The voting on "O," and the
survey on holy unions
Doug Nave, an attorney and a trustee of Fifth Avenue
Presbyterian Church in New York, has shared helpful comments on
Amendment O in the past, and now considers the voting thus far, along
with the announced results of a Presbyterian Panel Survey which
indicates that a small majority of Presbyterians are still opposed to
same-sex union ceremonies. He finds reasons for hope in the survey
results.
Barbara
Kellam-Scott gives a more critical assessment of the survey and
the way it has been reported.
[3-8-01]
Friends --
Having seen a number of e-mails circulating about the new Presbyterian
Panel Survey on families
and same-sex issues, I wonder if the Survey and recent voting on
proposed Amendment O aren't in fact fairly consistent, and perhaps give
us reason for hope.
According to data published by the Covenant Network
and Daily Presbyterian News, the
count of presbyters' individual votes on Amendment O to date is 47% in
favor, and 53% opposed.
The results of the PC(USA) Survey are quite
comparable, indicating that 47% of our ordained leadership are neutral
or in favor of, and 53% are opposed to, same-sex union ceremonies.
(These numbers are not reported as such by the PNS, but are readily
calculable from the data given in its story.)
The Amendment O votes and Survey responses, which are
mirror images of each other, show that we are almost evenly divided,
with roughly 3% of those registering views determining in each case who
is in the majority. Some claims out there notwithstanding, the numbers
are certainly too close to say that the Survey somehow impeaches the
voting on Amendment O. One hopes that perhaps we might attribute the
difference in voting to the work of the Holy Spirit, protecting our
communion in worship and prayer from our lesser ambitions to exclude
those we deem unworthy.
Three points struck me in reviewing the Survey
results:
1. The Survey demonstrates again that, in our debates
about homosexuality, we are wrongly attempting to legislate on matters
properly left to the individual conscience. Certainly it is hard to
maintain that almost half of our denomination misapprehends something so
vital that it can be considered an "essential" of Reformed
faith and practice.
2. The Survey gives me hope that our leadership may be
moving toward greater understanding and inclusivity. It has not been
clear so far how much of the voting against Amendment O might reflect
"institutional" concerns about pastoral and session
prerogatives, lading our Book of Order with inappropriate material, and
the like. That the Survey, which did not raise such
"institutional" issues, so closely mirrors the Amendment O
voting suggests that many of our presbyters may be voting on Amendment O
out of real, substantive concern about how we minister to our gay and
lesbian members.
3. Finally, it is significant that the Survey shows
that "pre-marital counseling" is the family ministry program
found most frequently in our churches (roughly 95%), and that
"marital counseling and couple support" is also highly valued
(roughly 65%). While this is not particularly news, it reinforces my
long-held belief that our church must accept part of the responsibility,
in withholding its support for gay and lesbian relationships, for the
alienation and promiscuity we find in parts of the gay community. One
wonders when our church might begin to offer gay and lesbian couples the
resources it considers so vital to the formation and maintenance of
healthy, committed relationships?
Food for thought. . . .
Doug
