Professors have different views of homosexual practice, but reach a shared conclusion By John H. Adams The Layman Online Tuesday, February 25, 2003 DALLAS – What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? The Theological Task Force on Peace, Purity and Unity read and discussed two papers written by professors who came to the same conclusion: that Scripture clearly condemns homosexual practice. Dr. Milton J. Coalter and Dr. Frances Gench But those papers didn't settle the issue for the task force because both professors also say that, in some circumstances, homosexuals should be eligible to serve as ministers, elders and deacons in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Dr. Frances Gench, a member of the faculty of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, introduced the two papers to the task force as a means of beginning to address the controversy over ordination. "I thought that we'd invite that elephant in today," Gench said, calling for the task force's first open discussion on how Scripture applies to the ordination debate. "How do you go about interpreting those texts on homosexuality?" she asked. "The Bible is not self-interpreting. We bring the text into our own time and place. We have committed, intelligent Christian people on both sides of the debate. The best Biblical scholars and theologians in our church are divided on how to interpret these texts." Gench said the interpretative challenge is a personal one for people who read Scripture. "When I read it, as a Southern feminist, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I cannot jump out of my own skin," she said. Again, the members of the task force sidestepped revealing their own preferences – although they are about evenly divided pro and con on the ordination question, which has been the denomination's thorniest issue for two and one-half decades. The task force chose to read a paper titled "Struggling with Scripture" by William C. Placher, a professor of philosophy and religion at Wabash College, and a chapter from The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard B. Hays, a member of the faculty of Duke Divinity School. Placher's paper, published after a presentation he made at a conference of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, a group that says its mission is to repeal the denomination's constitutional "fidelity/chastity" clause, says the Bible's anti-homosexuality verses are not relevant in today's culture. Excerpts from Romans 1 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. Hays says they are relevant, but that he does not believe homosexual practice is the one sin that should exclude someone from ordination. Placher's perspective Placher doesn't dispute the meaning of Paul's condemnation of homosexual practice in Romans 1. But he says the passage is not intended to be a literal teaching. In a similar way, Placher dismisses as literal truth the story of Jonah (being swallowed by a whale) and Jonah's preaching that led to the conversion of Nineveh. Biblically, Placher argues, homosexual practice is a trivial issue in Scripture. He says the Bible more often condemns other sins – including greed and injustice. Hays' perspective Hays is more traditionalist in his regard for Biblical texts. He does not dismiss them as morally or culturally irrelevant. "The few Biblical texts that do address the topic of homosexual behavior … are unambiguously and unremittingly negative in their judgment," he says. But he does not favor drawing the battle line for ordination on the issue of sexuality. "It is arbitrary to single out homosexuality as a special sin that precludes ordination," he says. "Strictures against homosexuality belong in the church's moral catechesis, not in its ordination requirements." Task force discussion The members of the task force offered their own views on what Placher and Hays were saying. The following are some of their comments in the order that they were made: Dr. Mark Achtemeier, a professor of theology at Dubuque Theological Seminary in Iowa: Placher and Hays "agree on what the text says: Paul's judgment on homosexuality is a thoroughgoing negative one." Dr. John "Mike" Loudon, senior minister of First Presbyterian Church in Lakeland, Fla.: "From my reading, they both love Jesus Christ and the Scripture." The Rev. Victoria G. Curtiss of Ames, Iowa: "I believe they both agree that the issue of homosexuality falls within the context of a larger argument about falling short." Dr. Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City: "Both make a plain-sense argument." Wheeler: "Although they differ greatly, they came to the same conclusion on the policy issue of ordination, that it should not be a barrier to ordination." Achtemeier: "Hays is much more comfortable to identify the same-sex behavior that Paul saw around him at this time with the same-sex behavior that we have around us. Placher looks at that and says they look at different things." Wheeler: "Both of them assume that some of what we see in Scripture is a result of cultural assumptions and that some of it is the Word of God that doesn't change. They both draw that line in very, very different places – miles apart." Dr. John Wilkson, pastor of Third Presbyterian Church in Rochester, N.Y.: "In the various circles that we travel, we all form canons within canons. Who among us has not pitted the gospel against Paul?" Dr. Milton J. Coalter, acting president of Louisville Theological Seminary in Kentucky: "Hays tries to bring Jesus into this with some references about marriage. That raises questions: Would not Jesus have spoken on homosexuality if it was that important? If the Bible is conditioned for its own time, what does that mean? Is Jesus conditioned by his own time?" Dr. Jack Haberer, senior pastor of Clear Lake Presbyterian Church in Houston: "Placher is admitting that he is speaking at a Covenant Network function. We could dismiss him, but we'd be dismissing serious scholarship." Achtemeier: "I think the party lines over this issue are operating out of separate views about which canon is relevant. What we've got to do is break out of those parochial frameworks and come up with an encompassing Biblical appeal." Loudon: "Both Placher and Hays are encouraging people to love the Bible, read the Bible and use the Bible." The Rev. Sarah Grace Sanderson-Doughty of Lowville, N.Y.: "Conflicts over interpretation of Scripture may be healthy." Wilkinson: "Placher has written how the academic enterprise has distanced itself from the life of the church." Achtemeier: On the value of reading the papers by Placher and Hays, "I couldn't imagine a better way of starting to engage the issue of ordination. We might want to keep this in mind because, as a group, down the road we might find ourselves up-to-date." Wheeler suggested that Hays and Placher did not cover all the possible modes of Biblical interpretation. She said she would include "one, honest about the standpoint of the interpreter; two, the priorities that the Reformed communities have always given to the body; and, three, did it convict me – did I hear in it what Bonhoeffer calls 'the Word against me'?" There was no discussion of what "the body" has done in the past. In 1978, the denomination, responding to homosexual activists, approved a definitive statement saying homosexual practice is sinful and that the church's moral law does not permit the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexuals. In 1997-98, the PCUSA's presbyteries voted to include in the constitution G-6.0106b, the "fidelity-chastity" ordination law that prohibits the ordination of practicing homosexuals. In 1998-99 and 2001-02, the presbyteries voted against constitutional amendments that would have repealed the constitutional standard. The support for the constitutional standard has grown stronger. Seventy-five percent of the presbyteries affirmed G-6.0106b in the 2001-02 referendum.

Respond to this article

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