 Retired pastor defends Christ Church statement The Layman Online Tuesday, December 31, 2002 The Rev. Harold Porter, the retired pastor of an Ohio congregation, has written a letter defending the Christ Church (Burlington, Vt.) session's declaration that it can ordain practicing homosexuals and still comply with the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
In 2002, four years after Christ Church declared that it intended to ordain practicing homosexuals, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly ordered the Presbytery of Northern New England to work with Christ Church to bring it into compliance with the constitution, with disciplinary measures if necessary. Just days before the 214th General Assembly convened in June, the session of Christ Church "set aside" its statement of defiance that had prompted an overture calling on the General Assembly to require enforcement of the constitution. Commissioners voted against that overture and the session of Christ Church subsequently reasserted its right to defy the constitution. Christ Church, an 80-member congregation on the Redstone campus of the University of Vermont, and Porter's Mt. Auburn Church in Cincinnati, a 242-member congregation, are More Light Churches that have publicly and repeatedly declared their defiance of the constitution. Porter's letter was aimed primarily at Presbyterians For Renewal, which said Christ Church had become a law unto itself, a de facto congregationalist church. The Christ Church "statement as a whole evidences a self-justifying, independent, congregational mindset, as if coming from a comedy sketch of an intentionally clichéd Vermont stereotype," PFR said. "The writers have ostensibly listened to a number of weighty voices – the Constitution, a pastoral committee from presbytery, the last two General Assemblies, a ruling of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, and the latest landslide nationwide vote that went against their notions – and then have dismissed entirely the counsel they ought to have heeded!" Porter said PFR, the Rev. Robert Dooling of the Presbyterian Forum and The Layman Online "are alarmed that Christ Church has interpreted for itself what G-6.0106b means in the context of the whole Constitution. Isn't that everyone's responsibility? The members of Christ Church's session are ordained officers in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and are not simply a group of automatons. Can we not believe that they too are open to the Holy Spirit's discernment even as their opponents undoubtedly are? Why then denounce their integrity?" In declaring that it could ordain practicing homosexuals and not violate the constitution, Christ Church has employed a strategy proposed by two lawyers who are members of the board of the Covenant Network. The lawyers, Peter Oddliefson and Doug Nave, have been counseling church sessions against making public statements that they will defy or are defying the constitution. In its 2000 ruling, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly said elders and ministers violate the constitution even when they state an intent to defy a church law. Instead, Oddliefson and Nave instruct sessions to claim that they are obeying church law by reinterpreting the constitution on their own terms and challenging the meaning of such words and phrases as chastity, repentance, sodomy and self-acknowledged sin. Porter's letter asserts that the opponents of Christ Church's view "are absolutely convinced that the Bible condemns all homosexual behavior as sinful. But if Christ Church's view is 'nonsense,' we must realize that a goodly number of Presbyterian biblical scholars, clergy and members, agree with them. This view does not disregard biblical sanctions against some same-sex behaviors." In fact, it has been the denomination's official view since 1978 that all homosexual behavior – as well as all adulterous behavior – is sinful. Opponents of the ordination standard sought to repeal that judgment on homosexual behavior during the denomination's referendum in 2001-02, but their effort failed, along with repeal of the ordination standard, by a 3-1 vote. By choosing a few texts from the PCUSA's confessions, Porter also suggests that Jesus Christ can be separated from Scripture, and that following Christ may lead a person to reject some Scriptural teachings. He accused Presbyterians who call for Biblical morality of "biblical idolatry, substituting the culture of Judea for the Kingdom of God." "The Presbyterian Church has addressed this danger of biblical idolatry," Porter said. "Our Constitution states in its very first chapter (G-1.0100c) that 'Insofar as Christ's will for the church is set forth in Scriptures, it is to be obeyed.' I do not find anything in Christ's will that all homosexual behavior is sinful." The text of Hal Porter's letter Christ Church, Burlington, Vt., has revised its statement regarding G-6.0106b from disobedience to compliance. How great has been the criticism of their new statement from other Presbyterians! The Rev. Robert Dooling of the Presbyterian Forum claims that Christ Church's session has acted schismatically, that God will condemn their action, and that their statement is a lie. Presbyterians for Renewal (PFR) has declare that Christ Church's session has chosen to become a law unto itself, a de facto Congregationalist church, has decided to do their own thing, that their message is not the Good News of salvation, and its statement lacks integrity, employs nonsense, and reflects a "we alone are right" complex. The Presbyterian Layman reports all of this with their own editorial slant in order to push support for their statement "A Call for Constitutional Integrity," which is also endorsed by the Presbyterian Coalition. The facts of the matter are otherwise. As I read their revised statement, Christ Church has not renounced the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and is quite willing to be subjected to its discipline. In their statement, they acknowledge their "obligation to comply with the Constitution." In changing its statement, after a period of greater discernment, Christ Church has openly shared why it has done so.
The above opponents are alarmed that Christ Church has interpreted for itself what G-6.0106b means in the context of the whole Constitution. Isn't that everyone's responsibility? The members of Christ Church's session are ordained officers in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and are not simply a group of automatons. Can we not believe that they too are open to the Holy Spirit's discernment even as their opponents undoubtedly are? Why then denounce their integrity? We may all write our response to G-6.0106b differently, and many of us will continue to seek its removal from our Constitution, but it is clear that Christ Church will live with it in the Constitution for the reasons they have stated. They are not naïve to believe that their position may go unchallenged by their appropriate governing bodies, but they are forthright about their own understanding. Behind Christ Church's statement is their rejection of the theological belief that all homosexual behavior is sinful, a position not found in our Book of Order. They state that it is their "conviction that loving homosexual relationships are neither more nor less likely to be sinful than loving heterosexual relationships." What they are doing, as the General Assembly of 1998 approved, is to "consider the lives and behaviors of candidates (for ordination) as individuals…and not to exclude anyone categorically." What they will disobey, as should we all, are policies that order us to be prejudice against the worth of GLBT persons who are equally loved by God and made in God's image. Opponents of their statement are sure that they are wrong because they are absolutely convinced that the Bible condemns all homosexual behavior as sinful. But if Christ Church's view is "nonsense," we must realize that a goodly number of Presbyterian biblical scholars, clergy and members, agree with them. This view does not disregard biblical sanctions against some same-sex behaviors. Presbyterians for Renewal, The Layman, and Presbyterian Forum need to make a distinction between the Bible and the Word of God as referencing Jesus Christ. We have, after all, agreed that Jesus Christ is "The one sufficient revelation of God." (BC 9.27) The Confession of 1967 further distinguishes the Bible as the "Word of God written." As such, we have declared that we have an obligation to use literary and historical understanding with the "Word of God written" because it is the "words of men" – historically and finitely bound. Even beyond this obligation, we have agreed that the primary interpretation of the Bible remains, "in the light of its witness to God's work of reconciliation in Christ." This is what Christ Church has attempted to do and the others do not. They only refer to a vague notion of "biblical morality" which they feel categorically excludes sexual behavior between gays. The danger, of course, is biblical idolatry, substituting the culture of Judea for the Kingdom of God. The Presbyterian Church has addressed this danger of biblical idolatry. Our Constitution states in its very first chapter (G-1.0100c) that "Insofar as Christ's will for the church is set forth in Scriptures, it is to be obeyed." I do not find anything in Christ's will that all homosexual behavior is sinful. Further, I would site the position paper of the General Assembly entitled the "Presbyterian Understanding and Use of Holy Scripture." I refer to its guideline, "5. The Rule of Love," as to how a text is rightly to be used. It reads,
It is because of the rule of love, clearly taught and lived by Jesus, which may be described as radical but certainly not promiscuous, that I, along with many others, find the Presbyterian Church has wrongly asserted its authority, binding our conscience from equally loving our homosexual neighbor. Let us give thanks for Christ Church, Burlington, Vermont for seeking to do so. They are acting in the best of our Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. Hal Porter Pastor Emeritus Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio |
|||
Respond to this article |
|||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|||