Five myths, and the realities, of the PCUSA sex debate

By Michael W. Armistead

In 1996 the 208th General Assembly of the PCUSA approved Amendment B, also known as the "Fidelity and Chastity Amendment," and sent it to the Presbyteries for their vote. After much intense debate the Presbyteries approved this standard for officers, and it is now G-6.0106b of our Constitution. In June of 1997 the 209th General Assembly sensed pain and dissatisfaction on the part of some church members and approved a new amendment that, if accepted, will greatly weaken the impact of Amendment B as a standard for ordained officers. So for another year at least, mainline Presbyterians will continue to debate the nature of human sexuality and the proper standards of behavior for ordained officers of the church.

Those who disliked Amendment B applaud this move as a corrective action or a step back in the right direction. They believe that there is no reason to prohibit practicing homosexuals from being ordained and that the presbyteries erred by approving Amendment B.

Amendment B supporters are now incensed and feel they have been betrayed after they followed proper procedure and won the debate to include this standard in the Book of Order. They see this new amendment as an attempt to water down clear biblical standards on the question of human sexuality. Tension in the denomination is bound to escalate as these two divergent views are debated once again.

As the debate ensues, the PCUSA should be aware that there are a number of myths about the church being expressed which tend to cloud the issues greatly. These myths were apparent in the debate at this year’s General Assembly and are likely to carry over in the discussions in presbyteries. A better view of the realities will help the PCUSA decide how best to settle this lingering dilemma.

Myth Number 1: There Is A Right Wing In The PCUSA.

Though there is a spectrum of Christian beliefs and methods of interpretation in the PCUSA, overall it is rather limited in scope. By and large the PCUSA does not run the full gamut from radical fundamentalism to extreme liberalism, but mainly contains a middle and a left wing. A true Christian right wing would be made up of biblical literalists who feel that the Bible needs no interpretation, only application, and who resist all efforts to change or accommodate modernity.

Presbyterians of this mode are no longer present in our midst in large enough numbers to have any significant impact. If they were, the debate to ordain practicing homosexuals would have never gotten on the table, much less lasted for twenty years. Right wing Presbyterians now comprise the Presbyterian Church in America, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and other more conservative bodies.

The reality in our denomination is that we have a moderate middle and a liberal left that are both trying to implement what they believe to be God’s will for the church. The outlook of the middle group is one that is quite open to change, but it still wants to preserve the plain meaning of Scripture as our final authority, as well as maintain the traditional Christian standards of behavior that they have received from previous generations of Presbyterians and other Christians. In many other denominations this group would be labeled as radically progressive for even considering the ordination of practicing homosexuals.

The liberal left, on the other hand, works from a very broad view of Scripture as revealing general principles more than moral absolutes, and they demand radical change because they see most existing structures in church and society as corrupt.

This middle/left composition of the PCUSA skews the debate at times, for it makes it difficult for us to settle issues that a more comprehensive Christian body would more quickly decide.

Myth Number 2: The PCUSA Is An Inclusive Church.

One of the prevalent fallacies in our denomination is that we are open to everyone who claims faith in Christ. In reality we are not. By our polity and our attitude we have consciously excluded large portions of the American Christian community, namely those on the religious right. For example, we will not ordain or accept as a minister anyone who does not support the ordination of women to be officers of the church, even though this has been the standard Christian practice of the Presbyterian Church and of all Christianity for most of our history. There are many valid reasons for taking this stand, but policies such as this prevent us from making the claim of being truly inclusive.

The reality of our church’s life is at times we have chosen to exclude those who hold a different but historical Christian position from our own. For this reason we should not feel guilty if we can no longer include everyone in our denomination once our debate on sexuality has ended.

Myth Number 3: A Move To Ordain Gays And Lesbians Would Merely Be A Minor Shift In Policy.

Many proponents of the ordination of homosexuals do not see such a move as a major shift away from current understandings of the Christian faith held by many in the church, but as a gradual extension of our current beliefs to another marginalized community. In reality such a move alters the content of the faith. It would shift us from the classic Protestant foundation of sola scriptura, where all matters of faith and practice are settled by appeal to biblical revelation, to being a church where social sciences are as much an authority as Scripture or tradition.

Ordaining homosexuals is what the denomination may ultimately decide to do, but this move cannot be made without significant theological, spiritual, and political repercussions. It would change the Christian faith as many church members know it, and they would have to wrestle with changing their own cherished beliefs or leaving the denomination.

Myth Number 4: A Move To Ordain Gays And Lesbians Would Be An Inclusive Gesture.

Many proponents of ordaining homosexuals advocate doing so as an extension of our supposed general practice to try and be as inclusive of all God’s children as possible. In reality, to alter the foundations of our faith by doing so would exclude and alienate those who cannot go along with that action out of loyalty to the Bible and Christian tradition.

The sad fact is we probably cannot keep everyone on board who now wishes to be a part of the PCUSA. The denomination is going to have to decide which side of this foundational line it will support, either inclusivity or traditional biblical morality, and accept the fact that many will leave in disgust because of the decision.

Myth Number 5: Those Who Oppose The Ordination Of Homosexuals Are Mean, Bigoted, and Sinful.

One of the most unfortunate results of the debate on human sexuality has been the way we have denigrated those on either side of the debate and in particular those who wish to uphold the traditional views of Christian morality. It is a strange event when ordained Christian officers castigate those who take Scripture and two thousand years of Christian practice at face value and conclude that these understandings should continue to be God’s will for the church.

Specifically, the term "homophobic" has become the new political epithet and is used to dismiss sincere Christian and loyal church people as backward and ungodly. The use of an inherently negative term such as this has the effect of denying the church the freedom to say no on the question of ordaining homosexuals, for it casts the debate as if there was only one true Christian response.

In reality the burden of the debate lies with those who desire change in the area of sexual standards for ordained officers. If the ordination of homosexuals is to be accepted by the whole church there has to be a truly compelling reason developed as to why the church should deviate from our traditional moral norms. There is no specific biblical mandate to shift our views in this area, and nothing in our creeds and confessions that calls us to change. If anything these authorities prohibit change in this area.

If there is to be any accommodation of those who support the ordination of homosexuals it has to be somehow holding their view in addition to the traditional one, a kind of "pro-choice" approach that allows the traditionalists to hold their views while allowing a more liberal track to coexist along side of it.

However, to belittle as non-Christian those who wish to hold to the faith as the church has always taught it does not move in this direction at all. It only stands to make enemies out of our brothers and sisters in Christ and do great harm to the church.

What is the final reality in the church as we head into another year of debate on this most divisive issue? The action of the 1997 General Assembly is potentially detrimental to the life of the PCUSA (and possibly suicidal) because it risks alienating the traditional moderates who supported Amendment B and all it stands for.

At best it is politically unwise. After all, the left wing of the church is already angry and alienated that Amendment B was considered and passed. Is it now wise to anger and alienate the moderate middle by considering and referring to the Presbyteries what in essence is a recision of Amendment B? Whatever else this is, it is not an effective way to build a cohesive body motivated to God’s work in a broken and crumbling world.

Michael W. Armistead is pastor of Huntersville Presbyterian Church, Huntersville, NC. An earlier version of this article appeared in the Nov. 3, 1997 Presbyterian Outlook.