Amendment O and the Question of Justice By Paul Leggett Senior Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church Montclair, New Jersey November 2000 Some questions have arisen about the proposed addition to the Book of Order that is now before the denomination as Amendment O, approved by the 2000 General Assembly in Long Beach, California. The questions that have been raised seem to focus on issues of personal freedom and expression. It is unjust to impose such restrictions on those to whom the Church would minister, the argument seems to go. More and more the Church is confronted with people who are engaging in sexual unions without a civil or religious ceremony. What about a situation in which one or both members of a couple is going through a protracted divorce? Effectively without spouses, they choose to live together. Does the Church offer nothing to support them? What about those persons in intimate relationships who do not believe they are yet ready or able to be married? What about the retired couple who, if they marry, would lose essential pension benefits? They may be other such examples. The objection is that it is unjust to withhold “any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the Church or invokes the blessing of God” on these relationships simply because they do not conform to the traditional view of marriage. The second question of justice focuses more specifically on the situation of gay and lesbian persons who do not qualify for “marriage between a man and a woman.” Is it just to deny them the blessings and Church approval given to heterosexual couples? Or is it prejudicial and discriminatory? The third question which has been raised has to do with Church officers and Church property. Is it just to tell ministers and sessions what ceremonies they can perform and what events can be held on Church property? Does this infringe on their ordained responsibility to extend God’s love and grace? The problem with all these questions, which, granted, raise difficult issues, is that they are predicated on a faulty view of justice. We see here a classic example of getting wrong answers because one is asking wrong questions. The operative meaning of justice in all these objections seems to hinge on a exclusively secular understanding of the term. “Justice” in a modern sense usually means one’s right to choose among several options. The goal of justice in this sense is one’s own individual sense of personal fulfillment. Therefore it is unjust to restrict someone’s choice unless one can demonstrate (and the burden of proof is on the objector) that some harm or danger will accrue to others. For example, I am free to show my children violent films if I so choose. One may argue that in so doing I am predisposing them toward violent behavior which may harm others. However before any restriction can be placed on what I choose to show my own children, compelling evidence of a social danger must be shown (which of course becomes very difficult to demonstrate). Now this may (or may not) be a workable definition of justice in a secular, pluralistic society. It is not, however, one that can be accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ, and certainly not in the Presbyterian Church (USA). The view of justice found in Scripture and in our confessions is very different from the contemporary one based on respecting a person’s free exercise of personal choice. The view of justice we have is defined as obeying the will of God. Even a cursory reading of the Book of Confessions will show that the opposite of justice ultimately is not simply injustice, but quite literally sin. Sin is the violation of God’s will as revealed in Scripture. God’s justice has to do with the overcoming of sin (cf. Book of Confessions 7.148). The Reformed confessions following Scripture would never grant that pursuing justice, defined as following the revealed will of God, is onerous or unpleasant. Quite the opposite. Sin leads to pain, misery and suffering. Obedience to God’s righteousness leads to “pleasures forevermore” (Ps. 16:11). This is why the psalmist delights in the law of the Lord (Ps. 119:16). In the New Testament the trials that occur in following Christ are nonetheless defined as “indescribable and glorious joy” (I Peter 1:8). This is why the confessions can describe “all obedience and submission” to God in terms of “delighting” and “rejoicing” (Book of Confessions 7.214). Amendment O in lifting up “marriage between a man and a woman” and “chastity in singleness” and withholding sanctions of relationships that are “inconsistent with God’s intention” is following the standard of justice found in Scripture and the confessions. The Reformed view of the covenant underlies our understanding of all relationships. Again, this concept is derived from Scripture. The covenant relationship is based on the twin concepts of commitment and service. These standards cannot be applied to just any relationship. They are commitment and service as Biblical ideals, spelled out in Scripture. One cannot escape the fact that the sole Biblical ideal for sexual relationships is “marriage between a man and a woman” or “chastity in singleness.” For a congregation to offer ceremonies or events that are inconsistent with these standards is a violation of Biblical justice. To say this is not to minimize the pastoral responsibility of ministering to those “caught in the moral confusion of our time” (Book of Confessions 9.47). This responsibility requires great care, love and sensitivity. One must question, however, the essentially deterministic models of sexual relationships that are offered as alternatives to marriage. The claim that people have no other choice than the circumstances in which they find themselves flies in the face of the gospel’s promise of “new creation” (II Cor. 5:17). Even in the case of gay and lesbian persons much is still not known about what gives rise to a “homosexual orientation.” The claim that homosexuality is a fixed, unchangeable condition is not supported by medical or scientific evidence. The recent meeting of the American Psychiatric Association this past spring was scheduled to look into examples of reorientation therapies for gay and lesbian persons. The study was cancelled not on scientific grounds but purely because of political pressure brought to bear on the APA. This hardly seems like an example of justice. For the PCUSA to adopt Amendment O at this time would represent a much needed standing for justice as defined in Scripture and in our confessions. Only then can we bring a just and healing word to “the moral confusion of our time.”

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links