Observers have praise, criticism for family paper By John H. Adams The Layman Online Monday, December 15, 2003 Two observers came to the meeting of the writing team revising a proposed denominational policy on families bearing the gifts of praise and the lash of criticism. Sharlyn "Sam" Stare of Cincinnati and Jim Berkley of Seattle, Wash., both commended the new orientation of the paper, especially the addition of a theological overview that was prepared by the Office of Theology and Worship. But they expressed concern over a number of issues - including the lack of clear statements about the PCUSA's current policy on homosexual behavior, same-gender "marriages," co-habitation and divorce. Berkley later took a seat at press row to take notes for his own coverage -- for Presbyterians For Renewal -- of the evolving Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy paper and continued interjecting remarks about the process. Speaking at an open-hearing portion of the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy's writing team meeting in Louisville, Ky., on Dec. 12-13, Stare and Berkley both said the paper -- even with its revisions -- could do more to reflect Biblical and Reformed standards about marriage. Stare, who got her nickname "Sam" after she was employed as an engineer for Proctor and Gamble, said she and the members of her congregation had closely followed ACSWP papers on other issues and had found them hard to embrace. "When we look at any document, we look at it for three things: Is it Biblical? Is it Reformed? And is it constitutional." She said the original family policy proposal -- titled "Families in Transition" -- "missed the mark" and the 215th General Assembly (2003) ordered revisions. "I believe the process that sent it back was a good process," she said. "Consider using that for other policy statements you will make." She described the new section on family theology "wonderful, wonderful," but added, "I think the thing missed is an instructional opportunity, particularly in the same-sex section. I believe it's an opportunity for a teachable moment." While the ongoing revision neither affirms same-sex behavior or same-gender "marriages," the document mostly addresses those issues without any reference to the "fidelity/chastity" clause in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) or Scripture. She called for a clear statement about General Assembly policy on those issues, but the committee, during its two days of meeting in Louisville, rejected including such a statement. Several members of the writing team clearly opposed including any reference to the General Assembly's definitive guidance on homosexual behavior. That guidance began with a 1978 statement (affirmed in 1993 and 1996) that says homosexual behavior is sinful. Eric Mount, a retired professor of religion and theology at Centre College in Danville, Ky., asked Stare, "Wouldn't you like to see a document with only things everybody from a broad theological perspective could embrace as opposed to a more inclusive statement that might indicate differences?" Mount noted that there were differences of opinion among the writing team members about where the proposal should take strong stands and where it shouldn't. "We might not have unanimity about the policy recommendations," he said. "What we don't have unanimity on we don't want to talk about." Peter Sulyok, the staff coordinator ACSWP, said, "Our intention is not to enter these debates. The Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity is doing that. It's not the task of this paper or its original mandate. My sense is controversy is never helpful for children and if church focuses on controversy rather than children, the church is in need of healing." "Those who know me know I was not a fan of the previous report," said Berkley, a Seattle, Wash., minister who writes about church issues for Presbyterians For Renewal. But Berkley said, "In reading through these [revised] papers, I find a lot of useful information. I have confidence this will be something that can pass General Assembly. I'm feeling good about that. I would especially like to commend the theological section. I actually got tears in my eyes" reading the analogy between baptism and Christian families. But Berkley criticized a section on "same-sex families" as "almost perfunctory" rather than a review of how Presbyterians and "most Christian churches" have viewed homosexual behavior. "If this group is going to pioneer new ground, very clear reasons would need to be given. I think you need to attack it straight on if that's what you're going to do, but you're dancing around it." The revised section of the family paper merely notes that the PCUSA has a policy that states that "homosexuality is not God's wish for humanity." It also says, "In subsequent statements over the last two decades, the church has challenged itself to be open to 'more light' on what goes into shaping one's sexual preferences." Then, that statement, which was written by Gloria Albrecht of Detroit, a Mercer University sociologist, includes findings of a Presbyterian Panel poll that presents statistical data in a way that makes it sound as if a growing segment of the denomination approves of homosexual behavior. "According to an August, 2000 survey by the Presbyterian Panel, while 61 percent of specialized clergy and 41 percent of pastors believe that homosexuality should be considered an alternative lifestyle, only 28 percent of members and elders agreed. Similarly, 67 percent of specialized clergy and 51 percent of pastors agreed that when gay partners make a legal commitment to one another they should be entitled to the rights and benefits that are given to married heterosexual couples. However, only 28 percent of members and 26 percent of elders agreed." That statement was top-heavy with sanctions for homosexual relations. Specialized clergy account for fewer than 20 percent of the denomination's ministers. And all ordained ministers of Word and Sacrament combined account for less than 1 percent of the 2.4 million members in the Presbyterian Church USA. The statement did not refer to the three denominational referendums in which ministers and elders in equal numbers have voted by increasing margins -- from 55 percent in 1996 to nearly 75 percent in 2001 -- against ordaining practicing homosexuals. Berkley also criticized the revised paper for sometimes suggesting that sin is corporate and not personal, including a section on hedonism. He said that section "tends to make Christianity un-fun. You ought not to make Christianity sound like a weak sister. I think hedonism is one of the biggest factors working against happiness." In its section on culture, the revised paper described hedonism as "the pursuit of pleasure or happiness as the purpose of life … the driving motivation that leads people to seek pleasure in compulsive consumption of food, sexual gratification, entertainment, high-risk adventure and indulgence in excessive material possessions." Then it lists ways that families in "pursuit of pleasure and happiness" can be destructive. "On a general note," Berkley said, "as much as possible, be specific rather than clouded. Try not to hide the meaning or hedge the meaning. I would urge you not to leave doors open, to be specific in terms of homosexual practice. You need to let your yes be yes and your no be no." Berkley also criticized sections addressing government programs that affect families. "I'd suggest you not try to reach too far so that no church would have to say, 'If we've got to change the governmental system and all of society, I just can't do that.' It will be so far-reaching that it'll just be ignored." Asked what he thought the purpose of the family document was, Berkley responded, "I think the job of this report is to glorify God. I would hope that you would stay away from social engineering as a goal."

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links