Presbyterian Church Gay Ordination (for dummies edition)
So the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) just completed this morning in San Jose, California. By most accounts, the assembly in all its big meetingness, Robert’s Rules, and sub-sub committee fun went well enough in terms of practicalities. And there’s hundreds of fantastic and important steps the assembly took to forward Christ’s mission in the world. I hope, in the future, to blog more. But this post is simply to alert folks–in non churchy non Presbyterian language–of the PC(USA)’s move towards full inclusion of God’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and queer children.
Ok, so for as long as I can remember the PC(USA) has been fighting over whether or not glbtq folk in same sex relationships can be ordained as elders or ministers. So we’re not alone there. The Episcopal Church is having huge issues with itself at the moment over an American relationshiped gay bishop and what the means, and other mainline denominations as well. Interestingly, while some denominations tend to approach glbtq questions first with an eye towards whether or not ministers can conduct weddings or civil union services, the PC(USA) has tended to focus on the question of ordination first (which is sort of backwards, I think, but oh well). So while some US denoms, like the United Church of Christ are more open, the PC(USA) has been more conservative. We’ve said, basically: you can be gay, you just can’t live our your relationship with a committed partner of the same sex. (The constitution puts it, we require “fidelity within marriage or chastity within singleness” and since we don’t allow gay marriage, if you’re gay you either have to hide it from the church or not fully live out God’s intentions for you and your partner.)
So here’s what the 2008 assembly did….
Effective immediately:
- We changed the old case law that informs our courts so glbtq candidates can move forward
The PC(USA) has a church court system for dealing with church discipline, just like the state has a court system for enforcing state laws. Presbyterian courts rely on the Bible, sure, but also our constitution and case histories from previous similar cases. Well, cases regarding glbtq ordination used to be informed by an old ruling (1979, I think) which was has some pretty offensive language towards gays. Then there’s more recent history (like a few months ago, which I won’t go into but it’s there). One assembly can’t change the constitution, but it can change the “Authoritative Interpretation” of the constitution that courts use for guidance. This assembly did so, effective immediately. So a glbtq candidate for ordination may declare she’s cool with Jesus, Presbyterianism, and all that, but happens to be gay and living faithfully in a same-gender relationship and governing bodies, as of this new action, may allow candidates to be ordained. (The official language is that they “scruple” with one specific aspect of the constitution–has been done since way back). Whew.
Effective in one year, God willing:
- Passed first step towards the process of opening glbtq ordination
To change our presbyterian constitution you need (1) a majority vote of one national assembly, (2) a majority vote by the presbyteries (our regional governing bodies of which they’re 173) (3) another majority vote of the national assembly. [Andy has corrected this statement in the comments. My apologies. Clearly I've been away too long:) ] This assembly voted by 54% to start that two step process. You can read the Presbyterian Outlook article here.
Noteworthy: they did not vote to change the definition of marriage from “a man and a women” to “two people”
So that’s what happened. Conservatives are rather perturbed. Liberals are cautiously optimistic. We’re all a bit unsure about the future of the denomination, as some uber-conservative churches have or do threaten to leave. The trick moving forward will be to discuss the proposed changes in presbyteries kindly, faithfully, and humbly. Unity in the midst of our diversity is one of the denomination’s best qualities, but it ain’t easy.
May God stay with us as we discern Spirit’s future guidance.
image by Lioness65
Connect Online
Adam — Great summary. Thanks!
One correction. The amendment to change the constitution will be voted on over the next twelve months by the presbyteries. If it receives affirmative votes from a majority of presbyteries, it actually takes effective “as of one year following the adjournment of the assembly transmitting the proposed amendment” (G-18.0301d). So we’ll actually know what’s next no later than this time next year…
All week long, I watched the 218th General Assembly. It astounded me how many times people stated that Jesus would do this or say that to bolster their arguments. What a load of baloney! None of us were around with Jesus in New Testament times. We have no earthly idea about what He would do or say with regard to our cultural dilemmas and ecclesiastical issues. We question the authenticity of the Gospels and the authority of the scriptures. We transfer our own cultural preferences and see our own societal prejudices in the texts that were written by the people who truly knew Him.
We are a bunch of narcissistic hypocrites looking to justify our politically correct ways and cultural orientations. We cast aside our allegiance to Christ because we don’t want to submit to Him. We change what the Bible says because we want everybody to like us. And then we get up to the microphones and tell other people what Jesus would do as if He’s our best buddy, turning Him into a theological ventriloquist’s dummy by putting words into His mouth and thoughts into His head.
Bovine manure! We are the biggest bunch of failed followers in the history of Christianity and we have so diluted the Gospel that we have deluded ourselves into shaping Jesus like play dough and making Him a bobblehead character to sit beside our PCs. Our modern Presbyterianism is a theological tacky, mood manufactured, and cheapened grace of a faith. Even the word faith is false when applied to us – we have spiritual trends, and that’s about all.
Perhaps we still have time left. Perhaps we can return to what we once were. Perhaps the Church will go through a revival, instead of cultural capitulation and doctrinal denial. Philippians 2:9-11 can be the starting point.
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
“Guest,” I’ve deleted your comment, as usual, because it’s not nice and you didn’t leave your name or contact info. I’ll continue to do so.
Andy–many thanks for the correction (made above). When I get back stateside, I’ll look into that further.
Stushie–hmm, well that’s some awfully strong feelings there. It’s all perspective, I guess. Personally, I think we should be trying to discern what Jesus would have us do as hard as possible, and if we think Christ’s will is one way for the church, we should use that as part of our reasoning. From my perspective, on the glbtq ordination question, we are honoring Christ by including those who he calls to ministry. I take it we disagree there, though.
I’m concerned that there’s so much condemnation in your comments, that you’re not leaving much room for redemption. I appreciate your descriptive prose, but its way too negative and reactionary for my taste.
That said, Philippians 2 is a fair rallying cry for us all.
What I find is especially intriguing is that the GA voted to affirm civil rights for same gendered couples and families…and still did not change the definition of marriage…huh?
Adam, you need to read some of the Old Testament prophets. You might not like their negative prose either. God bless.
Nancy – I think there was a definite response by those who might lean towards changing the language to the pleas not to do any more that might further alienate the evangelical parts of the church. The previous decisions will be devastating to some and there was a genuine pastoral feel in the air not to take too huge of a step all at once. Sure there were folks who still wanted to push it, but as the one charged with “reading” the community, I think it was going to be difficult to get done. Regardless of what one feels about what was or was not done, I think it was a huge pastoral moment for many.
Adam – Thanks for the post. Hope you are well.
Adam,
Having just returned from General Assembly as a Commissioner, I commend you for your cogent analysis (apart from the mistakes, of course). My own feeling is that, while there were certainly some unhappy folks, there was little nastiness or mean-spiritedness.
While you are certainly right that it would have been better not to start with the question of ordination, that’s the hand the Commissioners were dealt. And apart from the occasional impassioned speech on one side or the other, the Assembly did a pretty good job of listening and discernment. Much credit goes to the Moderator for fostering that spirit.
The same-sex marriage question has to be seen on two levels As a matter of civil rights, it is a justice issue, and Presbyterians are pretty much agreed on the theological merits of justice for neighbors, even when we all don’t approve of their behavior.
At another level, the marriage question is a theological issue for conversation within the church family. It has to do with a “creation theology” that underlies our current marriage liturgies as well as the definition of marriage in our constitution. Within the family, we need to sort these matters out before we can change the definition of marriage. I’m not surprised that folks outside the family find this confusing. Presbyterians are confused, too.
Thanks, Brant, for the helpful distinction there. I think that’s exactly right, and addresses Nancy’s ponderings. I’d add, only, that some seemed to feel changing the definition of marriage would add insult to injury for those who support our current ordination standards.
Our denomination is nothing if not slow and steady.
[...] Copeland closes his astute summary with this statement that summarizes the directions that local presbyteries should now take, “We’re all a bit [...]
The bible proclaims in the OT as well as in the NT that: Man shall not lie with man, neither woman with woman, it is an abomination in the sight of the Lord your God….S
For the amendment regarding the Book of Order to fly the individual Presbyteries have to approve it. The bulk of them will be voting in February but the first one already has.
At the 111th stated meeting of Palo Duro Presbytery. The amendment altering the ordination standards failed by a 29 for, 47 against.
Even though it was in Texas, the make-up of the voting body in this Presbytery is very mixed and the majority are moderates (with just a few far left and right). When it comes to the political make-up of the voting body, this issue had a real shot.
Lets hope this ball keeps rolling.
I am a 21 y/o Presbyterian who is against the altering of the ordination standards
(this is a very quick version of a very long spiel)
For me it is not about the question of homosexuality, its about leadership. As Christians in order to grow etc, we must run the race (to use that allegory). That includes freeing ourselves from the bondage of sin. Now it is clearly stated that homosexuality is a sexual sin. I question the leadership of anyone who twists a sin into a “blessing from God”. Strait or Gay, that person should not be ordained into leadership. On the flip side of that coin, ANYONE who is truly battling sin, there isn’t any question about their qualifications on this front, and they should be ordained.
Thanks for the word, Josiah. I hadn’t realized some were voting on it already. I hope the Presbytery discussion was positive, though I’m sad to hear its outcome.
To respond ever-so-briefly to your quick spiel….I disagree with the claim, “it is clearly stated homosexuality is a sexual sin” and I’m uncomfortable with the implications that one can be completely freed from sin. I don’t think that’s where Paul was going with it, but you don’t quite go there either so I don’t want to mis-read you. But the sin discussion is a red herring for me, actually, since I don’t believe being gay and acting out that love in an appropriate relationship is sinful.
I agree, because of our human nature one will never conclude running the race. Sitting down and saying there is nothing wrong with me is not running the race either and that is part of what Paul was warning about.
I was at the above Presbytery meeting, so I have heard all of the arguments pertaining to the question of “is it a sin?” The questions of does it only pertain to pedophilia and sexual promiscuity, or does it include monogamous homosexual relationships. Now I am not a literalist when it comes to the creation story because up until very recently did we have the scientific tools. But when it comes to personal relationships, their understanding is probably far deeper then anyone running around here in the 21st century.
We will always fall short, but that is suppose to motivate us to keep going, not quit. As ordained leaders, part of their responsibility is to lead by example.
further explanation for not being a literalist with creation
This does not mean I think the bible is “wrong”, it is just put into terms that the people of the time could understand, because if you look at the parameters of the story and not what it literally says, the creation story lines up with the current scientific thought. A finite universe beginning with God creating the heavens and the Earth (big bang), the separations of the ground and sky (gravity forming the planet). Life being created from the clay (primordial soup)…. So on an so forth
We are in a conservative congregation apparently vehemently opposing the latest ‘trends’ at the Presbytery. We only recently joined the church, having been life-time Lutherans.
I see this largely as an issue of human rights, but I find myself asking why conservatives are so afraid of extending full inclusion to all. Yes, I agree the homosexuality is clearly identified as a sinful practice; but does the Bible identify this is as THE ULTIMATE SIN? Are we to believe that our ordained brothers and sisters are without sin by virtue of their ordination? No, of course not. So how is that this one sin should necessarily result in exclusion of Christians who are otherwise blessed with the gifts of the Spirit? Who are we, as children of God, to be imposing a hierarchy of sin; and be careful where that way of ‘discernment’ will lead us. I recall in our previous church (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), there was a news story a few years ago about a decades-long hunt for a serial killer who turned out to be the President of the congregation of the local LCMS church. (NO, I did not liken homosexuality to murder.) I am saying that there are all types of sinful afflictions and that Christians are not immune. I am very concerned that the conservative mindset is in a state of denial of how prevalent sin is in our congregations. I just truly believe that this mindset weakens the integrity and conscientious scrutiny of the Body by seeking to stamp out particular sins in lieu of humbling holding up the entire Body to the one, true Judge.
I am praying for the Church.
And slavery, and red and/or mixed clothing, and animals with cloven hooves and lack of fins and scales.
I really get tired of reading all the supposed biblical definitions of sin. If my colleagues living in a committed relationship, caring for each other, raising two children with love, caring for them and each other, ministering to a congregation in sickness and health, spiritually and materially, leading them in worship of God, inspiring them to work against societal injustice, provide merciful aid to many, are sinning because they express their mutual love without benefit of a penis, are too sinful for the Presbyterian church, then only God’s steadfastness holds any hope for that denomination. (Thank our compassionate God that my friends minister in a UCC congregation, but that is our loss.)
Please refer to my previous post, this isn’t about ordaining sinners (no one would be ordained)… its about ordaining people who look at their particular sin and somehow warping the bible to the point where they are saying its not a sin.
I would have no problem ordaining them if they were actually “running the race” and working on freeing themselves from their sin, just like any other sinner.
Ahhh,yes…”And man did that was right in his own mind.”
It’s a slippy road people. If ordaining gblt peopole in the church simply because they are in a loving, committed relationship to one another is okay, then what should be done with a married male minister with two children who is openly in a loving relationship with another married woman? You cannot deny his love for this other woman–it is genuine and she feels love for the minister. Please don’t take this senario lightly or view it as frivolous. What if that situaton arose? Would you simply look the other way. Would you encourage this “loving” relationship further? How would you handle it from a biblical approach? If we are to ordain practicing homosexuals, who or what’s to say this minister cannot enjoy his extra-marital affair? Don’t tell me the bible forbids it. If you don’t believe scripture forbids homosexuality, you certainly cannot find scripture to support your argument against this minister’s extra-marital relationship. They “love” each other. Isn’t that enough? Who are we to denounce that lifestyle.
Now before you run me off as some narrow-minded, fundi, let it be known that I strongly believe the church should open it’s doors to EVERYONE. That’s what the church is for; bringing sinners to Christ. And yes, everyone is a sinner, so obviously every church leader is sinner. But I hope and believe they are also repentant of their sin and daily strive to resist sin and move towards living a sinless life. But ordaining openly gay people to positions of church leadership is not the same as inviting them in the church to be renewed to the creation Christ is calling them.
Ordaining practicing gay people is no different than ordaining a married man sexually and openingly involved with other women not his wife. And believe you me, we can take these scenarios to even more ridiculous and outrageous levels, but I think I have made my point.
If ordaining practicing homosexuals is okay, please give me a scenario of who would NOT be qualified to be an ordained minister of the church.
I commend the PCUSA for starting to seriously examine this issue. As a lifelong United Methodist who recently joined First Presbyterian in Tallahassee, I see vast differences in attitude. While the UMC seems to be in a similar position, I would argue that they have not been as receptive on the local level…with arguments common among members at my former church. Perhaps your father’s church is more progressive than most PCUSA congregations, but my impression is that the social justice part of the issue is more throughly understood in the Presbyterian Church. Kudos to both you and your father for making a safe place for those of us in the glbt community!!!