by Doug King, Witherspoon WebWeaver

The Covenant Network of Presbyterians gathered over 300 people in Minneapolis on November 6 - 8, 2008, to reflect on the theme of “Covenant: God is faithful still.” Much of the three-day conference  focused on the opportunity and challenge presented by the action of the 218^th General Assembly last June. That Assembly, responding to an overture from the Presbytery of Boston, proposed an amendment of the church’s Book of Order, section G-6.0106b, which requires “fidelity and chastity” of any Presbyterian seeking to be ordained as a minister or elder in the church.

The Covenant Network was founded in 1997 to work for the full inclusion (and ordination) of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). But as the Rev. Dr. Tim Hart-Andersen acknowledged in one plenary discussion of strategy for supporting the proposed Amendment 08-B, the leaders of the group are not entirely agreed on how to respond to this opportunity for change.  

For the text of the Boston overture as it was considered by the Assembly.

How to pass the amendment – By argument or by conversation? By moving quickly or slowly?

The two-hour session on Thursday afternoon was led by Hart-Andersen, along with attorney Douglas Nave, and the Rev. Tricia Dykers Koenig. They explained the actions of the Assembly, and then dealt with ways people might help their presbyteries through study and debate over the next few months, before they act to approve or reject the amended version of behavioral standards for ordination. Nave has worked for years, as an out gay man and an ordained elder, to help change the denomination’s exclusionary policies on ordination, providing expert legal guidance for many in the process. Tricia Dykers Koenig is National Organizer for Covenant Network. Hart-Andersen, who was one of the founders of the Covenant Network, is the pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Minneapolis, which hosted the conference.

Each of the three speakers, and others who participated during the session, suggested in various ways that the group’s commitment to the full inclusion of lgbt Presbyterians must somehow be fulfilled through debate and argument, yes – but not at the expense of breaking the ties of trust and love that are supposed to bind us together as sisters and brothers in one church. Nave and others emphasized that we will gain nothing if “justice” is achieved by a change in the ordination standards of the church, unless attitudes are also change and some kind of “grace” is brought into the church as well. (Speaking as a lawyer, Nave added that the other actions of the 215^th GA, including the elimination of earlier Authoritative Interpretations condemning same-sex relationships, really mean that lgbt persons who believe they are called to ordained service can already move down that path, even without the change in G-6.0106b. Other disputed that optimistic claim, however.)

This sense of tension between pursuing the struggle for justice and inclusion, while also seeking changes of heart and mind that will preserve the unity of the church, ran through many of the presentations. One member of the Covenant Network board, Dr. Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York, and a member of the Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church which reported to the 217^th General Assembly in 2006, recently published a statement in Presbyterian Outlook, urging that presbyteries respond to the proposed amendment by voting to take no action.

Click here for excerpts from Wheeler's article, and some responses to it.

Presbyterian Outlook provides a good summary of this session on strategy, and the tension between the two approaches of “conversation or combat.”

Presbyterian News Service has added its report on this strategy session.

Covenant – What does it mean for us today?

Prof. William Stacy Johnson, author of A Time to Embrace: Same Gender Relationship in Religion, Law and Politics, gave two addresses dealing with the meaning of covenant. He first dealt with the divine promise side of the covenant: “‘I will Be your God’ – But How?” And then he considered the human side of the covenant arrangement: “‘You Will Be My People’ – But When and Where? Marriage As Living Example.” Johnson, who is associate professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, spoke as a theologian, but also as another member of the Peace, Unity and Purity task force.

Out of his experience on the Task Force, Johnson said of the proposed amendment to the Book of Order, “If I were in charge, I wouldn’t be putting an amendment before the church this year. But I’m not in charge, and I would argue that this overture is not about sexuality, but about ordination and the Book of Order.” In the process of discussion and action on the amendment, he said, “we need to listen to the people who disagree with us.” He, like a number of other speakers, cited Barack Obama’s speech after his election as one good example of what Presbyterians need to be about: listening to their opponents and responding to them in ways that may make some real change possible.

Good reports on Johnson’s first address are provided by Jerry Van Marter of Presbyterian News Service, and by Leslie Scanlon of Presbyterian Outlook. Reports on his second address will be listed here as soon as they’re available.

Prof. Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia, speaking Friday morning on the theme “Summoned to a Dialogic Life,” emphasized the complexity of the Hebrews’ covenant tradition. He contrasted, for example, God’s covenant with Abraham – a one-sided, unconditional promise that God would care for Abraham’s descendants – with the covenant with Moses, which involved demands on the people, and was conditioned on their faithfulness in living up to those demands.

Both liberals and conservatives, said Brueggemann, fall into distortions of those two understandings of covenant. Conservatives tend to make the demands (for “purity,” for example) into absolutes, while liberals lean toward affirming the unconditional grace seen through God’s covenant with Abraham – and no demands. In the debates on ordination, he suggested, we must resist the temptations to absolutize either rigid demands or a kind of “anything goes” insistence on God’s grace.

Brueggemann’s presentation is reported, too, by both Outlook and  Presbyterian News Service.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Added on 11-11-08]

Seeing gay and lesbian relationships through new lens

Stacy Johnson’s second address to Covenant Network conference

Building on his first presentation on covenant, William Stacy Johnson spoke again on Saturday morning on the topic, “‘You Will By My People’ – But When and Where? Marriage As Living Example.”

When conservatives discuss sexual morality, he said, they often focus on rules – as in, “Are you obeying the rules,” said theologian William Stacy Johnson. And liberals often start by asking, “Is this relationship sincere?”

But Johnson suggests that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has nothing to gain by continuing the same debates over homosexuality that have polarized the denomination for decades. A better question, he suggested, would be to ask: “What does my relationship with another demonstrate about the gospel?” Johnson is arguing, in other words, for a change in approach.

“I think it is time for us to quit fighting over gay sexuality using the old rules, the old paradigms, the old lenses” Instead, he said, Presbyterians should stop debating gay ordination as a political issue, and see the people behind the issue – often committed couples, some of them raising children. 

The full report from Presbyterian Outlook >>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Worship

As is their custom, the Covenant Network included numerous services of worship in the conference, along with two periods featuring a wide variety of workshops. The Presbyterian Outlook reports on the first of the worship services, which was led by the Rev. Diane Givens-Moffett, pastor of St. James Presbyterian Church in Greensboro, N.C. Preaching from Acts 15, and the debate in the early church over the proper place of Gentiles, she suggested that debates in the church are not necessarily a bad thing, for they can lead to new understanding, and the strengthening of the community’s covenant.

She used as her text a passage from the 15th chapter of Acts, in which Paul and Barnabas were involved in a church debate over the Gentiles. And she made the analogy that debates within the church are not necessarily bad – that “when we can argue well and debate openly, a new day can dawn, a new season can emerge, a new time can spring forth and our comprehensive covenant can be strengthened.” Even harsh debates, she said, can lead us to new understandings, as “we can see how God keeps breaking out of the boxes we place God in, refusing to be shaped in our image, defined with our lines and drawn with our limited understanding.”

More from Outlook >> (Scroll down to the end of the article.)

Another worship service, on Friday evening, was led by Barbara Lundblad, a Lutheran minister, associate professor of preaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York, who has also served as Co-President of the Network for Inclusive Vision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Outlook also has a report on her sermon >>

Dr. Barbara G. Wheeler, who is president of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, and served on the Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, and is a member of the Board of the Covenant Network, recently published an article in The Presbyterian Outlook, expressing her support for the amendment of G-6.0106b that was sent to the presbyteries by the 218^th General Assembly. But she urges that for this year, the presbyteries should simply take no action on the amendment.

Wheeler’s article >>

A few excerpts from her article:

Ever since G-6.0106b was added to the Book of Order, I have been working with other Presbyterians to remove or replace it because — I am convinced — it is Biblically, theologically, and legally unsound. In June, the General Assembly placed before the church as Amendment 08-B a beautifully-crafted alternative. Grateful as I am to the framers from Boston Presbytery and the commissioners who recognized the value of their work, I do not think that it will benefit the church to act on this constitutional amendment this year.

... I still think that G-6.0106b must be removed. It is a blot on the Constitution. ...

[But] here are reasons that Presbyterians should not pour their hopes and energy into a pitched battle this year to replace, or retain, G-6.0106b.

The door to ordination is [already] open. ...  On the other hand, the removal or replacement of G-6.0106b will not widen the path to ordination. ...

In short: the removal or retention of G-6.0106b is no longer the key to determining who does or does not get ordained or installed.

A yes-no vote on Amendment 08-B will not accomplish what remains to be done: reaching a theological consensus about norms for human sexual behavior. ... Therefore, I have been deeply engaged, in my presbytery and elsewhere, in serious “struggles for the Gospel” with colleagues whose views are different from mine. ...

The goal of full acceptance for LGBT persons in the church and wider society will be furthered only by searching Biblical study and loving theological conversation in which Presbyterians feel free to explore views different from those the majority now holds. ...

The costs of the battle over constitutional change may be greater than the benefits of deciding to replace or retain Amendment 08-B. One lesson from past clashes over constitutional amendments is that the side effects can be costly. Presbyterian fights over sex attract media attention, and the church loses the capacity to communicate the meaning of its actions to its members. ...

If the amendment is defeated by negative votes, the headlines will scream, “Presbyterians Vote Against Homosexuals.” LGBT persons in the church and beyond will be devastated. Many gay people, especially youth who are struggling to come to terms with their sexuality, will hear this as a rejection of their humanity and their faith. ...

[A] decision not to decide now, which would be the clear message if presbyteries choose to take no action, would keep Presbyterians together to wrestle a blessing from this important issue that God has set before the church. ...

Around the world, religious zeal fuels violence. In many churches, it creates bitter conflict. In such a context, imagine the gospel power of a community whose members have opposing deep convictions about an issue but still model gentle, respectful treatment of each other, put the interests of others ahead of their own, regard others as better than themselves, and stop short of humiliating their opponents, even when they have the few extra votes necessary to do so — all possible because the One who took human form chose humble obedience and generous service as the way to victory and glory. His body, his church, can live that way too.

If you have comments to offer
on this proposal for "No Action"
on Amendment 08-B,
please send a note
to be shared here.

The Rev. John Shuck, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethton, Tennessee, responded with this critique on his blog, shuckandjive

I still think that G-6.0106b must be removed. It is a blot on the Constitution. It was tortuously worded to create the appearance of fairness — the same standard for gay and straight officers — as cover for its discriminatory intent, the exclusion of gays and lesbians. It promotes misuse of the church’s great confessions of faith as catalogs of sins. By specifying only one kind of behavior that “demonstrates the Christian gospel in the church and the world” (G-6.0106a), it elevates the sexual dimensions of the Christian life over those that receive equal or greater emphasis in Scripture.

She has that right. Then she makes a 180 degree turn. Not this year, she says: “A yes-no vote on Amendment 08-B will not accomplish what remains to be done: reaching a theological consensus about norms for human sexual behavior.”

It is hard to get a grasp on privilege. Here is a seminary president, a straight person, a well-meaning liberal, bright and articulate, who is an ordained elder. I don't know if it is a matter of caving under pressure or fear of success, but it seems at the moment when significant change can happen, liberals get scared. They are scared of losing the institution. Scared that conservatives will leave. Scared that demands for justice do not sound nice.

It is offensive, frankly, after all the work that has gone into bringing people thus far, that a straight would have the temerity to say it's not time yet for you gay people to get your rights.

What is this about the need to reach "theological consensus about norms for sexual behavior"? Are we supposed to wait for justice until every Presbyterian realizes that discrimination is not what Jesus would do? Theological consensus never occurs prior to major change. Theology follows politics. It always has. We only think it happens before. Change comes from the hard work of politicking and voting. Justice is not granted. It is taken.

Did the church need to wait until no one was racist before working for civil rights? Did the Presbyterian Church reach "theological consensus" before ordaining women? No. People are still racist and sexist in the church. Those who wish to keep the status quo have no motivation for conversation unless they are being pushed to change.

Dr. Wheeler writes: “The goal of full acceptance for LGBT persons in the church and wider society will be furthered only by searching Biblical study and loving theological conversation in which Presbyterians feel free to explore views different from those the majority now holds.”

This is where Dr. Wheeler is fundamentally wrong. Obviously conversation about these matters is a good thing and it will help in some cases. But conversation is not enough. We are dealing with deep-seated issues that will not ever change for many people.

We do not live in a friendly world. We do not serve in a friendly church. Discrimination is ugly. It hurts. It is most insidious when it is within the church and covered over with theological language. There are large numbers of people in the church who will not get it. Justice is not about waiting for them to get it before making needed changes.

However, there are more and more people who do get it. They get it because they have been forced to deal with it. There is never discernment, discussion, or chatting over tea and Cheetos unless we force the conversation.

This business about conversation and discernment and theological consensus before change is a stalling tactic. The only people who are for this are the conservatives who do not want change and straight liberals with privilege who only want change if it doesn't upset their apple cart.

The revised amendment may not pass. It will be disappointing if that happens. But we have barely begun the voting and the privileged liberals are already throwing in the towel. I believe it can happen.

Make the change. Vote yes on the new G-6.0106b and talk it up!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~

Toby Rogers, the new Associate Director of More Light Presbyterians, responded on Shuck’s blog:

John:

This is excellent. Thank you for your thoughtful writing!

What's strange about Wheeler's argument is how un-Biblical it is. "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8) I don't recall Jesus saying we had to wait for theological consensus before working for justice. Wheeler's argument appears to make an idol out of consensus -- which is troubling to say the least.

For more ways to get involved in the movement to approve Amendment 08-B in the presbyteries please check out:
http://www.mlp.org/answeringgodscall

Again thanks for your thoughtful post!

All the best,

Toby Rogers
Associate Director
More Light Presbyterians

“Our LGBT friends certainly deserve a little better.”

This essay has come to us from the Rev. Chris Joiner, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Franklin, Tenn. He prepared it, he writes, “in response to a series of conversations moving around the presbytery on the question of ‘voting not to vote.’ ”

I have great respect for Barbara Wheeler and for the work she did on the PUP Task Force. Indeed, the work that she did, and led them in doing, is still I think the best chance we have as a denomination for moving forward together.

It is because of the work of that task force, and because of the many statements she makes in this recent article, that I cannot agree with her on the upcoming vote.

Wheeler herself states that G-6.0106b is: 

1. A blot on the Constitution
2. Tortuously worded to create the appearance of fairness.
3. Discriminatory in its intention to exclude gays and lesbians
4. Promotes misuse of the church’s confessions
5. Elevates sexual dimensions of the Christian life over others
6. Assumes and anchors certain teachings that are distortions of the gospel

She states that the presence of G-6.0106b has created an environment where:

1. Countless LGBT persons have their vocations of partnership and service arbitrarily rejected
2. LGBT people who are without the rare gift of celibacy are left stranded without support or affirmation
3. LGBT people are left helpless, more distanced from God, and subject to a teaching about God that is not true.

In my opinion, if anyone believes that the above is true and then goes on to not vote when the question is posed at the presbytery level, that person is voting for the status quo. Wheeler as much as admits this when she states in her article, in passing, “Yes, not voting will count against the replacement of G-6.0106b.” Wheeler is willing to bypass this goal (one gets the sense she means temporarily) while we wait on the day in the future when, by working together in unity and common discernment, the church achieves the full acceptance of LGBT people. She makes a good argument, but I disagree with it on the following grounds:

1.  Her argument assumes that the door is now open to ordination, thereby circumventing (b). She is of course right about this, and that is why there is already a fairly significant exodus occurring out of this denomination by the more conservative pastors and churches, costly litigation, and the not so veiled threat by San Diego Presbytery to withdraw as a presbytery. It is important to note that all of this is happening quite apart from the question of the removal of b, and largely in reaction to other actions of the 2008 General Assembly to affirm and the actions of the 2006 assembly to approve PUP. If we were to use the logic of Wheeler, we would have to assume that the folks at that 2006 assembly who urged the defeat of PUP (using some of the same reasons Wheeler now uses), were ultimately correct. I don’t think she would say we should have passed up the chance to vote on PUP then, even though the exodus of conservatives that was predicted by many has occurred and continues to occur. It is my feeling that even if the presbyteries vote overwhelmingly not to ratify this assembly action, the bleeding will not stop. There will always be another reason to leave, or to threaten to leave, or to withhold funds (or designate them). Many of these folks will say behind closed doors, and some of them right out loud, that this is an apostate denomination. There’s not a lot of wiggle room there for unity. It is perhaps just a touch condescending to the conservatives out there to hear a member of the PUP Task Force say, in essence, “We’ve already got ordination, so we can wait out b until more conservatives come around.” That’s the essence of her argument here, I think, and it is not one I would welcome if I were a conservative. I suspect many of them would like to be treated with a bit more respect, and given the chance to have an open, adult conversation, followed by a vote.

2.  She argues rightly that a yes-no vote will not accomplish what remains to be done: reaching a theological consensus about norms for human sexual behavior. She sees this consensus emerging as the church engages in conversations bound together by covenants that protect participants from public exposure, and thus opens the door for candor. I think this is precisely the way to go. It is my hope that this presbytery can see its way clear to formally creating such opportunities. Unfortunately, with one or two notable exceptions, this presbytery has not done so in regard to this issue, and it is only the possibility of a vote that has led us to even having this conversation. So, as far as the Presbytery of Middle Tennessee is concerned, the GA did us a favor by forcing the issue. We have an opportunity to construct the kinds of conversational communities Wheeler envisions in anticipation of a vote. Voting not to vote might have the salutary effect Wheeler envisions in some places, but here in Middle Tennessee I fear it will only reinforce our tendencies to not talk at all about this issue out of the mistaken assumption that it is an issue for “blue states.” We need to talk. And, frankly, I’m not under any illusion that our presbytery will vote to ratify. But we do have an opportunity here to have a conversation along the lines of what Wheeler imagines. If our whole conversation and debate centers on whether or not to vote, we will have missed the mark.

3.  Wheeler states that the costs may out-weigh the benefits. This is a highly utilitarian view, and I think her weakest argument. She places a lot of weight on media attention, citing anecdotal reports from “conservative pastors” that many of their congregants get their Presbyterian news from talk radio. Once their opinions are formed (by I assume Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity), then church leaders are too late to interpret and explain. These “poorly informed” congregants will defect, and it will be our loss. While I suspect that she has grossly over-simplified the dilemma and caricatured many conservatives here, her point about any defections being our loss is valid. My point is that many of these folks have either gone or have one foot out the door. The actions we take to vote or not to vote will not likely stop this exodus. Furthermore, media attention from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity et al, or the lack of it, should not be a motivating factor in this decision. Our LGBT friends certainly deserve a little better.

I guess for me that is the crux. I have a gay brother who long ago made his own rather quiet exodus from the church. His exodus, and the thousands like him over the years, begs to be noted in this debate. I have no doubt that eventually the full acceptance of LGBT people will be a reality. In the meantime, a General Assembly has taken an action and asked for presbyteries to make their voices heard. I really will be okay, and I think this congregation will be okay, no matter which way the vote comes out. But, if we vote to not vote, I can’t shake another voice from another time, who wisely counseled from a jail in Birmingham, Alabama:

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch-defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent – and often even vocal – sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

I know this is a different issue, and that there is no direct correlation between Martin Luther King, Jr. and the fight for full inclusion of African Americans in society with the fight for full inclusion of LGBT persons into our churches (though there are several intriguing points of convergence). But, if Wheeler really believes everything she said about G-6.0106b in the opening section of her article, then to choose to give away our voice, our vote, to willingly divest ourselves of the chance to once again speak up against this injustice, is tantamount to maintaining the status quo.

I speak as someone who has never really been a part of groups like the Covenant Network or Witherspoon Society, though my goals line up with theirs. I am not an activist by any stretch. I have many people I love and respect that will defend G-6.0106b and strongly disagree with me on this issue. If any of them ever left the church, I would be hurt and diminished. I hope our fragile unity can be preserved. I hope I will always be found among those who show great respect to those with whom I disagree and who would never wish them to leave. I feel like they respect me. But, to me, it is not ultimately an act of respect to abstain from voting. What is ultimately respectful is having a sustained, educated, loving conversation, followed by a constitutional vote, followed by a covenantal effort to remain in community, no matter how the vote turns out. Voting is not inherently divisive, and the fact that it is being construed as such is troubling. Voting is not the problem. How we choose to engage one another before and after the vote is the problem. Choosing not to vote is choosing, in essence, to ignore the real problem.

Peace,

Chris Joiner

Remarks generated by the Wheeler and Loudon articles in The Presbyterian Outlook
[11-12-08]

From his own involvement in the work of the committee that sent 08-B to the presbyteries, Johnson urges that the decisions of the committee – and the Assembly as a whole – be taken seriously, for they believed that their other actions to eliminate old Authoritative Interpretations and to leave ordination decisions to the discernment of presbyteries and sessions should be completed by the amendment of the existing G-6.0106b.  Further, he questions the possibility of fruitful conversation after so many years of talk without action.

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

Witherspoon’s Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, Witherspoon’s Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?

Plan now for our 2010 Ghost Ranch Seminar!

GHOST RANCH SEMINAR

July 26-August 1, 2010

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: