DETROIT, Mich. — Later this week the 221st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will consider two recommendations to allow same-sex marriages in the denomination.
GA Committee 10 on Civil Unions and Marriage Issues voted to recommend that the assembly approve both an amendment to the Book of Order that would change the definition of marriage from “a woman and a man” to “two people” and to approve an Authoritative Interpretation (AI) to the constitution that would give Presbyterian pastors discretion to conduct same-sex ceremonies.
If the General Assembly approves the amendment, it would be sent to the denomination’s 172 presbyteries for ratification, and if approved by the presbyteries could be part of the PCUSA constitution by this time next year (2015).
If the AI is approved it would go into effect in the PCUSA as soon as the General Assembly ends its meeting on June 21.
Carmen Fowler LaBerge, President of the Presbyterian Lay Committee laments the action of the committee but reminds readers that the General Assembly itself has not yet taken action on these matters. “We are hopeful that the assembly will reject both recommendations from this committee. Should the assembly affirm this committee’s recommendations it will demonstrate the PCUSA’s alignment and allegiance to the culture, not the Church of Jesus Christ.”
The amendment
Laura Messer, a young adult advisory delegate from Northern Kansas Presbytery made the motion for the committee to approve motion 10-02 to amend the description of marriage in the Book of Order. “I would like to point out,” she said, “that this changes the description of marriage, not the definition of marriage. It has always been two people.”
Two amendments were made to the overture before it was finally approved by the committee. The first had been suggested by the denomination’s Advisory Committee on the Constitution (ACC).
Evan Hansen from Eastern Oregon Presbytery made the motion to change the word “shall” to “may” in a sentence in the third paragraph. Instead of stating that the “… teaching elder, who shall agree to the couple’s request …,” it now reads “… teaching elder, who may agree …”
An ACC representative told committee members that changing the “shall” to “may” makes the statement permissive and not required. “We feel like the conscience of all pastors should be protected,” she said.
Hansen’s second amendment was to add a paragraph to the end which read: “Nothing herein shall compel a teaching elder to perform, nor compel a session to authorize the use of church property for, a marriage service that the teaching elder or the session believes is contrary to the teaching elders or the sessions discernment of the Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God.”
He called it a public safety valve and said it was an effort toward reconciliation with those in the denomination for whom the redefinition of marriage is unacceptable.
After the amendment was approved, the committee voted 49-18 in favor of 10-02.
The Authoritative Interpretation
It was Brenton Thompson of Philadelphia Presbytery who made the motion that the committee recommend GA approval of item 10-03, an Authoritative Interpretation of the constitution that would allow pastors to perform same-sex ceremonies without having to wait for presbyteries to ratify the amendment. That process can take up to a year and the AI would have immediate effect.
The motion was challenged. A commissioner said that according to Robert’s Rules, (page 223), any motion that says a person can do something that contradicts another part of the constitution — like the Book of Confessions — is out of order.
The PCUSA’s constitution is made up of two parts — the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions. Both currently define marriage as between a woman and a man. If the AI is approved, that would be a contradiction of both sections. The Book of Order may or may not be changed to define marriage as between two people, depending on the actions of the General Assembly later this week, and the possible votes of presbyteries later this year and in early 2015.”
“This is a constitutional issue,” he said, as the ACC had instructed in its counsel to the committee.
In its written advice to the committee on item 10-03, the ACC said, “This overture proposes an authoritative interpretation which would allow the exercise of pastoral discretion and freedom of conscience in conducting a marriage service for any couple as permitted by the ‘laws of the place where the couple seeks to be married.’ It suggests an interpretation contrary to the clear statement of W-4.9000. Section W-4.9001 and related citations (W-4.9002a, W-4.9004, W-4.9006) limit marriage to couples who are ‘a woman and a man.’ Because these statements are clear and unambiguous, they cannot be interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with their plain and ordinary meaning … If it is the will of the assembly to change the definition of marriage, such a change is better accomplished by amendment of W-4.9000 rather than by authoritative interpretation.”
An ACC representative told the committee that there are instances “where we are intentionally in conflict with each other.” She also said that Roberts Rules were subordinate to the denomination’s constitution.
Committee chair Jeffrey Bridgeman of Santa Barbara Presbytery agreed with the ACC representative and the motion was allowed.
Thompson then explained why he made the motion to approve item 10-03. Of the three similar overtures that requested the assembly approve an AI, item 10-03 had the most concurrences from other presbyteries. That reason, he said, gave him the most confidence that it spoke with clarity.
Slight amendments were made to some of the language in the overture, and then it was approved by a 51-18 paper ballot vote.
About the recommendation that the assembly issue both an AI and send an amendment to the presbyteries, LaBerge said, “An AI is perceived by the people in the pews as an end-around our system. Passage of both an AI and an amendment leaves us in the conflicted reality of knowingly allowing something that is not permitted by our constitution without waiting for the presbyteries to have their voice. It is possible that the amendment could be defeated by the presbyteries and then where would we be on this?”
Reconciliation
Throughout the two days of meetings, the committee members heard stories of pain for both sides of the issue. Pastors who couldn’t marry members of their flock and couples who could not marry their loved one because it might get their pastor in ecclesiastical trouble. On the other side of the issue were stories of departure from pastors who had seen their home churches and churches they had ministered to, leave the PCUSA to join other Presbyterian denominations where marriage is clearly defined as between one man and one woman.
Commissioner Stuart Broberg from Washington Presbytery made an impassioned appeal for some kind of reconciliation, especially if these matters passed the General Assembly.
Broberg said that “if we just act upon the things before us and do not have some kind of plan to have reconciliation be a part of that, we can assume and know what the outcome would be.”
He called for reconciliation in the church, and wanted the denomination to have “a proactive plan, to sit and talk together and study Scripture and pray together … believing and trusting that we are a lot more than just changing something in the Book of Order, but we are really about changing the heart of the church.”
“It’s easy to change something in the Book of Order, it is hard to bring reconciliation and unity in the church,” he said.
His motion, which after one amendment was approved, read “Recommend the General Assembly direct the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board and the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly establish a way to bring reconciliation to the church that would visit each presbytery to serve as a resource for each presbytery’s discussion of these actions in congregations and the presbytery at large to present voices of reconciliation for the unity of the church.”
A committee’s “grammar elf” was given the task of cleaning up the language of the approved motion.
At a press conference following the action, committee chairman Jeff Bridgeman was asked how that reconciliation might be achieved as this most polarized point in the life of the PCUSA. He acknowledged that he does not know, that the committee did not address the how but referred the matter to the Presbyterian Mission Agency Board.
LaBerge asked Bridgeman if the committee had taken into account Hunter Farrell’s comments about the likely break in fellowship with current global partners. “We heard his report,” Bridgeman acknowledged, “but we didn’t talk about that.”
In other business, the committee voted to:
- Disapprove item 10-07 from Eastern Korean Presbytery that asked for a task force to be created to identify common ground and reconcilable difference with respect to same-gender marriage.
- Disapprove item 10-01 from Lehigh Presbytery that would have prohibited pastors from presiding at the legal civil marriage of a couple.
- Answer item 10-05 from Midwest Hanmi Presbytery with the action it took on 10-02.
- A answer items 10-04 and 10-06 with the action taken on 10-03.
The 221st General Assembly will debate and take actions on these issues later this week.
20 Comments. Leave new
“[T]his changes the description of marriage, not the definition of marriage. It has always been two people.” Exhibiting such a gift of irrelevant hair-splitting at such a tender age, Laura Messer is destined to become a power in the PCUSA – if there remains a PCUSA in which to become a power.
How do we find out how members of the committee voted, or was it a secret ballot?
Goodbye PCUSA.
Hair-splitting was my first thought as well. The idea that it has passed 10-2 already says enough for me to quit agonizing, studying scripture, praying, discerning, listening. I’m done. I’ve been disillusioned since 2011 when lowering the standards for ordination passed.
As a Middle Easterner Christian I mourn this sad movement of secularization of faith. Unfortunately approaches such as this radical shift from the biblical definition of marriage into a deceptive “description” of a sacred covenant will cause more Muslims call Christianity a “western religion,” which is not. I pray for our sisters and brothers at the GA to take their responsibility seriously by being sensitive to the truth of the God’s Holy Word and the Holy Spirit. Whatever the outcome of this GA might be WILL NOT define/describe who followers of Jesus Christ are. We are called to believe and follow a Master who constantly transforms and teaches us the theology of suffering.
This is sad but not surprising news. This committee has chosen the path of secularism, and no empty appeals for church unity and reconciliation can obscure that fact.
Whether you use the word description or definition, of course, makes no difference…to God. God described and defined marriage and NOTHING that the PCUSA can do will change that. At one point I thought I would have to leave the PCUSA if this measured passed. That is still on option but I have been reading Jude lately. I think it is more important to “contend for the faith” within this denomination. Sadly, so many of the members that held the word of God sacred have left that this may be difficult. I believe I will continue to act to remind my Session, my presbytery and the denomination of how wrong this attempt is.
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” So says Amos in his chapter 3. What this is really about is redefining sin. You’ve got people 180 degrees in disagreement with each other on whether practicing same-gender sex is sin or not. Jesus said “All you need to say is either ‘yes’ or ‘no’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” In James 5 you read the same thing. If you cannot agree on this, you cannot walk together. To me, what should be the discussion is how to help practicing homosexuals recognise their sin and how to help them overcome it.
Dear Elder Ralph,
There will be nothing fruitful, for you or anyone else at this point, in the vein of a resolve to fight for reform in the Presbyterian Church(USA). The belief in Scripture and catechesis as the only authority has slipped into desuetude in this once hale and hearty bulwark of the faith. Consequently, the Presbyterian Church (USA) itself has descended irretrievably into the abyss of apostasy, and irrelevance. Your only viable alternative, in the matter of the promulgation and defense of your beliefs, is to submit your vote- with your feet. John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Knox, William Goodman, Jonathan Edwards, J Gresham Machen, D James Kennedy, Samuel Rutherford and the rest of the great mortal vessels of our faith tradition, gone to glorify Christ in the Kirk Triumphant, would unanimously concur with that statement. The Scriptures are calling for you to come out. God, in the particular integralities of His everlasting righteousness, has commanded you in
His word and the strength for you to do so is forthcoming. You will thank Him incalculably more profusely when you find yourself in a godly hearth (like the PCA, OPC, RPCNA). Not only does God know I do, He predestined it.
Dear Jan,
You have been brought to the point to which I was brought in 2012. Your realization is that any further attempt to campaign for legitimate Biblical reform in the PCUSA is pointless and damaging to your soul and nothing in the traditional vein, in terms of reform or reconciliation, is viable or realistic any longer. To be frank, no other denomination with ties to the World Communion of Reformed Churches, will offer you the respite you seek from the ravages of liberal theology for very long,either. When many left the mainline, they brought with them the disastrous Confession of 1967; which brazenly marginalized many of the essential tenets regarding salvation, predestination and the nature of Scripture. This was the trajectory decried when it was written by the great theologian, the Rev. Cornelius van Til. Hence, the seeds have been planted therein which will lead eventually to a grotesque, vulgar germination of the very Biblical, catechetical and moral dismissiveness that has reduced the PCUSA to the horrific cauldron of heresy it has become.
In the 1980s, the late Rev. Dr. Francis Schaeffer observed that “liberal theology is just secular humanism that uses theological terms, and that’s all it ever was”. He was right and the very dissent to theological modernism outlined by him and Machen has taken inextricable root in Louisville! If your desire to fully extricate yourself from such an abyss is real, and I’m confident that it is, then a reformed denomination within NAPARC is where you want God to lead you.
So a young adult ADVISORY delegate is allowed to make a motion. I thought that advisory meant that one had voice but no vote. If one is not allowed to vote, how can one make a motion?
Since the vote was by paper ballot, I doubt that will ever be known, & if it is, certainly not released. I suppose one could ask the commissioners from your presbytery how they voted when it comes to the floor of the whole GA.
I had a similar thought, but didn’t know what restrictions were placed on advisory delegates. I also can’t help but wonder if a youth delegate was selected to make this motion in order to give the impression that changing “the description of marriage” to allow for gay marriage will somehow attract youth to the PC(USA).
Any thought that a Pastor can refuse to perform the ceremony is naive. When the Pastor is sued in civil court, there is no longer any religious reason to be given because they have already agreed implicitly by staying in the denomination. It would seem that the only way a Pastor could have a valid defense in court would be to leave the PC(USA).
Take a look at the pitiful points of rationale that the committee offered in support of 10-02. Under the heading, ‘Theological and Ethical Framework,’ you might expect to see the committee give a nod to, say, the Bible. No, instead what we get is cultural conformity to what feels “right”–and the irrelevant stuff spouted across the rest of society. Hence, they advise the GA:
“A basic way to look at the question of whether to change the definition of marriage is to ask whether the addition or extension of a benefit to a new category of persons takes anything away from the existing category or set of persons.”
This is not “basic”–but it is certainly typical. This is supposed to encourage me, as a husband to one woman, to ask, “How will acceptance of gay marriage take ‘anything away from’ me?” Then I’m supposed to make the seemingly enlightened discovery that, since it takes nothing away from me, I should support gay marriage.
Does Jesus ever counsel any such approach to fundamental moral matters? The committee is clearly more committed to a self-centered, secular individualistic “ethics,” than to anything that the Bible might have to say.
I do not oppose gay marriage because I believe that it threatens me, personally. Rather, in what I believe is consistent with Paul’s thoughts in Romans, I believe that gay marriage reflects a disorder that then further threatens the social fabric at the level of essential order, as well as at the level of motivating ideals. While many women have been remarkably fast to support it, I expect women and children to pay an especially heavy price as male social and sexual loss of order grows ever deeper and more widespread.
Advisory Delegates have voice and vote in committee and are limited to voice only on the plenary floor.
Also, have you ever sat and listened to the story of a Christian who is also LGBTQ? Have you ever witnessed their faith in action? Seen their love and devotion to Christ? Have you ever seen an LGBTQ couple who are both devoted to God and to the Church of Jesus Christ and also seen them persecuted by the church who raised them. No one wakes up one morning and says “I want to be homeless.” There is a stigma attached with that label. By the same token, no one wakes up one morning and says “I think I will be gay. I want to be outcast and live day to day with a potential threat of violence.”
I believe that God is bigger than anything I can think or imagine, and I believe that God’s commandment to love one another trumps all else. Romans 13:10 “Love is the fulfillment of the law.” If people love God and each other, then why do we continue to stand in the way?
Anyone who is homosexual is loved and accepted by God in the same way a liar or a prideful person is accepted by God. All of these are sins as shown by God’s Word and all sins need to be fought against on a regular basis.I do not want to persecute anyone but I do want to live by God’s rules and ask that others do the same. As a parent God has rules for His children and we must obey His rules. It doesn’t mean He doesn’t love us. It means He does love us. The problem occurs when a homosexual enters into a relationship with another homosexual and breaks God’s law. These people do not acknowledge that they are sinning. It is interesting that you quote Romans but do not mention the first chapter. The word abomination used in most translations makes God’s intention pretty clear. Homosexuals are free to love God and stay celibate. Many do not chose to do this and so enter into and remain in a state of sinning.
Karen,
You suggest that “God’s commandment to love one another trumps all else.” But surely, this, the second great commandment, does not trump the first great commandment–the commandment to love God. Further: if our first allegiance and trust is not to God, through Christ, then our manner of loving others will be a matter of our fallen tastes and wishes. Christians are never called to make “loving” end runs around God’s righteousness and holiness. The Spirit moves boldly, compassionately, and lovingly. But the Spirit never violates the Father or the Son.
Anyone who devotedly practices what the Bible identifies as sin, is someone I’m not at liberty to affirm as one who is walking with Christ. John, in his first letter, tells us that a devoted practicing of sin is a contradiction of Christian identity. So, while I know some caring and highly engaged LGBT persons, I do not see that Jesus, as the Bible presents him, is the source or goal of their faith, love, or devotion. As far as I can tell, they–and the progressive wing of the PCUSA–are enamored of a different Jesus.
Elder Ralph, Kevin and others, thank you for your eloquent words. I am always looking for a gracious way to respond to supporters of same sex marriage and you have done it well. I am currently a ruling elder in my church and completely torn up about this. I know I have to leave but it is so hard. I tried church shopping back when 10-A was passed and that led to no where. Like Elder Ralph, I remained when other members left but I’m not sure I have any fight left in me.
I pray for discernment and strength from my Lord, Jesus Christ.
Its like you read my thoughts! You appear to know so
much approximately this, like you wrote the book in it or something.
I feel that you can do with some p.c. to drive the message home a bit, however instead
of that, that is great blog. An excellent read. I’ll certainly be
back.