Additional commentary: Laying the Groundwork – The Politics of Consensus
“What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community? The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) cannot agree.” Therefore, Presbyterians must “exercise mutual tolerance and forbearance in those places where we, people of good faith, do differ.” This was the conclusion of the PCUSA Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage, in an incomplete preliminary report approved at the committee’s September 13-17 meeting in Louisville. The implication was that Presbyterian churches and ministers should be free to bless and honor same-sex relationships in any way that they see fit, including treating those relationships as equivalent to marriage.
This assertion of an impasse expresses not only the experience of the special committee; it also represents the committee’s tentative proposal for what the 219th General Assembly (2010) should declare to the world. In many ways, this Presbyterian proposal resembles the policy changes adopted at last month’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in America assembly, which cast aside longstanding Lutheran teachings and promised to “include … within its life” the “different understandings and practices” regarding homosexuality.
Opinions on a Par
The key section of the preliminary PCUSA report starts with the question about “the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships,” which had been posed to the committee in its mandate from the 2008 General Assembly. But it neither seeks nor finds an answer. The committee simply “acknowledge[s] that our interpretations of Scripture lead us to different conclusions regarding homosexual behavior and same-gender partnerships.” Some find “faithful, mutually loving, marriage-like unions of same gender couples [to be] acceptable.” Others find those same relationships to be “unacceptable.”
Regarding civil laws on marriage, the committee likewise restricts itself to describing contradictory views. Some believe that “laws that fail to give benefits equal to marriage to same-gender couples and their families violate the standards of social justice and equality.”Others believe that “[t]o promote social stability and justice for children … the law should encourage relationships that are optimal by granting particular benefits to a man and a woman who marry.”
The report sees little middle ground between the two perspectives. It opines, “We find that the compromise suggestion of civil unions/domestic partnerships offers no true solution to the struggle around same-gendered partnerships.” The committee notes that both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage value “the larger social dimensions of what it means to be married.” Proponents “are not simply looking for state and/or federal benefits”; they want same-sex couples “to be accepted in the larger society” in the way that only marriage conveys. Opponents, on the other hand, “see the compromise of civil unions as a dangerous and myopic redefinition of marriage that loses its social dimensions and encourages the impermanence of these arrangements.”
So the committee faced a sharp dilemma: Either same-sex relations are equivalent to marriage and should be treated as marriage, or they are different and should be treated differently. For each side, “this is fundamentally an issue of conscience and faithful scriptural interpretation,” according to the report. It does not attempt to discern which view represents a more faithful interpretation of Scripture.
Critical Omissions
The report has an opening “Biblical and Historical Summary of the Laws and Theological Developments regarding Civil Union and Christian Marriage.” It lists chapters and verses for dozens of scriptural passages touching on marriage. But it directly quotes only one passage, in which the apostle Paul praises the single life. Thus readers of the report will not necessarily see any of the words of Scripture (e.g., in Genesis 2:18-25, Matthew 19:3-12/Mark 10:2-12, Ephesians 5:21-33) that speak of how God brings man and woman together as “one flesh” in marriage. Nor will they see any mention of the passages disapproving of homosexual relations.
Similarly, the report does not consider at any length the teachings on marriage contained in the PCUSA constitution. It cites briefly the Book of Order definition of Christian marriage as “a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship” (W-4.9001)—but with no analysis of why it is “a man and a woman” who form a marriage. The report pays no attention to major sections on marriage in three of the church’s confessions: the Second Helvetic (5.245-251), Westminster (6.131-139), and the Confession of 1967 (9.47).
The committee also omits the series of authoritative interpretations of the PCUSA constitution specifying that “[o]fficers of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who are authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage because under W-4.9001 a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage” (Spahr v. Presbytery of Redwoods, 2008). The report refrains from speaking of “traditional marriage,” or from characterizing the understanding of marriage among Christians in other parts of the world. The result is to obscure the fact that the vast majority of Christians, around the globe today and across the past 2,000 years, has always understood marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
For the special committee, it appears that the mere claim of good faith and biblical backing is sufficient to put the differing views of same-sex relations on a level. Sexual revisionism that has arisen only in the last generation, and only on the left fringe of declining North American and Western European Protestant denominations, is treated equally with deeply rooted doctrines of the Universal Church.
Averse to Discipline
The committee seems averse to any church discipline holding church officers accountable to PCUSA constitutional standards regarding marriage and same-sex relationships. It invites Presbyterians to embrace a new covenant “to honor who we are as Presbyterians by respecting the fallible discernment of the body, bearing in mind that individual conscience cannot be bound.”
The report fails to note that ministers and elders—the ones making decisions about who gets married in the church—do not have unlimited freedom of conscience. The Book of Order declares that “in becoming a candidate or officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church ….” (G-6.0108b) The committee seems willing to request that PCUSA officers “honor” denominational policies on marriage, but not to require that they obey the policies. It warns that “coercive ways of achieving uniformity are ultimately unhelpful and do little more than draw lines and force us to become more deeply entrenched in our positions and prejudices.”
The committee’s report, its covenant, and its worship services all strongly emphasized church unity based on the reconciling work of Jesus. “[O]ur unity in Christ supersedes any other claim or argument clamoring for our attention,” the report insists. It thus relativizes historic church teachings on marriage—some of them grounded in Jesus’ own words—as mere “claims or arguments.” It ignores Christ’s challenge to his disciples: “Those who love me will keep my word” (John 14:23).
Just Like the Lutherans
There are many evident parallels between the PCUSA special committee proposals and the new sexuality policies adopted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in August. Both put traditional and revisionist views on a par. Both ignore the fact that traditional views are founded on the historic understanding of Scripture held by the Universal Church, whereas revisionists are advancing a radically different understanding. Both the ELCA assembly and the PCUSA committee assert that the traditional and revisionist views are equally based on the Bible; however, neither takes the trouble to evaluate the purported biblical basis. Both exalt the sovereignty of the individual conscience and disdain any attempt to hold church officers accountable to church standards regarding marriage and sexuality. Both seek ways to allow each church and minister to do what is right in their own eyes.
The ELCA assembly actions have not brought unity to that denomination; on the contrary, they have brought an unprecedented level of division. It is doubtful whether the PCUSA special committee will be any more successful if it pursues the same direction.
The committee gave unanimous approval to an introduction, a conclusion, and four sections of “rationale” for its report. The committee postponed action on recommendations until its next meeting in January 2010. A draft set of recommendations distributed at the September meeting included the following:
- reaffirming the Book of Order definition of marriage between a man and a woman, but asking the Theology and Worship Office to consider possible revisions;
- discouraging, but probably not prohibiting, PCUSA ministers from officiating at same-sex marriages;
- suggesting that, in states that allow same-sex couples to marry, ministers might encourage such couples to go to the civil authorities first and then return to church for “an appropriate religious service”;
- declaring, even more strongly than previous General Assemblies, the denomination’s support for “legislation and civil, administrative, and judicial action to extend to same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges as enjoyed by married couples”;
- offering the committee’s covenant as a model for the denomination to engage difficult issues.
No comments yet
