« What Did the General Assembly Do to Endanger the Existence of the PCUSA? | Home | A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 2 »
A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 1
By Mark D. Roberts | Thursday, July 10, 2008
Part 3 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In order to understand the significance of the actions of the recent PCUSA General Assembly with respect to homosexuality, a bit of history is necessary. This issue has been roiling in my denomination for over 30 years, as you’ll see. In this history I will include only the main points having to do with General Assembly actions. In fact, there have been dozens of other incidents involving church courts cases and other ecclesiastical matters. If these were included in the history, you’d see an even more confused and uneven process than what I’ll outline below.
1978: General Assembly Offers Definitive Guidance
In response to requests for “definitive guidance” with regard to the ordination of practicing homosexuals, the General Assembly approves a policy statement that offers “authoritative interpretation” of the church’s stance. This includes the line: “That unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordinationset forth in Form of Government, Chapter VII, Section 3 (37.03).” Beyond the issue of ordination, the General Assembly calls for the end of “homophobia” and advocates legal changes to give homosexuals more civil rights.
A personal aside:
In 1977-78, while I was in college, a friend and relative of mine, Don Williams, who was at that time a Presbyterian pastor, served on the task force that brought recommendations to the 1978 General Assembly. That task force was “stacked” from the beginning to ensure a pro-gay conclusion. The majority report, predictably enough, recommended the ordination of sexually-active homosexuals. But the Assembly took the recommendations of the minority report, establishing the “definitive guidance” that homosexual activity was sinful, and therefore active gays and lesbians should not be ordained. The Assembly called for an end to “homophobia” and defended civil rights for gay and lesbian people.
As a result of his work on the task force, Don Williams wrote a book about homosexuality: The Bond that Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? An ironic title, don’t you think, given subsequent history? I edited the book for Don. In the process, I studied in depth the biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior. This was in 1978, when I was quite liberal politically and therefore greatly inclined to favor gay liberation. But I also wanted to discover what the Bible actually said about sexuality and homosexuality. My study led me to the conclusion that there is no credible biblical argument supportive of homosexual activity. In the end, I contributed several paragraphs to The Bond that Breaks, my first published writing. Since that time, I’ve spent several hundred hours studying these same passages in a wide range of contexts: as a Ph.D. student in New Testament at Harvard, as a pastor, as a seminary professor, etc. I could certainly be wrong in my understanding of God’s will for our sexual behavior, but it isn’t for a lack of serious effort in trying to understand the biblical text.
1993: General Assembly Reaffirms the Authoritative Interpretation
The General Assembly reaffirmed the Authoritative Interpretation of 1978, concluding that “current constitutional law in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is that self-affirming, practicing homosexual persons may not be ordained as ministers of the Word and Sacrament, elders, or deacons.”
1996: General Assembly Approves Amendment B, “The Fidelity and Chastity Amendment”
The Assembly, acting on a report from the church’s Human Sexuality and Ordination Committee, approved the following addition to the Book of Order:
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, 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-6.0106.b).
Even though the Assembly voted for Amendment B by a vote of 57% to 42%, according to Presbyterian polity, it would not be added to the Book of Order unless a majority of presbyteries voted to approve it. Thus began a titanic battle in the whole church over whether or not to approve Amendment B. In the end, the majority of presbyteries (55%) voted to add Amendment B to the Book of Order, thus making fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness official church policy.
If you’re an outsider to this process, you might think that the addition of the “fidelity and chastity” clause to the Book of Order settled the matter once and for all. But what happened in 1996 was just the beginning of more strife and confusion, as I’ll explain in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? |
7 Responses to “A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 1”
Comments
Thanks for your willingness to make a comment. Note: I do not moderate comments before they are posted, though they are automatically screened for profanities, spam, etc., and sometimes the screening program holds comments for moderation even though they're not offensive. I encourage open dialogue and serious disagreement, and am always willing to learn from my mistakes. I will not delete comments unless they are extraordinarily rude or irrelevant to the topic at hand. You do need to login in order to make a comment, because this cuts down on spam. You are free to use a nickname if you wish. Finally, I will eventually read all comments, but I don't have the time to respond to them on a consistent basis because I've got a few other demands on my time, like my "day job," my family, sleep, etc.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I agree that there is “no credible argument supportive of homosexual activity”. Is this not an argument from silence? As you pointed out to me there is also no biblical argument for ordination either. I remember the difference between Calvin and Luther regarding the use of organs (the musical instument) in church. Calvin could not find biblical evidence supporting using church organs so he went about Europe getting rid of them. Luther couldn’t find any biblical evidence against the use of church organs, so he retained them. Now I think most Presbyterians agree with Luther’s approach. (Perhaps Calvin should hav reflected on Psalm 150 which mentions many kinds of instruments being used to praise the LORD.) I think the question should be this: “Is there sufficient biblical evidence to conclude that homosexual activity is a sin?” You have concluded that there is. I don’t think the evidence is persuasive or conclusive. Can reasonable Christians who love the Lord, think highly of the Bible and who want to maintain unity of the church (PCUSA) disagree on this issue without breaking fellowship? I hope so, but I am not sure how this can work out in the PCUSA.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Bill: The only evidence we have from Scripture points to the sinfulness of homosexual activity. Every time the Bible mentions it, it is judged to be wrong. That’s why folks who support gay ordination have pretty much stopped talking about the passages of Scripture that address homosexual behavior.
Yes, I think we can disagree without breaking fellowship in Christ. I have warm fellowship with many Episcopalians who support the ordination of gay people. But I don’t think we can disagree and still be in the same denomination, since one of the major acts of a denomination is the ordination of leaders.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Mark - I’ve been following your comments carefully. I served in Irvine @ Good Shepherd Lutheran while you were at Irvine Pres…so although we met on a couple of occasions, you wouldn’t know me offhand. I left the ELCA in 2003 in order to take a Lily Endowment position for 4 years through Azusa Pacific University. I am still teaching as an Adjunct with APU (online NT classes). I couldn’t agree with you more about the PCUSA’s struggles. The ELCA is going to be doing the same thing in 2009 at its national assembly. The handwriting is on the wall…the ELCA has been “tracking” along with the PCUSA and the Episcopalean’s for some time now. So I anticipate that the ELCA will be going through the pain of a “slow demise” for the same reasons. The issue with me is biblical authority and hermeneutics and how they impact Christian praxis. This is a HUGE issue because of how the dominoes continue to fall after a decision like the PCUSA has made. I’ll continue to follow your comments over the next few days. A quick update…I’m struggling about what to do in my “pastoral” life because of this issue…I was dropped from the ELCA clergy roster after a year at APU (the APU job was not an ELCA certified call)…now that the job is over, I’m wondering about getting back into the local church. It is tough to think about supporting a denomination (including having to stand in front of a congregation and promise to support the larger church expression) with these issues on the table. My guess is that these issues will become “boundary markers” within decisions made about current and future leaders. Oh well…more to come! Thanks for what you are doing!
Robin
rdugall@apu.edu
July 10th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Mark,
I am really appreciating the series you are doing as many of us are attempting to think our way through this maze.
One of my problems is not only that we are going to be ordaining practicing homosexuals (bad enough since it is unbiblical) but that the theology under girding much of the progressive side is un-biblical.
I have been writing on my blog recently about a new kind of mysticism that is happening in the Church based on Panentheism and I think this is in some sense a way of going beyond the biblical text. If creation is a part of God and they are both evolving and humanity is gaining a higher consciousness (as supposedly Jesus did) then homosexuality becomes the new think that the “spirit” is revealing. And it doesn’t matter what the older biblical text states.
I guess my question is won’t eventually the problem be two groups so utterly in contradiction to each other’s religious views that they will not be speaking the same religious language or the words will have two very different meanings.?
July 10th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Mark, occasionally I read religious news about various denominations, so I was interested in your blog series about the recent PCUSA’s General Assembly gathering. Concerning satan’s mastery at deceiving believers about GOD’s law against homosexuality, it’s so grievous and disturbing that his “craft and power are great and armed with cruel hate.” And of your own denomination’s defense of its own downgrade, you state it well, “spin crouches at the door.” I feel for you and others who strive for renewal, yet are pained by the disintegration all about you. May GOD give you wisdom and strength.
The following quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln. I think it’s pertinent for you all:
“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true.
I am not bound to succeed but I am bound to live by the light that I have.
I must stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right, and part
with him when he goes wrong.”
Blessings and prayers,
Faith
July 11th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Robin,
I have heard of individual congregations (including within the ELCA) that disapprove enough of their larger church body that they refuse to offer it any financial support. I don’t know how tenable such as situation is as a long-term solution, but that could at least somewhat ameliorate your concern about “supporting the larger church expression”.
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
My experience thus far in life has been that anyone who I have found to be vehemently homophobic turns out to be homosexual. They are threatened by what they can not handle within them selves. Perhaps when passages in scripture were written to point that homosexual behavior is sinful and wrong it seems clear that this is written by someone who is uncomfortable with his own gay sexuality and therefore wants to denounce it. What a disaster he has caused. Clearly sexual desire is part of our human nature, God would never see that as sinful only completely natural.