Jane Dempsey Douglas calls Amendment A ‘Reformed’ Suggests it reflects the spirit, if not the letter, of Reformed theology An analysis by Parker T. Williamson The Presbyterian Layman Nov/Dec, 1997 CHICAGO – “We must be honest,” said Princeton theology professor Jane Dempsey Douglas to a gathering of Amendment A supporters at Chicago’s Fourth Presbyterian Church, admitting that she could find no support in the Reformed Tradition for the practice of homosexuality, a behavior that approval of the amendment would allow. But, she added, records in 16th-century Geneva indicate that they were “not obsessed” with the issue. Turning to Presbyterian Church forebear John Calvin, Douglas said that he made only one small reference to “unnatural lust” in his commentary on Romans, but she added that Calvin’s primary concern was about “just relations” and the fact that “all have sinned.” Her remarks included no reference to Calvin’s explicit condemnation of homosexual behavior. Labeling Amendment A “an improvement over its predecessor,” Douglas said that it properly gives first priority to “obedience to Jesus Christ.” The Reformed tradition describes Scripture as the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ, she said. Thus, she argued, our first allegiance should be to Jesus Christ, the one who preached good news to the poor, release to the captives, violated tradition, and welcomed all people. Amendment A, she said, follows that proper order of Jesus Christ first, Scripture second and the Reformed Confessions third, whereas the ordination standards in the Presbyterian Church (USA) Constitution do not. Douglas’ emphasis on positioning “Jesus Christ” over Scripture bore a remarkable resemblance to a major theme in the Human Sexuality Report, a document that was rejected by a 95 percent vote at the 1991 General Assembly. The heart of that report contained a “justice hermeneutic” stating that those portions of Scripture that affirmed “justice love” could be considered authoritative, but that portions of Scripture that did not meet this criterion should be deemed to have no authority over the church. Following a similar pattern, Douglas selected some (but not all) biblical references to Jesus, thereby creating her own “Jesus Christ” to whom she accords authority over any other words in Scripture that may not conform to the preferences of Douglas’ “Jesus Christ.” Creation reconsidered In a reference to the Reformed doctrine of creation, Douglas attempted to negate an argument that has been made by Princeton Theological Seminary President and New Testament scholar Thomas Gillespie. During denominationwide debates on homosexual behavior Gillespie has shown that there is no scriptural warrant for the practice. In addition to citing the Bible’s explicit condemnation of homosexual behavior, Gillespie has referenced the Reformed doctrine of the “orders of creation,” an interpretation of Scripture that celebrates relationships ordained by God, the Creator. In commenting on the first chapter of Romans, Gillespie has shown that Scripture’s disdain for homosexuality is ultimately rooted in the Creator’s ordering of all that he has made. Reformed interpretations of Scripture declare homosexual behavior a distortion of God’s created order, an aberration that results from willful human pride. In her speech to the Covenant Network’s Chicago gathering, Douglas attempted to debunk Gillespie’s thesis. We read Scripture “not from the perspective of the orders of creation … but from the perspective of the new creation,” she said. Continuing her theme that the “Jesus Christ” that she extracts from Scripture commands more authority than Scripture itself, Douglas said that in Christ, the new creation, all walls of separation have been broken down. “Those once deemed unsuitable are now all welcome.” Douglas, whose assignment was to demonstrate that Amendment A is a “Reformed statement,” admitted that her new creation theory did not comport with Reformed theology as stated by the reformers: “The 16th-century reformers did not always see this,” she said. But, she suggested that modern Presbyterians have come to interpret the scriptures differently than did some of the reformers, and for that reason one cannot vow to obey the Reformed confessions, as does the current language of the Presbyterian Church Constitution. The most one can say, she argued, is that the confessions are a “guide.” Reforming Reformed theology Thus Douglas took the Chicago group through a chain of arguments: (1) An entity called “Jesus Christ,” who is constructed by selecting some passages of Scripture that refer to Jesus but rejecting others, is given preeminence over the whole of Scripture. (2) Only Scripture passages that make it through filters established by this “Jesus Christ” are called “authoritative.” (3) Statements that appear in the Reformed Confessions are filtered through this filtered Scripture and are regarded as a “guide” rather than an “instruction.” This chain, suggested Douglas, is good Reformed theology. Solidarity Returning to the writings of John Calvin, Douglas suggested that one of the reformer’s major themes was that of “solidarity.” Christians are united as part of the body of Christ, said Douglas, but that solidarity unites us not only to one another but to all human beings. Applying Calvin’s concept of “solidarity” to the ordained ministry, Douglas said solidarity implies that ministers are as human as their parishioners. Thus, she concluded, it is consistent with the Reformed Tradition for the modern church to “respect the different gifts of our brothers and sisters” and that we should “not despise” those to whom different gifts have been given. In this way, Douglas suggests that ordaining persons who engage in homosexual behavior is consistent with the Reformed Tradition even though she admits that the reformers universally condemned the practice. Ignoring partner churches Those who support the Presbyterian Church Constitution’s requirement that ordained persons limit their sexual behavior to the covenant of marriage often cite the counsel our denomination has received from Christians in other lands. During the PCUSA homosexuality discussions, letters poured into this country from missionaries and national church representatives in many countries imploring the PCUSA not to endorse the practice. Partner churches in several countries have suggested that they could not remain in relationship with a denomination that would ordain persons who are engaged in homosexual behavior. Speaking as a former president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, Douglas suggested that these attitudes may be changing. Admitting that she is often asked about the PCUSA discussions by Christian leaders in other countries and that “in some cases they are hostile about the fact that there is such a debate,” Douglas said nevertheless that “there is more openness than I expected.” |
|
|
Home
· The
Presbyterian Layman ·
News |
|
