Welcome to Witherspoon on the Web       

News and networking for progressive Presbyterians

Home page

Ordination concerns

Immigrant rights

War on Iraq

Search Archive
2006 General Assembly Global & Social concerns Election 2008 Israel & Palestine About us Just for fun

News of the PC(USA)

Torture --
It's time to resist!
Other churches, other faiths War on Iran?? Join us! Notes from your WebWeaver

What's Where

Our reports about the
2008 General Assembly

You'll find much more on the GA at JustPresbys -- the shared website of 6 progressive Presbyterian organizations.

ABOUT US

The Summer 2008 issue of
Network News
is posted here
- in Adobe PDF format.

Click here for earlier issues
Adobe PDF  Click here to download (free!) Adobe Reader software to view this and all PDF files.

News of the Society
How to join us
Witherspoon's
Global Engagement Initiative
Dancing with God -- reports from the 2005 Witherspoon conference on mission for peace and justice

SEARCH

CONNECTIONS

Coming events calendar 

Do you want to announce an event?
Please send a note!
Food for the spirit
Book notes

Go to  Amazon.com

LINKS

NEWS of the Presbyterian Church

Got news??
Send us a note!
Women's Concerns
Social and global concerns
The Middle East conflict
The War in Iraq
Hurricane Katrina
U. S. Politics
Election 2008
Economic justice
Fair Food Campaign
Sexual justice
Peacemaking & international concerns
Caring for the environment
Immigrant rights
Racial concerns
Church & State
The death penalty
The media
OTHER CHURCHES, OTHER FAITHS
Do you want regular e-mail updates when stories are added to our web site?
Just send a note!
The WebWeaver's Space
ARCHIVES
JUST FOR FUN
Want books?
Search Now:

 

A lawyer takes a thoughtful look at

Amendment O -- the ban on holy unions

by Doug Nave

The author is a Presbyterian attorney, currently practicing in London, England.

The sections of this essay:

Some basic concerns about "O"
Why are we so sure about homosexuality?
How should we govern ourselves?
What are our values?

For some thoughts on dealing with "O" in our presbyteries, click here.

For a second and newer discussion by Doug Nave, click here.



Our General Assembly's passage of Amendment O for consideration by the presbyteries, and the debate that already has begun over the possible meanings of that legislation, break my heart and, I believe, break the heart of God. While I certainly feel qualified as an attorney to debate the finer points of the legalisms that seem to have consumed our church, I wonder if that's really what we're called to do. Can I simply ask some questions, on which I hope and pray that anyone reading this might reflect sincerely and with an open mind?

Some basic concerns about Amendment O:

1. Our ministers bless, and our congregations pray for, persons joined together in any number of endeavors -- including men in armies, friends on a picnic ground, contestants in a football game, and members of Congress. When did we decide that it would be inappropriate to bless two men or two women who have made commitments to try to build a life of fidelity and love together? Do we really think that killing an adversary in battle, political maneuvering for legislative gain, or other goals are more worthy?

2. Do we really believe that the essence of intimate human relationships is sexual activity? Do we think that all of the married heterosexual couples in our congregations are consumed by sex -- and more to the point, do we really want to know? If not, why do we make assumptions or focus on this when we think about same-sex couples?

3. Am I alone in my concern that our opposition to the formation of committed, faithful relationships contributes to the promiscuity and alienation we see in some parts of the gay community? Has our church contributed to the "anarchy in sexual relationships" that our Confession of 1967 deplores, in making it more difficult for our brothers and sisters in Christ to form stable, responsible partnerships? And if we are unwilling to accept responsibility for that, why do we continue to pour resources into programs recognizing, counseling, and supporting heterosexual couples?

4. Can we discuss the proposed amendment forthrightly? Are we helped in our understanding when Mr. Poppinga denies that the proposal would prevent one from unlocking the church doors for a same-sex ceremony (the amendment states that "church property shall not be used for" such ceremonies, which seems much the same thing), or when others suggest that saying grace before a meal with a same-sex couple would be barred (the prohibition would appear applicable only if an ordained person pronounced blessing on the relationship in that prayer)? The text of Amendment O, as posted on the PC(USA) website, is as follows:

Scripture and our Confessions teach that God's intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness. Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall not take part in conducting any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God's intention as expressed in the preceding sentence.

If we are truly to have a fair and open discussion about what is being considered, perhaps we can all start with something more than paraphrases or isolated words that may not convey the fair import of the paragraph. That is first-year lawyering, and responsible discipleship.

I appreciate the dedication and sincerity that many have brought to these discussions. However, I wonder how many of us are really serious, bringing the same intentionality and rigor to our considerations that we require of our civil courts. For example, might I ask some more general questions:



Why Are We So Sure about Homosexuality?

1. Do we really believe that we know everything there is to know about human sexuality? How do we so blithely dismiss as "not definitive proof" the mass of studies that, taken together, show genetic concordance rates of 50% for homosexuality -- and only 12% for left-handedness? What are we to make of the findings from the National Cancer Institute -- reviewed and approved by independent statisticians at places like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- showing genetic linkages to homosexuality that could occur by chance less than once in 100,000 times? Why do we insist that genes can't account for homosexuality because "homosexuals don't reproduce," or because any genetic basis for homosexuality would have been eliminated through natural selection, when we know that parents who do not exhibit an unusual genetic trait (like red hair) nevertheless can pass it along to their child (through the combination of two recessive alleles) and that non-productive genes may survive natural selection (as does the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia because it also confers resistance to malaria)? Have we taken the trouble to learn the findings of endocrinologists and others whose work on pre-natal hormonal deficiencies and the like provide the "experiential" part of a causative theory that points ever more clearly to a neurobiological foundation for homosexuality? If not, why not?

When we cite psychological/behavioral theories, how do we explain the fact that many gay and lesbian people do not have the parenting or childhood experiences thought to cause homosexuality, and that many heterosexual people do have such experiences? How do we reconcile the numerous, mutually exclusive theories propounded by psychoanalysts (or have we taken the trouble even to learn that there are more than one theory)? Why do we believe that a boy's sexual abuse by a man might cause homosexuality rather than a heightened antipathy to male-male sexual conduct? If we really believe that children are "recruited" into homosexuality, why doesn't everyone turn out heterosexual, given the overwhelmingly heterosexual environment (and often manifest hostility to homosexuality) in which they grow up? Why on earth do we believe that anyone would choose to be homosexual anyway -- particularly when so many people go to great lengths to hide their orientation? How do we deal with the fact that the primary professional associations of psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and social workers in the US all have unequivocally rejected, for over 25 years, the theory the homosexuality is an illness? And when we cite the few current studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is an illness, how often have we given any critical examination to the credentials or methodologies of the author?

Why do we believe that homosexual "change" therapies will create heterosexual desire, rather than simply repressing or destroying the homosexual person's sexual function and perhaps even capacity to love? What do we do with the fact that even the professionals who support such "therapies" (and who depend on the acceptance of such theories for their livelihoods) concede that they fail roughly 3/4 of the time over the short term, with the final 1/4 unaccounted for in any credible long-term studies? How do we address the fact that numerous leaders of Christian "change ministries" have admitted that neither they nor their counselees were changed, that such programs were essentially based on false promises and short-term self-delusion?

In short, where are we taking the facts seriously in our denominational discussions or personal reflection?

2. When we consider Scripture, are we so confident of our personal understandings that we are willing to reject out of hand the considered opinions of roughly half of the Biblical faculty in our Presbyterian seminaries who disagree with us? Have we seriously considered the possibility that the story of Sodom condemns rape rather than homosexuality; that Leviticus establishes purity rules not found elsewhere in the Ten Commandments or Noachian Code and no longer binding on Christians after the Council of Jerusalem; that other Old Testament passages condemn male temple prostitution rather than homosexuality; that Paul wrote about homosexuality in a time when he understood it to mean sheer exploitation and pederasty; that we simply don't know the proper interpretation of several Greek words Paul used in 1 Corinthians that are sometimes taken as condemnations of homosexuality, but that in fact are not the words most commonly used for homosexuality at the time Paul wrote; that Jude attacks Gnostic fallacies rather than homosexuality -- all well considered, documented interpretations?

Likewise, when we look beyond the traditional "proof texts," how much real support do we find for our denomination's position? When we consider the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, what provides the basis for assuming that only heterosexual partnering was intended (indeed, a literal reading of Genesis 2 indicates that Adam dissuaded God from establishing bestiality as the preferred mode of relationship, which surely provides an important caution against reading this story too literally)? How have we decided to privilege the Biblical metaphor of the bridegroom Christ and his bride the Church as a teaching on the exclusive importance of heterosexual marriage, while at the same time properly rejecting as teachings on bestiality or incest such metaphors as Christ the Good Shepherd or God the Father? And at the most general methodological level, how do we justify withholding from others the same measure of grace we require, for example, in considering Pauline teachings on the silence and subordination of women?

3. When we consider our Confessions, how do we take into account the fact that they often define "sins" as matters of context and degree? To name but a few, are we really so sure what the Confessions proscribe as immoderate judgment or affection for worldly goods; over-working; neglect of work; exposing oneself to danger; "greed" and "oppression" (terms of remarkably contentious scope in the context of our business dealings); "thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;" failure to "show patience, peace, gentleness, mercy and friendliness;" wearing "immodest apparel;" engaging in "impudent or light behavior;" committing "unjust divorce or desertion;" or remarrying after divorce without "sufficient penitence" for past failure and sufficiently "firm purpose and endeavor" for future success? When did we suddenly decide that Confessional condemnation of "homosexual perversion" and "unnatural lust" automatically applies to any and all homosexual conduct, however loving and committed?

4. When we consider tradition, how do we deal with the fact that our church traditionally supported slavery, racial segregation, anti-Semitism, and the subordination of women to men -- all views firmly and sincerely held in their day? What do we do with the relatively recent amendment to our Confessions to permit divorce and remarriage? Is there ever a point at which we might learn a measure of humility, a willingness to consider that we might be wrong in our understanding and treatment of people who are different, or in different circumstances, than ourselves?

5. What can we conclude from the fact that faithful Presbyterians are almost evenly divided on our denomination's recent actions with respect to homosexuality? Is it at all plausible to believe that almost half of our denomination misapprehends a matter so important that it can be considered "essential" to the Reformed faith? If not, aren't such non-essentials properly left to the individual conscience, which we affirm is subject not to the government of men and women but solely to the Lordship of God?



How Should We Govern Ourselves?

1. Recognizing that we can all cite various snippets of authority for our points of view, don't we have an obligation to govern ourselves in a way that honors the great principles of Presbyterianism? Can we afford to neglect the freedom of conscience that underlies Protestantism in matters that are not "essential" to the faith? While we recognize that our Constitution limits the discretion of ministers and sessions in any number of ways, can we learn anything from the fact that it almost invariably does so by way of establishing affirmative duties, rather than prohibitions on the exercise of ministerial care? And, if we have the legal training to think carefully about our governing texts, don't we also have a special obligation to present them fully and honestly, rather than in a way designed simply to persuade others of the rightness of our particular views?

2. To what extent will we allow our Presbyterian system to disintegrate into political maneuvering? Do we act properly within our polity when we allow ourselves to speak from the power of narrow majorities rather than from the authority of consensus?

3. Are we taking our Confessions seriously with respect to church governance? How do we know when we "make men the lords of our faith and conscience" or, in contrast, when we wrongfully fail to honor duly constituted authority in the church -- both sins prohibited by the Confessions? How do we know when our support for controversial measures might be sinful because we "misconstrue intentions, words, and actions," "misapply God's decrees or providence," "condemn anyone lightly without a hearing," fail to "defend and promote my neighbor's good name," or "pass unjust sentence"?

4. To what extent are we willing to put God to the test, in placing yokes and impediments to Christian service on our brothers and sisters in Christ (Acts 15:8-11)? To what extent are we willing to risk destroying sincere and faithful Christians in even a well-intentioned mission to uproot those we deem out of place (Matt. 13:24-30)? What if we're wrong?



What Are Our Values?

1. When did our beloved Presbyterian Church decide that it would prefer to debate supposed heretics rather than to nurture sincere believers? When did we begin to value repudiation rather than reconciliation? When did we decide that we would prefer to sit in courtrooms judging who among us are better Christians, rather than in our sanctuaries worshiping God or in the streets reaching out to a world in need?

2. How did our church ever decide that it wanted to begin teaching that some cannot be allowed to serve God or their congregations? How did we ever decide that we should discourage some people from forming committed, faithful and loving relationships? How did we ever decide that we would prefer to withdraw our explicit commitment to include some whom we excluded in the past, rather than extending a clear welcome to others who feel excluded today?

3. Is it possible, even now, to capture anew what Walter Brueggemann calls an "abiding astonishment," a true appreciation of what's so amazing about grace? Are we doomed to repeat forever the New Testament debates over the law? Do we really believe the gospel?

* * * * *


I believe that we are fighting among ourselves because we love our church, and because we still are trying to learn the desperately hard lesson how to love one another. We can all cite isolated passages from Scripture or our Constitution in support of virtually any position we happen to hold, but I would like to offer three admonitions that, if we take them to heart, might help us to begin healing the painful rifts between us:

"Welcome one another, just as Christ has welcomed you." (Rom. 15:7).

"If you are confident that you belong to Christ, remind yourself of this, that just as you belong to Christ, so also do we." (2 Cor. 10:7).

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Phil. 4:8).

Shalom.

 

 
 

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:

Susan Robertson  
9650 Clover Circle
Eden Prairie, MN  55347

 

An index of our reports from

 

 

 

BECOMING NEIGHBORS:
An Invitation
to Global Discipleship

A Witherspoon conference
on global mission and justice

September 16 - 19, 2007
Louisville, Kentucky

 

Check out our report from the Conference
on
Terror, Torture,
and Security

 

To top

© 2007 by The Witherspoon Society.  All material on this site is the responsibility of the WebWeaver unless other sources are acknowledged.  Unless otherwise noted, material on this site may be copied for personal use and sharing in small groups.  For permission to reproduce material for wider publication, please contact the WebWeaver, Doug King.  Any material reached by links on this site is outside the control and responsibility of the WebWeaver and The Witherspoon Society.  Questions or comments?  Please send a note!