 Report of morning session PUP members give views on sex outside of marriage By John H. Adams The Layman Online Friday, May 12, 2006 CHICAGO – For six hours Wednesday morning, three members of the board of directors of the Presbyterian Coalition parried with five members of the PCUSA's Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity while an audience of about 80 waited for a bombshell.
For the main, the Coalition's team made it clear that it opposes PUP's final report to the 217th General Assembly and the task force representatives – including three who have had ties to the Coalition – remained firm in their insistence that their proposals, relationship and theology should herald a new day in the faltering Presbyterian Church (USA). The closest to a zinger among the queries may have been posed by Tom Kennedy during a brief period when the audience was invited to ask questions. Kennedy, an elder at First Presbyterian Church in Houston, asked the task force members, "Is it your view that sex outside the covenant of marriage is or is not a sin?" Is sex outside of marriage OK? Milton J. "Joe" Coalter, library director and a member of the faculty at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, said, "I personally think it's a sin. But the task force report was not to decide that issue." John "Mike" Loudon, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Lakeland, Fla., recalled serving as a pastor for 12 years in a university community, noting that "19 out of 20 couples I married" had premarital sex. "Is that sin? Absolutely." Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, said, "I do not believe that all committed relationships of Christians of the same gender are sinful." Wheeler also addressed the most controversial part of the task force report – the proposed authoritative interpretation and its fifth recommendation that would allow ordaining bodies to decide on their own to consider whether G-6.0106b in the Book of Order is an essential requirement that forbids the ordination of practicing homosexuals and adulterers. "The preoccupation in the reactions to this report," she said, "has been on how it might bear on the enforcement of G-6.0106b." While acknowledging the opposition from evangelical Presbyterians, she contended that "the whole report, including the authoritative interpretation," has produced "a kind of collective sigh of relief at the possibility that the sort of combat that has been generated might subside." The proposal, she argued, is "closer to what some think of as truth and others think of about justice." Gary Demarest, co-moderator of the task force and a retired California pastor, skirted the question, although he noted that he had answered it in a book he wrote about Leviticus. "That was not an issue for this group," Demarest told Kennedy. During one of the task force's meetings, Demarest led a Bible study on chapters 18 and 20 in Leviticus. Those chapters list commandments against a range of sexual practices, including rape, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, and adultery. During the study for the task force, Demarest included them among the outdated Levitical code regulations that address diets and sacrificial offerings. But he also said they were to be taken seriously. He did not say during that study whether he believed some or all of the practices were still sinful. Mark Achtemeier, who is a member of the faculty at Dubuque Theological Seminary in Iowa, drew a bye on Kennedy's question. He remained silent while Anita Bell, the co-moderator of the Coalition, quickly closed the audience questions because the session was running on overtime. What will be the effect? Before Kennedy's question, Robert Dooling, pastor of Mountain View United Presbyterian Church in Loveland, Colo., wanted to know what the task force members thought the political effect of the proposal would be. "We have labored for 30 years in the Presbyterian Church under the assumption that G-6.0106b is the law of the church. That is a standard that must be applied. It was argued against; it was debated; it was sent to the presbyteries. On every occasion, there was a larger percentage of presbyteries supporting it. What effect is it going to have? Is it going to serve the peace and unity of this church?"
[While Dooling prefaced his question by noting the growing support for the prohibition against ordaining homosexuals, Achtemeier, during a 20-minute presentation that opened the meeting, took the opposite approach. Using material that was originally compiled by homosexual activists and their allies, Achtemeier said the popular vote in the 1997 national referendum, in which 55 percent of the presbyteries approved what became G-6.0106b, was only 51.1 percent to 48.9 percent. He did not mention that in the 2001 national referendum 73.4 percent of the presbyteries affirmed the standard.] In response to Dooling, Achtemeier said, "I think we are proposing an experiment in the life of the church that will lead to a more faithful church. It's not possible to suggest what the effect will be. I would propose it as a single assembly action rather than lock it in by presbyteries. Our authoritative interpretation is subject to veto of subsequent general assemblies." But if there were a constitutional vote on the proposed authoritative interpretation, Achtemeier said, "I think it would carry the presbyteries on the basis of what I have seen around the church." "I don't know," said Loudon. "When we chewed this over, I really thought that the middle of the evangelical movement would at least partially rally. Obviously, from the reaction of Presbyterians For Renewal and the Coalition, that hasn't happened, and I've been disappointed by that. It has created a greater firestorm than I expected." Coalter answered with questions: "Are we really worried about homosexuals being ordained or are we worried about the ordination of those who have sinned? Those are not theoretical. Those are very practical. Just what is peace in the church. What does unity look like? What is purity?" How far together? The questioning of the members of the task force was begun by Jerry Andrews, co-moderator of the Coalition and pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Glen Ellyn, Ill. "How are we united by what you present to us?" Andrews asked. "If I read the report right, I'm a bit surprised to find out how united you were. You were able to walk a distance together. This report records the distance. Is that as far as you could walk together? Did you come to a fork in the road and realize you couldn't travel further together?" Loudon fielded Andrews' first question. "I remember talking to Jack Rogers after the Brief Statement of Faith," he said. "I questioned him: 'Couldn't you have said more?' He was very honest in saying, 'This is as far as we could agree.'" Journeys not reported Andrews continued his questioning: "Tell me about those journeys not reported." Demarest: "I think we discovered who we are as the body of Christ. I'm concerned about the premise of your question. I don't see not walking together as brothers and sisters and Christians as the body of Christ as an option." Wheeler: "We drew on literatures. We read huge amounts … Theology would have been at the head of the list, where simply splendid work has been done in the past 20 years. If we had more time, we could have made a much fuller and more eloquent statement about the Trinity. There are a lot of topics where we probably could have gone further. We were being criticized for taking so much time with theological issues and not getting on to the more political." Achtemeier: "I think what you see in the report is a kind of waypoint in a process. I think the Christian tradition testifies to us that these are deep mysteries informed by a life of contemplation. We found value as disciples in engaging the tradition and being formed by it. We could have continued indefinitely." Coalter: "I don't think the group thought that we were called to create a new confession. What struck me is not what we believe, but that we're in Jesus. It was never intended to be the confession, or to declare all the things that Presbyterians believe today. It was seen as really foundational – the unity Christians have, not because we chose each other, but because God chose us. We are really blood relatives, through the blood of Jesus Christ." A mere Christianity? Andrews, addressing the theological content of the task report, responded, "I thought I saw a mere Christianity. How does this help us at our efforts at peace, unity and purity?" Loudon: "In recent years, some mere Christianity had not been presented to the church. If it does sound like mere Christianity, it was intended. We do hold to these basic truths and we wanted to say that." Achtemeier: "The theological section is laboring hard to say the main things. In a sense, this section is performative. It is intended as a testimony, as a demonstration, these most important things we hold in common." Wheeler: "I think it has a Reformed shape … the high Christology, frankly a higher Christology than I knew I had. The picture of world engagement. We're in the world, inseparable from it. That separates us from pietism, separatism. And there's a lot about sin, including our own." A sufficient theology? Andrews: "You found it sufficient for the 20 of you to commit to walk together?" Coalter: "The peace, unity and purity depend on Christ, not on our choices. There's a constant tension we keep between saying we're the church but it's not the only church. The foundation is not an elaborate system of theology. At the foundation, the reason I stay with Mike and Barbara and all the other people in this room is not because I chose to but Jesus chose us." Achtemeier: "We are not holding out our theological statement and saying, this is the theology that all Presbyterians hold in common. I think it needs to be said this process for us was formative. We made sustained disciplined use of the ordination means of grace… lo and behold, they turned out to be powerful. What did emerge was a surprise for some of us. What we are doing is commending that exercise as a necessary part of discipleship." Is there no division? Mary Naegeli, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Concord, Calif., was the second Coalition board member to query the task force panel. "What I want to know is, you said you read outside sources," she said. "By reading those resources, do you suggest other people read the same sources and they would also frame their unity in Christ in theology as well? Is there nothing that divides the Presbyterian family theologically?" Coalter: "My personal view is that there is a difference about interpretation, which ones are relevant, like those about homosexuality and those about justice and righteousness. That's not a minor difference. What struck me was that in the heat of conversation about these issues, we forget what we hold in common. Mere Christianity. It sounds like the lowest common denominator, but it's Christianity." Wheeler: "We've had the privilege or burden of living with this report, as it is, for six or seven months. We can't change it. If I could rewrite the theological section, I would land it on the ground at the end, by saying more clearly how the Christian, Protestant and distinctively Reformed perspective may well serve in the world today … why a Reformed perspective makes a contribution that no other perspective does. Demarest: "What was most meaningful was not just to develop a document. For the first time in my journey that I have lived out in a covenant process, I am discovering what it is that unites and still learning to live with our differences." All about relationship? James R. "Jim" Tony of the Coalition team, pastor of Community Presbyterian Church in Palos Park, Ill., interjected: "It sounded to me that what you said was that the relationship was lifted up as the highest value."
Demarest: "No, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ called us into a relationship." Coalter: "We had a trinity of aspirations – peace, unity and purity. We tried to look at Scriptures. It frees you a little bit. You're not just babbling over an issue. I have to say, the Bible studies were really kind of critical." Achtemeier: "For me, the most important part of our work was not experience, not the product of preexisting opinion, it was the Bible study. Studying the Bible together was absolutely formative." What does 'welcome' mean? Andrews, referring to lines 62-68 in the task force report, raised questions about the word "welcome." "I doubt if my integrity could be held in tact if I signed that," Andrews said. "What is it that is precisely being welcomed? This is fairly near to the heart of the presenting issue in the church. What does it mean to welcome?" Achtemeier: "If you look at this paragraph carefully, this talks about a gracious acct of welcome. God's welcome does not leave you the same person you started out. This is a gracious and transforming welcome." Demarest: "I see this not as a document. It is my prayer and hope we'll start doing this in the church."
Andrews: "I'm testing the rigor … the theological formation. The next paragraph (lines 69-81) sounds like a testimony to the Confessing Church movement." Achtemeier: "There was agreement across the board that you don't look for salvation outside Jesus Christ." Naegeli: "How did you keep track of your process and record it?" Wheeler: "We had a secretary who kept notes, who was not a member of the committee. We all kept notes. If a particular person was leading a segment, that person wrote their notes." Private meetings Naegeli: "I have a feeling that most of what you did was in private. Then we saw the report emerge. We don't know what happened." Loudon: "I had mixed feelings about the policy passed by the GA that we could go into closed door. The first couple of times, I voted against it. I have to admit it was helpful. A lot of our work was done in small committee meetings, breakout groups. The reporters never attended those. Then we had general sessions. A lot of our work was done there. We had e-mails going back and forth." But Loudon also expressed some misgivings about the private meetings. "Looking back on it, it's a bit troublesome. I'm a Coalition guy and a PFR guy. A lot of my colleagues think, 'You just rolled over.' Maybe it wasn't a good idea, even though it was helpful." Naegeli: "What made it helpful? If closed doors are helpful, we have to look at our open meetings policy." Achtemeier: "I had no desire to form a secret society going into this. What we're actually asking the church to do were all done in open process." But Achtemeier said the private sessions were freewheeling, times when task force members could talk about "sensitive issues" and make comments, "no matter how outlandish." They were concerned that "any experimental trend in thought runs up in headlines. Part of the concern that we not blow up the church responding to things that frankly were not going to see the light of day."
Demarest said he began the task force's process committed to "work with good faith with [the denomination's] open meeting policy." He said he was "approached by someone" who wanted to get General Assembly approval for private meetings "for purposes for dealing with theologically sensitive issues. I said no, but that overture was brought to the General Assembly. That overture was passed. I indicated that, if given the privilege, we would use it responsibility. I do not think anyone could say we sought that or initiated it." "You normally hire a professional to write the report. We wrote this ourselves. Obviously, a great deal of that was done on e-mail, not in closed sessions. We didn't spend that many hours in closed sessions. I don't recall that media people came to our break out sessions. But it could have given the appearance that it was a done deal worked out beyond closed doors." Tony: "The recommendation appeared at the last meeting as a piece of full cloth." Demarest (in jest): "Actually it came down from the mountain." Loudon: "It came through e-mail. We bantered back and forth, back and forth." Discernment process Naegeli zeroed in on the task force's "discernment process," which it recommends for the whole church. The report eschews the traditional – and constitutional – format for decision-making by higher governing bodies, parliamentary procedure and using Roberts' Rules of Order. "Our presbytery has stated as an addendum to Roberts' Rules, you cannot make decisions by e-mail," Naegeli said. Wheeler: "We didn't make decisions by e-mail. They were made in open sessions." Achtemeier: "I didn't know this was a done deal … until the public vote on the last day." Coalter: "I'm curious why your presbytery doesn't trust your people." Naegeli: "In your process of discernment, were all the opinions expressed of equal weight and value? How did you handle conflicting assertions, if they had the same weight, and if they didn't have the same weight, how did you determine which had the greater weight?" Wheeler: "There was a lot of critical comment."
Achtemeier: "Absolutely. In this process, a whole lot more time and attention went into the process before we started deciding. There were contentious times." Naegeli: "The process didn't obligate you to persuade or to be persuaded?" Achtemeier: "No." Coalter: "The group needs to go together long enough to realize that people who teach in seminaries don't walk on water." Naegeli: "What is the goal of the discerning process? How do you know if you reached it? How do you test the outcome of your discernment?" Loudon: "This is an experiment. Maybe it's time for the church to test it." Achtemeier: "The whole premise is that you always submit your established conclusions to the ongoing judgments of Scripture." Dissension: a sign of the Holy Spirit? Naegeli: "The report is certainly generating a lot of discussion. John Fife told the San Francisco Presbytery several years ago, 'Dissension in the church is a sign that the Holy Spiirit is still at work.' Would you agree with that?" Demarest: "I have to bear some vulnerability for the process. … What I learned at the first meeting was that this was not going to be a typically chair-oriented movement. [Co-moderator] Jenny Stoner and I literally turned over the leadership. We new this was a group of leaders all the way through the process. It was unlike anything I have ever done. If we are vulnerable to conspiracy theories, so be it." Coalter: "We said what we could say together." Achtemeier: "Seeing where we were able to speak together, we spoke; where we were not able to speak together, we remained silent." Citing lines 602-610 in the report, Tony noted the task force's commitment to "respect one another's deep convictions." He asked: "Can all of those convictions be correct?" Andrews quickly followed up: "Does the church get any credit for time served? For all of the split votes, split churches, earnest people and some not so earnest, and working hard at things for centuries. Is there any credit for time served … any discernment before this?" Running late, the Coalition panel closed its questioning about this time to allow some questions from the audience before the noon break. A man who identified himself as a member of Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago – but strongly opposed to that congregation's leading role in the Covenant Network, which supports the ordination of practicing homosexuals – asked, "How do we serve the Bible's message of sex outside of marriage?" Achtemeier: "We stand on part of tradition that God gave us minds for a reason. Faithfulness is served by making a coherent statement out of whole Scripture. Faithful Christians will ask about the intent of the lawgiver, ask what God was getting at." Wheeler: "This report does not take a stand on what the church's teaching on sexuality should be." Spencer Lawrence of the Presbytery of Chicago asked why the task force, in negotiations with the Coalition about the format for the meeting, would not agree to have it videotaped or audiotaped for general dissemination. Demarest said there was opposition to the possibility that material would be used in "sound clips." He also declared that "reported meetings are not the meeting." John Sloop of First Presbyterian Church in Harrisonburg, Va., told the task force panel that it had disparaged Roberts' Rules of Order by calling for the General Assembly to approve an authoritative interpretation that would circumvent the normal constitutional process required for church polity. "I don't know if your charge was to come up with an authoritative interpretation. Do you think there was integrity … which, by the Roberts' Rules of Order, by one vote, would turn our polity on its head." Loudon: "I think that's a good question. I've pondered that a lot myself." Achtemeier: "This report was released in September. The church has had more time to think through this proposal than any significant GA action I can think of in recent years." Demarest: "I think of the use of the language that we have disparaged Roberts Rules is very unfair." That concluded the morning session. |
||||||||||
Respond to this article |
||||||||||
| Home
· Archives
· The
Layman ·
Subscribe
to The Layman ·
PLC
Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Online book reviews · Feedback · Links |
||||||||||
