 Authority/interpretation of Scripture debated By John H. Adams The Presbyterian Layman Volume 34, Number 2 Posted March 26, 2001
As in the past, they found no common ground. They raised the possibility of a third meeting, but did not agree on it. A suggested “joint statement” quickly was scotched by both sides. The team selected by the Presbyterian Coalition defended the view that Scripture is inspired, literally “God-breathed,” and that what the Bible says should not be dismissed to accommodate a changing culture. The team representing the Covenant Network argued that the changing culture requires a new interpretation of Scripture that no longer condemns former moral taboos, such as homosexual activity. Seeking to emphasize its confidence in culture as an acceptable interpretative tool, the Covenant Network group had challenged the Coalition team to explain why the Presbyterian Church (USA) had ended its opposition to the remarriage and ordination of divorced people and the ordination of women, yet resists ordaining homosexuals. In response, Parker T. Williamson, executive editor of The Presbyterian Layman, and Anita Bell, co-moderator of the Coalition, presented papers on the Biblical arguments that led, respectively, to the change in chapter 26 of the Westminster Confession of Faith allowing divorced people to be ordained and ending the barrier against the ordination of women. Both Williamson and Bell argued that while a changing culture brought both issues to the forefront in the denomination, the resolution in both cases was based on Scripture. They included dozens of citations of verses of Scripture in their papers. Williamson pointed out that the denomination, rather than affirm divorce in its 1958 confessional change, agreed with Scripture that divorce was sinful and not God’s will. The decree of silence Bell noted that, in some places in his first letter to the church at Corinth, Paul commended women for prayer and prophecy – leadership roles – and in others he urged them to remain silent. “Most commentators argue that Paul was not instructing women to remain silent as the rule, but that order in worship is the intended rule. When disorder arises, those who perpetrate the irregularity within the body of believers must be kept silent. “It is important to note that the verses in chapter 14 are obviously addressed to the women in the pews, while the verses in chapters 11 and 16 are addressed to women in teaching leadership. It is even imaginable that the women in the pews were disrupting their own sisters who were praying and prophesying up front.” Interpretation by culture Covenant Network team members argued that culture, not a new interpretation of Scripture, prompted the Presbyterian Church to begin ordaining divorced people and women. Therefore, they said, culture should dictate a new policy on ordaining homosexuals and same-sex unions. “People say the Bible has one clear standard on marriage,” said Pam Byers, executive director of the Covenant Network. “That’s not true. The Bible has many different standards on marriage.” Michael Adee, a Covenant Network team member who describes himself as a gay man and a Presbyterian elder, argued against applying Biblical standards to heterosexual couples only. “I don’t want to see our church withhold a blessing of people who want to have a faithful relationship,” Adee said. “Do I equate heterosexual marriage in a sacred relationship with a holy union? I’m not sure. I have never been married. I am now denied that possibility.” There were disagreements over what Scripture says about marriage and whether the Bible establishes an indissoluble standard of one man and one woman. Marriage passage disputed Mitzi Henderson of More Light Presbyterians objected to a reference made by Williamson to Genesis 2:24 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Henderson said the passage said nothing about marriage, but was about relationship. Furthermore, she said the Bible has no clear standard for marriage – whether between a man and a woman or between two people of the same gender. The divine intent Using a passage in Matthew, Bell pointed out that Jesus, when challenged on the issue of divorce, cited the verse in Genesis as representing God’s divine intention for marriage as an institution ordained for one man and one woman. Block quietly injected: “Matthew said that Jesus said.” Bell asked Block what she meant by that. “The remembered words of Jesus are not Eyewitness News,” Block replied, without further explanation. Jerry Andrews, co-moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition and pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Glen Ellyn, disagreed with the Covenant Network team members. “I’m left with this: God spoke,” he said. “If I make a decision other than God has spoken, it’s going to be arbitrary.” Andrews did say that he believes in “more light breaking from Scripture … Not that the church knew the truth for 2,000 years, but that it knew where to go for it.” “The argument of proponents of homosexual behavior that, because the church departed from Scriptural teaching on divorce, it can do so as well in blessing same-sex unions fails on several grounds,” Williamson said. “The church did not depart from Scriptural teaching on divorce,” he added. “Scripture’s teaching that divorce is the result of human sin remains at the center of Presbyterian Church policy … Thus, the church developed its policy on divorce and remarriage, not in contradiction of Scripture but in light of Scripture.” Adee suggested that Scripture does not settle some issues, including the debate over homosexuality. “It would be nice if Jesus was in the room and we could ask, ‘Did you mean this?’” Jesus, Bible at odds? Adee’s comment was one of several by Covenant Network team members that suggested there was a difference between what Jesus and the Bible were saying about morality and God’s will. At one point, Williamson asked, “Is there a difference between Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, and the written Word of God?” Block responded: “We are compelled by a different method. Jesus didn’t directly address the issue of homosexuality.” For a more detailed account of the meeting between representatives of the Covenant Network and the Presbyterian Coalition, click here. |
|||
| Respond
to this article |
|||
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|||
