 Amendment O: Resources for Presbytery Debates By Nancy D. Becker Ogden Dunes, Indiana November 2000 Amendments to the Book of Order recommended by the 2000 General Assembly will soon be arriving at the offices of the stated clerks of the presbyteries of the PCUSA. Of the seventeen proposed amendments none will be more passionately debated than that one labeled “Amendment O.” Amendment O proposes that a new section, W-4.9007, be added saying:
The debate will take place on the floors of all the presbyteries in the PCUSA over the next six months – 173 debates in which many of the same arguments will be made for and against the amendment. A majority of the presbyteries must vote in the affirmative in order that Amendment O become a part of the constitution. Those who agree with the necessity for this amendment to become a part of our constitution will need to think through the arguments both for and against it. This document is intended to be an aid to those engaged in the debate in their own presbyteries. Following are some of the arguments which may be put forward in opposition to the proposed amendment and some responses to those arguments. POINT #1: Forbidding “holy unions” unduly restricts the pastor’s and the session’s freedom of conscience as they minister to the particular needs of individuals and couples. COUNTERPOINT: The argument ignores the fact that pastors and sessions already exercise their freedom of conscience within certain bounds set by our constitution. All officers voluntarily bind their conscience to our confessions in their ordination vows (G-6.0108b and G-14.1504b). Within these boundaries, for example, pastors cannot re-baptize someone, or invite a non-believer to the Lord’s Supper for the sake of inclusion, or choose a non-scriptural text for the sermon, or take it upon themselves to approve teachers without the session’s review, or act as a trustee for the congregation. Many actions that would be pastorally convenient or popular in certain situations are nonetheless prohibited. If we take the theological bases of our constitution seriously, we would affirm that such ‘restrictions’ actually put pastors on course for effective ministry. Furthermore, in the complex relationship between who we are and who we were created to be, Christians look to their pastors and elders for guidance and encouragement in their growth toward holiness and wholeness in the midst of our cultural morass. Giving the blessing of the Church to a union which contradicts God’s intention for his people would impede the movement toward the holy life of abundant grace which God desires for all. To bless such a union would be to oppose the freedom offered in repentance and rebirth to new life in Christ. POINT #2: The amendment is exclusive and punitive in withholding the blessing of the Church for homosexual partnerships. COUNTERPOINT: Every person is subject to the revealed will of God. Awareness of this will help us humbly to examine ourselves and our own sins. But we are also called to speak boldly of the difference between right and wrong (Rom 16.19) and honestly to attempt to identify God’s will regarding our sexual expressions as defined in Scripture. Presbyterians are called to discern what Jesus says to the Church and then be willing to follow it. This is not being judgmental; this is being responsive to the revealed will of God. Our Christian responsibility to love our brothers and sisters does not mean approval of any and all actions. God accepts us as we are but he does not leave us there. God seeks to change in his children behaviors that are harmful and destructive and lead to death. It is true that we are called to accept one another but only as fellow penitents, not as fellow sinners who are determined to persist in our sinning. POINT #3: Homosexuals are so by nature and homosexuality is a gift of God; therefore, a same-sex union should be celebrated. COUNTERPOINT: Scripture teaches and affirms from start to finish that God’s design for marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Jesus taught that “God who made them from the beginning made them male and female. And said for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Matt. 19.4-6). Heterosexual marriage is instituted by God, and fidelity within the covenant of marriage is commanded by God. The Church cannot give its blessing to a relationship that contradicts the fundamental design and intention of marriage. We do not help one another when we call unnatural affections a “gift of God” and unholy practices “holy.” We do help one another when we all admit our brokenness and find in Christ the healing and power for godly living that is available to all. No one is excluded from the gracious mercy of God and the offer of power to live in conformity to the will of God. POINT #4: Just as we may not discriminate between persons on account of their gender, color, ethnicity or class, justice demands that we may not discriminate on the basis of a person’s sexual preference. COUNTERPOINT: Concern for justice is a requirement for a Christian. God demands that we treat all persons as beloved children of God, created in His image, and this includes homosexual persons. Love is the greatest gift we can offer to one another. But the demands of love and justice do not translate into affirmation of behavior that is contrary to Scripture. Jesus constantly raised the standards rather than lowered them, and when he did people turned away from following as his disciples. Christ, who teaches us to live sacrificially in order to produce a more just and compassionate society, also teaches us to practice discernment and moral judgment. True justice is not freedom from God’s revealed purpose in order to construct our own morality; it is rather freedom from our self-willed rebellion in order to love and obey him. POINT #5: We have changed our minds about slavery and about women, so let’s change them about homosexual unions. COUNTERPOINT: Slavery, unlike marriage, is not a creation ordinance but has existed because of the hardness of the human heart. Homosexuality is treated in Scripture as a disordered orientation to the creator and creation, not something blessed or initiated by God. There is major differentiation between Biblical affirmations of freedom and women in leadership roles over against Biblical injunctions against fleshly indulgence. The Bible honors womanhood by affirming that men and women share equally in the image of God and the stewardship of the earth. But sexual intercourse belongs, according to the plain teaching of Scripture, to heterosexual marriage alone. POINT #6: If a homosexual relationship is characterized by qualities of love and commitment then it should be affirmed as good for it rescues people from loneliness and promiscuity and can be just as responsible and fulfilling as a heterosexual marriage. COUNTERPOINT: Although the loving quality of a relationship is essential, it is not by itself a sufficient criterion to authenticate it. Same-sex relationships are incompatible with true love because they are incompatible with God’s expressed intentions for marriage. Love is concerned for the highest welfare of the beloved. And our highest human welfare is found in obedience to God’s law and purpose, not in rebellion against them. POINT #7: Blessing homosexual relationships would not contradict the essential tenets of the Reformed faith. COUNTERPOINT: G-2.0500 sets out the central themes of our Reformed faith. Same sex ceremonies deny the theme of God’s providence in redeeming humans from their brokenness. Our joint covenant life is harmed by same sex ceremonies because they create disorder in the church by blessing what God has called us to turn away from in Scripture and the confessions. POINT # 8: The amendment is not needed. The Directory for Worship is clear enough that marriage is between a man and a woman. COUNTERPOINT: A recent ruling by the General Assembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission stated that a prohibition against blessing same-sex unions, while consistent with the affirmations of the Directory for Worship, is not stated clearly and unambiguously. Anything that is not specifically stated in the constitution is up to the discretion of the pastor and session. The Permanent Judicial Commission, therefore, advised the denomination to clearly prohibit this practice if that is the will of the PCUSA. POINT #9: The amendment would also prohibit ministers from conducting wedding services for people who have been sexually active outside marriage. COUNTERPOINT: Marriage between a man and a woman is the relationship that God designed for the expression of our sexual nature. When a man and/or a woman who have been sexually active outside of marriage turn to the commitment of marriage and seek the blessing of God through marriage in his Church, they are in fact turning away from sin and toward the plan of God for sexual expression. They signify their intention to align their relationship with God’s revealed will. The marriage ceremony does not “pronounce blessing or give approval of the Church or invoke the blessing of God” on their previous sexual relationship but invokes God’s blessing on their intention to turn from that relationship and enter into a covenant relationship that is ordained by God. Union between two people of the same gender, on the other hand, is a contradiction of the created order as it is revealed in Scripture. |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|