« A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 1 | Home | A Windmill »
A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Friday, July 11, 2008
Part 4 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I began to chronicle the history of the PCUSA and homsexuality. In a nutshell:
1978: The General Assembly votes to provide Definitive Guidance, making it clear that homosexual activity is sinful, and therefore active homosexual people should not be ordained.
1993: The General Assembly reaffirmed this Definitive Guidance, offering an Authoritative Interpretation to back it up.
1996: The General Assembly passes the “fidelity and chastity” clause, which is added to the Book of Order when passed by the presbyteries in 1997. It specifies that all church officers are required “to live either in fidelity within the covernant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singlenss.”
But even before the dust settled after the 1996 General Assembly vote, members of the PCUSA were hard at work to get the fidelity and chastity clause removed from the Book of Order.
1997: General Assembly Approves Amendment A, “The Fidelity and Integrity” Amendment
The 1997 General Assembly reversed ground, approving a replacement amendment to Amendment B of 1996. The new amendment, which, in a most unhelpful manner was called Amendment A, read as follows:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture and instructed by the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to demonstrate fidelity and integrity in marriage or singleness, and in all relationships of life. Candidates for ordained office shall acknowledge their own sinfulness, their need for repentance, and their reliance on the grace and mercy of God to fulfill the duties of their office.
This amendment, especially as a replacement to Amendment B of 1996, was seen as opening the door to the ordination of actively homosexual people (as well as people engaging in heterosexual activity outside of marriage). It passed in the General Assembly by a 60% to 40% margin, and was then referred to the presbyteries. It wouldn’t become part of the Book of Order unless a majority of presbyteries approved. After a monumental battle in the whole denomination, Amendment A was voted down by the presbyteries, with 66% rejecting the amendment. This was an increase of about 10% over the last vote of presbyteries supporting fidelity and chastity. Though the pro-homosexual side won in the General Assembly, it lost more soundly in the presbyteries.
A personal aside:
Around this time, I had two experiences that shaped my understanding of what was going on in the PCUSA when it came to homosexuality. The first happened when I was asked to speak at a Presbyterian church where the leadership favored homosexual ordination. I was invited to represent “the other side” in the debate. I didn’t exactly relish this assignment, but the pastor was a friend and I appreciated his effort to be fair. I spent about an hour explaining in depth why I believed that the Bible does not endorse homosexual behavior, even though it calls us to love homosexual people. At the end of my presentation, I fielded questions and comments. Almost nobody wanted to talk about the Bible. Virtually every comment said something like this: “I understand what you’re saying about the Bible, and that’s probably true. But I have a friend whose son is gay, and I just can’t imagine causing more pain for my friend and her son. So we need to approve of him and affirm him. I just can’t go with what the Bible says.” I realized for the first time that the question of what the Bible actually teaches about homosexuality was becoming moot for many Presbyterians. Out of their feelings of compassion they were not going to follow biblical teaching.
My second experience happend in the context of a presbytery meeting in which we were voting on Amendment A. The debate was fairly predictable, as was the vote. My presbytery leaned in a conservative direction by about two-thirds to one-third. After the meeting, I was walking out behind a man who had spoken strongly in favor of a biblical understanding of homosexuality. A man I did not know came up to him and said, loudly, “You’re a bigot,” and then stormed off. Apparently one could not be a person of conscience and deny ordination to gays and lesbians. Since that time, I’ve heard this sort of thing again and again and again from the pro-gay side. It has eroded our fellowship in Christ, even as has the unloving treatment of homosexuals by persons on the conservative side. (Photo: The patio entrance of Irvine Presbyterian Church, where I was serving in the 1990s.)
1999 General Assembly Rejects Committee Recommendation to Delete “Fidelity and Chastity”
A General Assembly committee voted thumbs up for a revision of the Book of Order that removed the “fidelity and chastity” clause, replacing it with” “the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 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.” The General Assembly rejected the committee recommendation.
2001 General Assembly Votes to Delete the “Fidelity and Chastity” Clause
By a vote of 60% to 40%, the General Assembly voted to delete the “fidelity and chastity” clause, replacing it with a statement that church officers’ “suitability to hold office is determined by the governing body where the examination for ordination or installation takes place, guided by scriptural and constitutional standards, under the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ.” In other words, every individual governing body (church session, presbytery) is free to determine for itself whether people must live in fidelity and chastity or not. Once again, however, this proposed change to the Book of Order required approval of the presbyteries. And, once again, a major battle was waged throughout the denomination. And, once again, the “fidelity and chastity” clause was upheld, this time by 57% of the presbyteries.
Summing Up
The recent history of the PCUSA shows a deeply divided denomination when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. It also demonstrates that the General Assembly is often more pro-gay in its votes than the presbyteries. To review:
1997-1998: “Fidelity and Chastity” added to Book of Order; GA vote = 57% to 42%; presbyteries vote 55% to 45%
1998=1999: GA votes to remove “Fidelity and Chastity” 60% to 40%; presbyteries reject GA vote, maintaining “Fidelity and Chastity” by 66% to 33%
2001-2002: GA votes to remove “Fidelity and Chastity” 60% to 40%; presbyteries reject GA vote, maintaining “Fidelity and Chastity” by 57% to 43%
One cannot read this history without noting that the PCUSA has spent an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money debating homosexuality. And I haven’t even begun to include the many church court cases, plus the running dispute over same-sex marriage. There is no consensus in the PCUSA, nor does one seem likely, even if one side is able to prevail in the Book of Order. As long as the PCUSA maintains its current structure and population, increasingly strident debates about homosexuality will continue indefinitely, unless Christ returns to free us from our confusion.
No doubt some of my readers are wondering why this fight has to keep on going and going. “Can’t you folks declare a truce?” you might wonder. Or if you’re in the PCUSA, you might want to ask, “Can we all get along?” I’ll address this question in my next post.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? |
11 Responses to “A Brief Account of the Not-So-Brief History of the PCUSA and Homosexuality, Section 2”
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 11th, 2008 at 12:11 am
In your previous post you mentioned having done scriptural work in the 70s on this subject which led you to believe there was no credible scriptural evidence for homosexuality being a sexual state that God is okay with. Not your exact words. I’d really like to hear more about this. I don’t believe the burden is on the scriptures to demonstrate that homosexuality is okay as much as it is to demonstrate that no kind of homosexuality is acceptable to God under any circumstances.
This is a search I have been on. I would love to hear your take on the scriptures. I believe it comes down to the two New Testament passages in particular.
I’m not expecting you to hold court here. I simply want to hear your take on the Bible’s witness on this matter. I think others might as well. We’re all wanting to find the truth on this issues.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Nitpicking, I know, but I think this sentence:
“After a monumental battle in the whole denomination, Amendment B was voted down by the presbyteries, with 66% rejecting the amendment.”
Should be Amendment A, right? It’s confusing enough without typos making things worse.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
HenryH: Thanks. Not nitpicking, really. I want to get this right. Tghe change is made.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I am afraid I would like to (politely) challenge you on a few of points (even though I am not an American or Presbyterian). I hope that is OK.
1. “Almost nobody wanted to talk about the Bible.” I confess to not being surprised but I think you may be interpreting that wrongly. A visiting expert comes to your Church, the expert speaks convincingly on scripture. It does not surprise me that many lay people feel inadequate to challenge an ordained expert on scripture face to face in a public meeting. Also in many cultures (don’t know about USA) to do so would be considered very rude.
2. I think you are failing to recognise that even if they are failing to articulate the scriptural basis well they are still demonstrating in their choices an application of gospel principals eg The Good Samaritan, Humanity being created in the image of God, to not judge others, … It may not be all we would want, it may differ from your understanding of what is right - but I feel you are being somewhat harsh against them.
3. You use the phrase “I was walking out behind a man who had spoken strongly in favor of a biblical understanding of homosexuality”. I think this is a poor choice of words. It makes it seem that you believe there is no other possible understanding of scripture than your own. Yet we should recognise that there are many who, after detailed study of their own, have come to a different understanding of scripture. At the very least I think you ought to modify the phrase to something like “a traditional biblical understanding of homosexuality”.
Thanks
July 11th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
DaveW,
I think you are partially right in your point that people often are not articulating the “Biblical” basis for their reasoning. Many times I have heard that it is “unloving” to call, say, homosexual activity a sin. Of course, we are commanded in Scripture to love others, so in that sense the wording of that argument is Biblical; however, one must also go to Scripture to see what the content of that love is. At Jesus modeled it and as the Apostles described it, “love” is clearly not “acceptance” or “live and let live”, and it is absolutely not “whatever I was going to do anyway.” This, I think, is what Mark means when he says that people’s decisions are not informed by the Bible. Perhaps it is clearer to say that their decisions are (often, not always) only superficially informed by the Bible.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
DaveW: Just on item (1), I think you’re right to inject that caveat about different national cultures. Europeans are more ready than Americans to defer to people with credentials. I remember our associate pastor laughing over how some visiting Germans reacted when they saw him get outvoted by the lay leaders at a church committee meeting. Not something they were used to. Frankly, I think folks in the U.S. undervalue formal training, but one positive result is that they tend to have greater ownership of the church. Whereas Europeans tend too much to leave the business of the church to the professionals. And in the long run, they just leave, period. Anyway, here it would not be rude to debate scripture a pastor, so long as it was done in a friendly manner–no more than it would be rude to debate a scholarly text with one’s professor, in the spirit of free inquiry.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
DaveW: Thanks for your comments. Re: #1 - It wasn’t just that they didn’t want to talk about the Bible, but that most were willing to put their sense of compassion above what they acknowledged was biblical teaching on homosexual behavior. Re: #2 - In a sense you’re right. But if somebody takes from the Bible the fact that we’re to do justice and be loving, but then feels free to decide without regard to the Bible what justice and love mean, I don’t really see this as showing much regard for Scripture. Re: #3 - Well, okay. But I don’t believe that most people who favor gay ordination have come to this position in light of a careful study of Scripture. It may be true for a few, but most these days seem satisfied to ignore what the Bible actually says about homosexual behavior.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Mark-
I am an adjunct at Azusa Pacific University, (teaching Luke-Acts), one of several Presbyterians allowed to teach in that Wesleyan environment. I have greatly benefited from the concept of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: scripture, reason, tradition, and experience are ways we evaluate truth claims. Peter, in his meeting with Cornelius, was not convinced by scripture, nor initially be reason (though he later came to “see” that God showed no favoritism), and certainly NOT tradition. No, it was his experience that led him to Cornelius’ house, and helped spur him to change his mind.
How we Reformed folks deal with the Quadrilateral is another story.
It seems as though those of us on the more traditional side of this debate lean heavily on scripture, and those on the other side of the debate lean pretty heavily on experience. Personally, I believe experience needs to bow to scripture. But if we come from different points of view in our assumptions, how can there be any sort of discussion or agreement?
I deeply appreciate your views on this, and look forward to more in the days ahead.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Kurt,
There is a big cultural range in Europe
Many are far more respectful than here in the UK. Round here people will be more surprised if the minister does not get outvoted regularly 
I think your “Europeans tend too much to leave the business of the church to the professionals. And in the long run, they just leave, period.” is rather naive.
Mark re #3 clearly the US is very different to the UK on this. Here that sounds pejorative. It sounds as if you are saying “Anyone who disagrees with me just has not studied properly and is not taking a Biblical position, the only valid position to be held from Scripture is mine”. I would gently point out that similar views were held over slavery and role of women yet no-body argues today that a simple reading of Scripture is correct for slavery.
I am not asking that you change your view, I am not trying to launch into a full scale biblical discussion. I am asking that you simply allow that those who disagree may have used scripture more than your current tone suggests.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am
As a person who recently left the Episcopal Church I have some experience with this issue. So my experience may help those people who value experience over Scripture. It comes down to a simple choice.
Do we let the Word judge us or do we sit in judgement over the Word?
Or to put it another way. Do we submit to God’s will and love the sinner while hating the sin? or do we rely on our own selfish desires to conform to the World, and thus take an easier road that leads away from the Word but towards Wordly acceptance?
July 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Steve Miller:
Well said, well said.