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?
