Sept/Oct, 1997

Double exposure There was a time when well-bred Presbyterians chose not to discuss publicly what they do in the bedroom. That was before exhibitionists showed up at the General Assembly, demanding sanctification for their sexual adventures. No longer is this matter private; in exposing themselves, they have exposed the Presbyterian Church (USA) as well. In our headline article, attorney Robert L. Howard examines the denomination’s pending double exposure. He argues that Presbyterians who refuse to exercise self discipline in their sexual practices, and governing bodies that deliberately choose to look the other way, increase the church’s vulnerability to costly liability claims. Amendment A is a time bomb that could immolate not only the good name of the PCUSA, but also funds that are sorely needed to further the mission of the church. A related issue is also worth noting. Several states, New Jersey included, have enacted anti-discrimination laws that include the category “sexual orientation.” Employers can be dragged into court by homosexual litigants who claim that they were illegally excluded from employment. An effort was made by the Presbyterian Church in America to have the New Jersey law declared unconstitutional on its face because religious organizations were not specifically exempted from its requirement. The suit was dismissed on grounds that it was premature in that no action had been brought against the Presbyterian Church in America under this law and that the Attorney General had stated for the record that he had no intention of enforcing the law where the employer is a church. Church/state sensitivities make courts wary of requiring churches to violate their doctrines. Currently, the PCUSA Book of Order states, clearly and explicitly, that as a matter of church doctrine and practice this denomination will not ordain persons who refuse to limit their sexual behavior to the covenant of marriage. That could change if Amendment A is adopted. A practicing homosexual who is denied employment as a youth minister in a local church could bring an action under such anti-discrimination statutes, and a congregation could no longer rely on the Constitution to establish religious doctrines against homosexual practices. Amendment A would strip that provision out of our Constitution, exposing congregations to prosecution under secular anti-discrimination statutes such as that adopted by New Jersey. Aggressive prosecutors could claim that “may” has become a “must,” and religious freedom from such secular statutes could become a thing of the past. Proponents call Amendment A an “expression of grace.” Considering the consequences, we think it’s about as gracious as a multimillion-dollar lawsuit or criminal proceedings against a congregation for obeying Scripture.

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links