 Some Thoughts on Amendment O By Mary Naegeli Concord, California November 2000 1. Why are we here today? The recent ruling of the Permanent Judicial Commission regarding certain same-sex unions. Since 1978 the PCUSA’s explicitly stated position has been that homosexual behavior is contrary to the will of God. However, ministers are not formally prohibited from officiating at a ceremony that blesses a same-sex union. Until this language is made explicit in the Book of Order, we will continue to get and to give mixed messages about the PCUSA’s view of marriage and the homosexual lifestyle. 2. We recognize two vocations – marriage and singleness – and believe Scripture leaves no place to confer legitimacy upon alternatives to these. Genesis 2:24, “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh,” is repeated in Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7-8, Ephesians 5:31 (arguments against same-sex unions should not focus on the Bible’s few passages barring homosexual relationship’s but on the Bible’s very theological teaching on marriage and sexuality, again reflected in G-6. 0106b.) 3. Same-sex unions imitate and cheapen marriage. Scripture teaches and affirms from start to finish that, when it comes to sexual behavior, God’s design for humanity is marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus taught in Matthew 19 that human “male” and “female” are created by God, heterosexual marriage is instituted by God, and other relationships cannot fulfill this fundamental, divine design. 4. “But we’re not really talking about marriage here, we just want a blessing.” If it’s not marriage, then what is it? When such an occasion involves invitations, public announcement of a relationship, a ceremony during which vows are exchanged, how can a person tell the difference? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be ... a goose? The fact that it is not really a marriage is precisely the point! It looks like one but is a counterfeit of the Real Thing. 5. Blessing same-sex unions is not extending the rights and privileges of traditional marriage to more people, but is changing the fundamental character of marriage for everyone. While we acknowledge relationships that include friendship, affection and compassion, to bless same-sex relationships dilutes the church’s affirmation that marriage between one man and one woman is the one place God has designed for sexual union. The Church does not “bless” heterosexual cohabitation (which is far more prevalent than same-sex unions), because it is a mere shadow of the Real Thing. Same-sex unions are even paler against the vibrant life-giving design of heterosexual marriage. 6. God has initiated no covenant for same-sex unions. God establishes a covenant with his people on his own terms. Our commitment – our response in gratitude – to God’s covenant requires us to live within the parameters God has established. These parameters include fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. There is no Biblical allowance for any other sexual arrangement. It is, therefore, not appropriate for the Church to bless a commitment between people of the same sex especially “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” 7. “We’ve changed our views on slavery, let’s change them on homosexual unions.” The problem here is that 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. 8. Government recognition of same-sex unions can’t change the fact that God has provided only one design for the union of persons – male and female. Marriage (or singleness) is God’s norm. There is no inevitable connection between what the state decides to permit and what Christians believe to be true and moral behavior. The Barmen Declaration made clear that the state may not dictate to the Church what must be taught. One need only look at those situations in which the state permits something the Church cannot accept, e.g. the concept of ‘victimless crimes,’ to which the Church responds “at a minimum, the sinner is a spiritual victim of that wrongdoing.” Civic recognition of same-sex unions can’t change the basic foundation of what God has ordered in creation. 9. “Local Option” – each church or presbytery deciding – is not an option for the PCUSA because of our historic principles of church order where appointed officers act in the name of the whole Church (G-1.0303). If some form of local option were to be adopted, our concern is three-fold: 1) for the confusing, mixed message we would be giving regarding the PCUSA understanding of marriage; and 2) for the pastor who performs a ceremony which may or may not be considered valid in another congregation; and 3) for the conscience of the individual pastor who down the road may be required to support same-sex unions as “options become mandatory.” 10. Pastorally, we recognize that all Christians are “in process,” moving toward the goal of conformity to Christ’s image. It is inconsistent with this goal for pastors to counsel folks to remain outside the will of God. It is not pastoral to bless behavior that is contrary to God’s revealed will.
|
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|