 Executive Editor  The Presbyterian Layman Volume 33, Number 1, Posted March 27, 2000
No one can miss the meaning of this policy. But we are living in a season of casuistry, a time in which persons skilled in word games seem intent on tweaking the letter of the law in ways that defy its spirit. In 1995, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission voted not to allow the installation of a lesbian activist to a Presbyterian pulpit. The majority based its decision on General Assembly policy. But a substantial minority on that court (which, we believe, is now the court’s majority) insisted that if the General Assembly really meant to deny ordination to practicing homosexuals, it must say so explicitly in the constitution. Presbyterians did precisely that. We supported the constitutional change, but we also stated our regret that by ignoring the heart of the law, our courts are reducing matters of principle to jots and tittles. We wondered then how many other minutiae our courts will force us to legislate in order to ensure that the church’s Biblical principle be obeyed. This year’s “holy union” controversy is a case in point. The Presbytery of Hudson River wants to allow its ministers to bless same-sex conjugal relationships. A synod court has said that it may do so, because there is no explicit wording in the constitution that prohibits ministers from conducting such ceremonies. Any thinking person would assume that a denomination whose policy declares extramarital sex to be sinful would automatically prohibit ceremonies that bless extramarital sexual behavior. By refusing to make the necessary connection between principle and practice, our courts are now forcing Presbyterians to clutter the constitution with every conceivable (and inconceivable) application. If we enact a prohibition against “holy unions” this year, what is to keep a court from saying that it does not apply to “blessed unions,” or “committed unions?” The process could continue ad nauseam. While we will support overtures this year that plug Hudson River’s loophole, we recognize that legislation offers no long-term solution. Our courts must be peopled by Presbyterians who revere not only the letter but also the spirit of the law – the Spirit who gave the law. Judges who demur from that sacred duty ought to resign. Parker T. Williamson |
||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
