Task force talks about sex issues By John H. Adams The Layman Online Monday, October 20, 2003 DALLAS – The Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity finally brought up and wrestled with the S-word – as in Sexuality and homoSexuality – at its meeting in Dallas, the 2½-year milepost of its assignment by the Presbyterian Church (USA). The 213th General Assembly (2001) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) chartered the task force to lead the denomination in discernment of what to do about four festering disputes in the denomination – Christology, Biblical authority and interpretation, ordination standards and power. Before it met in Dallas on Oct. 15 and 16, the task force had already examined papers and discussed theological presentations on Christology and Biblical authority and interpretation, without reaching any conclusions. The ordination issue is all about sexuality, specifically whether the denomination's prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals should be continued. To get a grip on that issue, the members of the task force read six papers on sexuality before the meeting and discussed them in Dallas. "This time we're going to uncover the elephant and talk about the elephant," said Jack Haberer, pastor of Clear Lake Presbyterian Church in Houston and leader of the 1998 campaign against removing the "fidelity/chastity" standard from the Book of Order. Haberer, who was on the winning side in 1998 when opponents of the ordination standard tried to water down the language of the requirement, moderated the discussion of the six papers by task force members. "This is an analytical exercise," he said. "We're going to analyze some papers. Does what they say hold water. Is it valid? Is it legitimate? What parts match up to our Reformed theology?" The papers, mostly from books, presented views on both sides of the issues and a variety of theological methods the writers used to reach their conclusions. They were written by Jeffry Siker, an assistant professor at Loyola Marymount University; Luke Timothy Johnson, a Roman Catholic theologian; Andrew Sullivan, a practicing homosexual who is a former editor of the conservative New Republic; Helmut Thielicke, a Dutch theologian; Thomas E. Schmidt, who leads an institute for Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship; and Robert A.J. Gagnon, a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. All of the papers prompted some comment from members of the task force, both pro and con, but Gagnon's apparently lit the most fuses. Gagnon wrote The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (2001, Abingdon Press, 520 pages), which many evangelicals regard as the definitive work on what the Bible, natural theology and science all say about homosexual practice. For their purposes, the members of the task force did not necessarily read Gagnon's book, but they gleaned the gist of his arguments from a 16-page article published in "Theology Matters," which was distributed to the 11,000 PCUSA congregations by Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry, with funding from the Presbyterian Coalition. Both groups oppose the removal of the "fidelity/chastity" standard from the constitution, and the "Theology Matters" summary of Gagnon's book was intended as an effort to help defeat the proposal to repeal the standard in a 2001 denominationwide referendum. Nearly 75 percent of the denomination's presbyteries voted against the repeal proposal. Gagnon offers an unabashed polemic against homosexual activity – and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. He aggressively disputes so-called scientific arguments that defend homosexual behavior, claiming it is genetic, and Biblical interpretations that stray from the plain reading of texts that condemn homosexual behavior. From the theological task force, Gagnon got some praise, but mostly criticism. Some of the strongest criticism came from another Presbyterian seminary professor – Mark Achtemeier of Dubuque Theological Seminary in Iowa – whom many regard as evangelically compatible with Gagnon. Describing Gagnon as "much more Pelagian" than some of the other theologians dealing with sexuality, Achtemeier said Gagnon's emphasis was that "God wouldn't have commanded it if you didn't have the power to deal with it." Without concluding that Gagnon was likewise, Achtemeier did say, "Pelagius was declared a heretic." Lonnie Oliver, a minister from Atlanta, expressed some reservations about Gagnon's assessment, but did note: "What I liked about it is how he brought Jesus into the article. He also looked at it in terms of the tensions between human needs and what God requires." Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Theological Seminary, said she was overwhelmed by the "everywhere" of Gagnon's approach. "He's got a hermeneutical argument," she said. "If that doesn't work, he goes to a natural-law type of argument. Then, he's got scientific claims as well." Achtemeier said Gagnon's paper included more proof-texting than the others, noting that, "He's got a serious disagreement about the facts over whether a homosexual orientation can be changed. Because he comes down and says it can be changed, he makes this essentially a voluntary sort of condition." "That's one of the reasons I wanted us to take a look at this," said Mike Loudon, a pastor in Lakeland, Fla. "He definitely does not believe the biological evidence is definitive." Wheeler described Gagnon's introduction – which focuses on God, Jesus and the righteousness of God – as "very old-school Calvinistic." "He's very dismissive of anyone that didn't agree with him," said Jenny Stoner, co-moderator of the task force. Haberer described Gagnon as a theologian "who doesn't bend over backward to make everybody happy. He's a street-fighter kind of guy." Whereupon, Wheeler lamented, "This is the tone of a lot of academicians." Sarah Grace Sanderson-Doughty said, "What struck me is … what is natural is wretched. You need to die to your naturalness. It is through and through Calvinism." Vicky Curtiss, a minister in Ames, Iowa, was taken aback by the "rhetoric. I would rather be taken toward something." Achtemeier suggested that Gagnon was banking on the power of his rhetoric to defend "the perceived tradition by shooting down the challenges." Then, Loudon raised the issue of negative political ads and their power to persuade voters. "They must work," he said. "They do work," responded Barbara Everitt Bryant – with conviction. She was former President George H.W. Bush's director of the U.S. Census Bureau. "I think that Gagnon represents very well his constituency in the church and in the world," Loudon said. "His constituency is that there is a gay agenda and traditional symbols are under attack." "I think it's scorched earth," Achtemeier said. Scott Anderson, who is executive director of the Minnesota Council of Churches, said Gagnon used a "conflicting caricature" in his argument. "He does not in any way describe what life is like in the gay community." Anderson criticized Gagnon's "selective use of science" and said there is a "a huge body of science he doesn't choose to select. We need to be up front about that." Schmidt's paper, also from an evangelical/Biblical perspective, also drew similar reaction. But unlike the criticism of Gagon and Schmidt, a paper that was really an interview with Sullivan, which is posted on his personal Web site, drew mostly plaudits. Drawing mostly from his experiences as an active homosexual, Sullivan accuses the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church of contradiction. He terms his sexual orientation "voluntary" and adds, "The church has conceded this: Some people seem to be constitutively homosexual. And the church has also conceded compassion. Yet, the expression of this condition, which is involuntary, and therefore sinless, because if it is voluntary, obviously no sin attaches, is always and everywhere sinful. Well, I could rack my brains for an analogy in any other Catholic doctrine that would come up with such a notion." "Do we say that the gospel has nothing to do with a whole category of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this condition?" Achtemeier asked. "What comes through is his sense that the church's position ought to make sense – the kind of sense the gospel ought to have." Wheeler said Sullivan was suggesting that "being gay is fundamentally about being in love" and "wondering what he's supposed to do with the capacity to love. What does he want the church to do? I think he wants the church to tell him how to get to God." But Loudon asked, "Where is the message of the gospel that Christ came to seek and save the lost? Where does repentance come in?" Thielicke's paper came from a three-volume work titled Theological Ethics. His arguments are in Volume 3, titled "Sex." First published in 1964 in Dutch and in 1979 by Wm. B. Eerdmans in English, Thielicke was one of the first mainstream theologians to conclude that there was not much evidence that homosexual behavior could be changed. His concern was pastoral – but he concluded that pastors were unlikely to convert homosexuals; therefore, they should urge them to sublimate their passions. He did not discount the weight of Biblical admonitions against homosexual behavior. Thielicke also drew some criticism. "That's dated," Stoner declared. "Thielicke takes Scripture seriously in a particular way, but he doesn't look at the overall Scripture and try to derive a position," Wheeler said. She added, "I'd like to know the difference between sublimation and Scripture." Loudon said that, for Thielicke, "I think the pastoral care thing is the point. I see him struggling with the pastoral care." Wheeler and Haberer agreed. "This is a pastor tearing himself apart over this," Wheeler said. "He's trying to wrestle with it with a pastoral heart," added Haberer. Achtemeier, noting that Theilicke is held in high esteem by evangelicals, said, "Where he parts company is his assumption where homosexuality is not going going to be changed." He added, "I think Thielicke is giving tremendous weight to the ongoing brokenness of sin. He sees some form of redemption as very much in the future, but his emphasis in this particular case is through restraining sin. This happens through pastoral counsel. All he can suggest is sublimation." The paper by Siker offered a more recent and less traditional interpretation of texts dealing with homoseuality and questioned whether Christians today should "blithely adopt first-century (or ancient Israelite) constructions of human sexuality and sexual relations and apply them to today." He argued against that kind of Biblical interpretation. Siker's paper disputed the traditional interpretation of Biblical passages dealing with homosexuality and argued that, "The Bible does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult relationships from being within the realm of God's intention for humanity." Scott Anderson, the only openly homosexual member of the task force, agreed with a key point: Siker's assertion that the sexual relationship established for Adam and Eve may not be normative. "Because it doesn't specifically mention homosexuality, we cannot rule out that as a possibility." But Haberer responded in another way. "You have to be careful about one vision trumping the whole teaching of the Bible." "I thought he did an effective job," Stoner said. And John Wilkinson, a Covenant Network board member and pastor of a Rochester, N.Y., congregation, said Siker's interpretative model "could provide more fruit than proof-texting." Johnson's paper, which favored church approval of homosexual practice, said Scripture "does not characteristically speak with a single voice. … Responsible hermeneutics claims the 'freedom of the children of God' authorized by the New Testament, and seeks to negotiate the various 'voices/authorities' within the texts to conform to that 'mind of Christ' that is the authentic form of Christian identity …" "I'm always uncomfortable with this," said Joe Coalter, the librarian at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and the seminary's former interim president. Johnson also suggested that the Bible needed to be reinterpreted in light of current culture. In some cases, Achtemeier said, Calvin believed likewise. "Calvin would argue that the economic situation in his time was so different that usury was not the same." Wheeler said, "This is, in a way, the highest view of Scripture we've had so far." She called it a "dynamic, living view of Scripture. His concern is holiness. How will Scripture make us holy? He wants a holier church." But Coalter was wary of claiming the "mind of Christ" on the homosexuality issue when it ran contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. "I keep coming back to the phrase 'testing the Spirit' by the Scripture." If the Scripture is so flexible, he continued, "why not use other good texts?" Coalter said he was reluctant to appeal, as did Johnson, to "different voices rather than a coherent whole. When you read Calvin, he thinks there is some kind of cohesive message here. I do think the early Reformers thought Scripture was less malleable than we do." "I think you're right," Achtemeier responded, "but it's a systemic feature of the Reformed tradition, which has been so reluctant to tie divine things to any statement, including the Bible. If the spirit doesn't show up to show us the truth, we're sunk… We're utterly dependent on God. If God doesn't show up, then we're just sitting down here with our theories that don't do much of anything."

Respond to this article

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