Well, here we are again. The General Assembly is over, the press is reporting that the PCUSA has lifted its ban on ordaining non-celibate homosexual persons, and the buzz has risen to a fever pitch. So, what to make of it all? I wish I knew. I'll offer a few of my observations, but if you're here looking for a neat, tidy solution, you'll be disappointed.
What Happened
First, authoritative interpretations defining homosexual acts as sin, dating back to 1978-1979, were declared to no longer be in force. An authoritative interpretation is a binding statement of the General Assembly on a particular issue.
Second, an authoritative interpretation was issued that permits candidates for ordained office to "scruple" specific behaviors mandated in the Constitution. The last General Assembly created a means whereby a candidate can declare a scruple with some aspect of the Constitution. As long as the ordaining body determines that the issue doesn't violate an essential tenet of the reformed faith, then all is fine. What was in doubt after the last Assembly was whether behaviors (as opposed to just beliefs) could be scrupled. This authoritative interpretation affirms that behaviors may be scrupled.
Third, there is a provision in the Book of Order that says:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. (G-6.0106b)
The Assembly voted to recommend to the presbyteries that we alter this section and remove any exclusion of non-celibate homosexual persons. Unlike the two authoritative interpretations, this change must be submitted to the Presbyteries for 50% plus one approval.
Some Statistical Insight
According to the most recent Presbyterian Panel, I can find online:
- 75% of members and elders did not agree that sexually active gay and lesbian persons should be ordained. (It was 57% for ministers.)
- 80% of members and elders disagreed that the ordination of gays and lesbians should be left to a case-by-case basis of the presbyteries.
After putting G-0.0106B in the Constitution in 1996, attempts to remove it were rebuffed by the presbyteries in 1997 (by 67%) and in 2001 (by 75%).
Where We Stand Now
We have a denomination where 75% of people believe non-celibate gay persons shouldn't be ordained, where 80% of the denomination doesn't want this issue handled on a case-by-case basis, and where we have a past General Assembly that inserted G-0.0106b in the Book of Order (in 1996) followed by two subsequent assemblies who proposed removal but had it rejected by 2/3 and 3/4 margins in presbyteries. So what did this Assembly do? Eliminated authoritative interpretations that preclude the ordination of non-celibate gay persons, created local option for presbyteries, and sent the presbyteries back to debate removing the section from the Constitution a third time.
Now being in the majority doesn't make one right. Nor are commissioners sent to the General Assembly to represent constituencies. Yet you might think that the commissioners would be somewhat similar to the makeup of the broader church. You would think that if the overwhelming majority of the church is opposed to actions that the Assembly is taking, you would first persuade the rest of the body of the validity of your position. Apparently, not so. Rather than doing the hard work of persuasion, we see imperialism. We see "prophetic" power politics invading the Assembly as a well-organized minority attempts to impose its will on the majority.
The Consequences
It's simply too early to evaluate the consequences. Some fear schism. I'm doubtful of that. Increased evaporation of members is more likely and combined with more congregational defections. What is almost certain is increased alienation from the larger church by a host of congregations.
Over the past four years, I've worked on the General Assembly Mission Council (formerly the General Assembly Council.) The change has been remarkable. It has gone from a directionless turf-oriented morass to a collaborative and creative enterprise. Great strides have been made to identify things for which broad church-wide support exists and build energy around them. Finances have stabilized. Communications are improving. For the first time since the late 1950s, our plans call for increasing the number of mission partner workers we send to other countries for the sake of the gospel. There has been a growing sense of momentum about future possibilities.
I'm concerned that all this momentum may now grind to a halt, even should the Constitutional Amendment be defeated. I suspect we are about to see a decline in mission giving. I hope and pray I'm wrong, but I think about a year from now, our time at the GAMC may collapse into a crisis mode created by significant shortfalls in giving. Most Presbyterians don't make subtle distinctions about the General Assembly versus the work of the General Assembly Mission Council or any other Church entity. All they know is "those people in Louisville," and they are looking for a target. Meanwhile, I wonder how our mission partners in emerging nations will respond to these actions. I wonder how badly the witness of Christ will be damaged in these regions.
Having sat through the floor debate on these issues, I confess I was struck by both the animus of those proposing the changes and the woeful lack of sound theological discourse. Multiple times arguments for gay ordination and same-sex marriage in the church were based on the right to pursue happiness under the U.S. Constitution. There were arguments in favor of same-sex behavior because some people were born that way, thus arguing ethics from biological determinism and ignoring the corrupting influence of sin in creation. (I have two siblings who suffer from rare forms of genetically caused muscular dystrophy. By this logic, we are to accept this as God's will?) The most theological arguments touched on vague notions of love being open to everyone.
Meanwhile, the dominant refrain from those opposing the changes was the negative fallout this would have with the folks back home. Only a few gave any clear biblical and theological responses. This lack of ability to address the issues in a meaningful theological debate was depressing.
Like I said, if you're looking for solutions, you've come to the wrong place, but from where I sit, this is what the lay of the land looks like. I wish I could put a nice big happy face at the end, but none is forthcoming. Fortunately, my hope lies not in the fate of the PCUSA but in Christ alone.
Leave a Reply