A comment on the 78 theses by George
Hunsinger
His position shows more openness than may appear at
first
by Gene TeSelle, Witherspoon Society Issues Analyst
[11-30-01]
George Hunsinger, the McCord Professor of Systematic Theology at
Princeton Seminary, has issued a
personal statement in the Nov. 26th issue of Presbyterian
Outlook, as his contribution to the current debate on
ordination and Amendment 01-A. He offers 78 "theses for the crisis
on our church," which appear to stand with traditional
interpretations of scripture and views of sexuality to urge the
rejection of Amendment 01-A.
He seems to have fulfilled what is expected of the
Karl Barth professor at Princeton Theological Seminary in his 78 Theses
on Amendment A.
At first I was going to criticize him not only for
fitting into the conservative mood of PTS but, even worse, for being
undialectical, since he started with dire assertions (Thesis 7). It soon
turned out that he was being very dialectical, with the No first, but
leading into a Yes.
He points out that the meaning of chastity is
undefined in G-6 (#12), although he could have added that our
confessions call marriage "continency itself" (G-5.246). He
goes on to affirm the "plain sense of Scripture," but suggests
that we need to ask what this "means today for the church"
(#17), and he calls for a comprehensive approach to sexuality,
heterosexual and homosexual alike (#18).
He reminds us of the approval of celibacy as well as
marriage in the New Testament, adding that lifelong celibacy is
considered a gift (#34); he might also have noted the confessions'
disapproval of "entangling vows of single life" C-7.249), on
the basis of bad experience with required celibacy during the middle
ages.
In our own day, he goes on to say, "living
together" is a new fact, the result of late marriage,
contraception, and other factors. At the same time he insists that this
be acknowledged only on the basis of mutual commitment and readiness for
marriage, making it a de facto or provisional sort of marriage.
Then he suggests that same-sex relationships can be
accommodated within this toleration for "ambiguous situations that
are improper but not intolerable" (#51), as long as there is mutual
commitment and a readiness for permanent covenantal union.
While he thinks that homosexuality is involuntary but
unfortunate, he is prepared to recognize same-sex partnerships (not
"marriage") as a "relative sanctification of an
involuntary yet 'unnatural' condition" (#60), as an "important
witness to the power of the gospel in a broken world" (#64), and to
be accepted while promiscuity is to be rejected.
The bottom line is that he would keep G-6.0106b in the
Book of Order but interpret it with "generosity and practical
wisdom"; this, he says, is the true Third Way (#78). And he would
leave judgments to sesions and presbyteries (#69).
This is not exactly the language that advocates for
gays and lesbians have been looking for; they will doubtless regard it
as condescending at best. And yet Hunsinger is calling for exactly what
many of those advocates have also asked for--to have the same
expectations of lesbians and gays that we have of heterosexuals, i.e.,
that they be in faithful and committed relationships.
Hunsinger has certainly opened up a new dimension of
the debate. And if Amendment A should lose in the presbyteries (not yet
a foregone conclusion by any means), there could be proposals for a new
"authoritative interpretation" along these lines. We'll have
to see what the polity wonks in the ACC and the OGA think of that!
I am not sure that what Hunsinger wants can be
accomplished if G-6.0106b stays in the Book of Order, for there is still
the definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman."
What he wants to accomplish might be done most effectively by deleting
G-6. But if we take Karl Barth and George Hunsinger seriously--that is,
if Christian theology is more than legalistic casuistry and seeks to be
open to the grace of God even in the midst of ambiguous situations--then
he may be on to something.
