the emotional center
and practical foundation of many lives. To choose between one's spouse
and one's God would not be an easy choice for most heterosexual couples
to make, and we should be very clear about the rightness of our position
as a denomination before we attempt to force such wedges into the lives
of our gay and lesbian members. The history of our church demonstrates
that we do violence far too readily and repent of it far too late.
Moreover, Amendment O raises some fundamental
questions about what we believe and value as a church. For example:
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. Do we really think that killing an adversary in
battle, political maneuvering for legislative gain, or other goals are
more worthy than the efforts of two men or two women to build a life of
fidelity and love together?
Do we really believe that the essence of intimate
human relationships is sexual activity? Do we think that all of the
married heterosexual couples in our congregations are consumed by sex --
and more to the point, do we really want to know? If not, why do we make
assumptions or focus on this when we think about same-sex couples?
Is it possible that our opposition to the formation of
committed, faithful relationships actually contributes to the
promiscuity and alienation we see in some parts of the gay community? Is
our church helping to promote the "anarchy in sexual
relationships" that our Confession of 1967 deplores, in making it
more difficult for our brothers and sisters in Christ to form stable,
responsible partnerships? And if we are unwilling to accept
responsibility for that, why do we continue to pour resources into
programs recognizing, counseling, and supporting heterosexual couples?
2. Amendment O and Our
Ministers and Sessions:
It is an extraordinary act for a church categorically
to deny its ministers the possibility of praying for, seeking God's
blessing on, and otherwise ministering to the persons under their care.
Indeed, while our Constitution limits the discretion of ministers and
sessions in any number of ways, it almost invariably does so by
establishing affirmative duties, rather than prohibitions. Amendment O
seems inconsistent not only with our duty to reach out in love and
compassion to others around us, but also with our claims that we trust
those whom we have tested and found worthy of ordained ministry, and
that we believe in a loving God who alone has the power to decide the
worthiness of our prayers and invocations. It is a peculiar church that
declares itself afraid to pray
Moreover, at a practical level, when we move into such
lawmaking endeavors, we step out onto a very slippery slope. Indeed, in
1993, the Advisory Committee on the Constitution strongly cautioned the
General Assembly against adopting a measure like Amendment O because its
adoption "would open the door for further restrictions upon the
individual performance of ministers and elders" and would
constitute a "quantum leap into an arena that is fraught with all
sorts of dangers" (PCUSA Minutes, 1993, Pt. I, pp. 307-08). The
proposed amendment thus constitutes a damaging precedent that could
become the leading edge of a wedge which may be driven ever further
between ordained leaders and their conscience.
3. Amendment O and Our
Ordination Standards:
If ratified by the presbyteries, Amendment O could
have a serious effect not only on holy unions but also on our thinking
about ordination standards. One can already hear the arguments being
made that since our ministers are allowed to bless all manner of things,
Amendment O's concern with same-sex unions cannot be that they are
lacking in seriousness/substance -- it must be that such unions are
believed necessarily to involve or arise out of "sinful"
conduct. This would directly contradict the recent discernment in Hair
v. First Presbyterian Church of Stamford, Rem. Case 99-5 (Synod NE Oct.
9, 1999) that sinful sexual conduct cannot be presumed merely from the
existence of a committed relationship between persons of the same sex.
Alternatively, a prohibition on same-sex union ceremonies could be
deemed to give greater content to that hoary phrase "chastity in
singleness" than anyone heretofore appears to have understood
(again, in contradiction of Hair). In particular, some might argue that
singleness is an independent requirement, rather than a mere premise for
the requirement of chastity ( i.e., that unmarried persons are required
to live chaste and single rather than simply chaste when single).
Accordingly, this overture may have some "back door" effects
in areas of church law other than the blessing of same-sex unions.
Indeed, to the extent that our debates over Amendments
B and O have anything to say to each other, I would think that perhaps
we might learn something from the 1998 General Assembly's Authoritative
Interpretation regarding ordination standards, that our church
"commits itself not to exclude anyone categorically in considering
those called to ordained service in the church, but to consider the
lives and behaviors of candidates as individuals." Proposed
Amendment O appears to be inconsistent with the spirit of that
Authoritative Interpretation, in denying the church's blessing
categorically to all committed gay and lesbian relationships, regardless
of the lives and conduct of the persons involved.
4. Amendment O Would
Overturn Longstanding PC(USA) Policy:
Amendment O represents a complete reversal of our
denomination's longstanding position that our ministers may perform
blessings on same-sex unions, so long as these are not the same as
marriage ceremonies and care is taken to avoid any confusion between the
two. This was affirmed only this year by our General Assembly's
Permanent Judicial Commission, in Benton v. Presbytery of Hudson River,
Rem. Case 212-11 (May 22, 2000). In that case, the PJC stated
unequivocally that the decision whether to conduct same-sex ceremonies
remains within the discretion of individual ministers and sessions, so
long as confusion with marriage ceremonies is avoided. The PJC also
affirmatively found that it would be "appropriate" for
same-sex ceremonies to be conducted in the form and spirit of W-6.3010
and W-6.3011. That decision, which was grounded in a 1991 Authoritative
Interpretation of the General Assembly, remains the law of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) today.
This year's General Assembly is the fifth to have
considered same-sex union ceremonies in the last ten years. In each of
the prior years our denomination has decided to continue allowing such
services:
As noted above, in 1991, the General Assembly issued
an Authoritative Interpretation that Presbyterian ministers may conduct,
and church facilities may be used in, same-sex union ceremonies so long
as these are not equivalent to marriage ceremonies. The General Assembly
has never overruled this interpretation which, as noted above, formed
much of the basis for the PJC's recent decision in the Hudson River
case.
In 1993, the General Assembly rejected several
overtures that would prohibit same-sex union ceremonies after its
Advisory Committee on the Constitution opined that it would be
"highly irregular and extraordinary" for the Book of Order to
forbid or mandate acts within the traditional discretionary purview of
individual ministers and elders. The Advisory Committee noted that while
the General Assembly may make suggestions about what might be
appropriate, the adoption of mandatory provisions in this regard
"would open the door for further restrictions upon the individual
performance of ministers and elders" and would constitute a
"quantum leap into an arena that is fraught with all sorts of
dangers."
In 1994, the General Assembly adopted an overture that
would prohibit ministers from participating in the blessing of same-sex
unions, after changing the operative language from
"inappropriate" (language the sponsoring presbytery apparently
proposed in order to conform to the 1993 General Assembly's views) to
"not permitted" (the type of language rejected by the 1993
General Assembly). The proposed amendment died the following year after
it failed to win the affirmative vote of a majority of the presbyteries
(73 voted in favor of it, 62 voted against it, and 27 took no action).
In 1996, the General Assembly answered another
prohibitory overture regarding same-sex unions with its adoption of
Amendment B, relating to ordination (perhaps with the view that it had
done enough legislating with respect to our gay and lesbian members for
one year).
Finally, this year, the General Assembly somewhat
schizophrenically both affirmed that our ministers may bless same-sex
unions (through the action of its Permanent Judicial Commission in
Hudson River) and moved to deny such authority (through its vote to send
Amendment O to the presbyteries for their consideration).
Given this history, it would be misleading to suggest
that the recent vote of the General Assembly states any definitive, or
even clearly considered, position for our denomination at this point --
in fact, if ratified, it would represent a reversal of long and
well-considered policy.
5. Amendment O Denies Our
Fundamental Belief in Freedom of Conscience:
Amendment O is inconsistent with the fundamental
principle in our denomination, that God alone is Lord of the conscience.
It follows from this founding tenet that any action taken without
consensus is improper, and that a matter on which consensus has not yet
developed must be left to the individual conscience of sessions,
ministers, and members seeking the church's blessing. I believe that in
fact this is exactly what our Constitution requires -- in, e.g.,
Westminster Confession 6.109 and G-1.0301a (God alone is Lord of the
conscience); Westminster Confession 6.109 (to obey man-made commandments
that are contrary or extraneous to Scripture is to betray true liberty
of conscience); Larger Catechism 7.215 (the First Commandment makes it
sin to make men the lords of our faith and conscience); Westminster
Confession 6.109 and G-1.0305 (we have a duty to exercise mutual
forbearance where persons of good character and principles may differ);
and G-1.0307 (no church governing body ought to pretend to make laws to
bind the conscience by virtue of its own authority). See also, e.g.,
Scots Confession 3.18, 3.20; Second Helvetic Confession 5.011-014;
Westminster Confession 6.010, 6.174-75; Declaration of Barmen 8.20-21.
Indeed, the marked division in our fellowship over Amendment O, to my
mind, is definitive proof that we are attempting to act on something
that is not an "essential" of the Reformed faith, and
therefore that we are acting outside our legitimate powers as a
denomination in trespass on the conscience of individual believers. We
need to remember that when we tread on others' convictions, we tread on
holy ground. Where we do not have consensus -- and particularly where
the clear division in our denomination demonstrates that we are not
arguing about an "essential" of the faith -- the only proper
course is to stay our hand as a denomination and leave matters to the
local governing bodies until a denominational consensus develops.
6. Amendment O Is Bad
Polity: Proposed Amendment O is extremely divisive, and its
adoption would be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of
Presbyterian polity. I firmly believe that we must stop allowing our
presbyterian process to deteriorate into political maneuvering that
seeks to operate from the power of narrow majorities rather than from
the authority of broad-based consensus. The GA vote to send the measure
to our presbyteries for possible ratification was quite close --
Amendment O received the affirmative votes of only 51% of those who
actually voted on it, and the affirmative votes of only 48% of all of
the assembly's 558 voting commissioners. It is far from clear whether
the measure will be ratified by the affirmative vote of a majority of
the presbyteries.
It is, sadly, exactly votes like that taken by this
year's General Assembly that have driven such deep wedges into our
fellowship as a denomination. In this regard, perhaps we can all take a
lesson from the 1983 Report of the Special Committee on Historic
Principles, Conscience, and Church Government (PCUSA Minutes, 1983, Pt.
I, p.141, received and adopted, PCUSA Minutes, 1983, Pt. I, pp. 105,
115-16). That document, which I hope everyone engaged in these
discussions will read, reminds us that:
