Vote on same-sex union amendment will
be close, early returns indicate
Presbytery executives' "third way"
proposal gets mixed reaction
By Jerry L. Van Marter
LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- January 23, 2001 -- With votes in
from 20 percent of the 174 presbyteries, it appears that Amendment O -
the so-called "same-sex unions amendment" - will be decided by
a narrow margin.
As of Jan. 22, 11 presbyteries had voted
"yes" on the amendment and 23 had voted "no." A
majority of the presbyteries, 87, must vote "yes" for the
amendment to become part of The Book of Order.
Amendment O, sent to the presbyteries by last year's
General Assembly by a vote of 268-251, would add a new section,
W-4.9007, to The Book of Order, stating: "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."
In analyzing the votes as they come in, most observers
are comparing the way presbyteries are voting on Amendment O to the way
they voted in 1996 on Amendment B - the "fidelity and
chastity" amendment that is now G-6.0106b of The Book of Order and
which is cited in the proposed Amendment O - assuming that those that
voted for Amendment B are likely to also vote for Amendment O.
Amendment B passed by a vote of 97-94. At least 12
presbyteries would have to "change" their votes (vote against
Amendment O after having voted for Amendment B) in order for the measure
to be defeated.
Two presbyteries of the first 34 to vote have done
that - Missouri River Valley and North Central Iowa.
Both sides, formally and informally, have been
conducting rigorous campaigns on the amendment.
"Presbyterians Together," an offshoot of the
conservative Presbyterian Coalition, published a 60-page booklet,
"Amendment O Resources," that sold like hotcakes at the
Coalition's November annual gathering. The booklet, funded by The
Presbyterian Layman, includes essays on the proposed amendment and
related issues, sample speeches for use by presbytery commissioners,
talking points to use in debates, timetables for churches to use in
making their positions known in the church and public media, an outline
for a prayer vigil, and a curriculum outline for a Sunday School class.
The booklet also includes a defense of G-6.0106b.
The liberal Covenant Network of Presbyterians has
added a second full-time staff member, the Rev. Patricia Dykers Koenig
of Cleveland, to coordinate its efforts to defeat Amendment O. The
Covenant Network has published resources on the amendment, which it
contends includes a "prohibition on prayer" and a
"ministry gag order," on its web site.
Presbyterians for Renewal, a member organization of
the Presbyterian Coalition, recently took out a full-page ad in The
Presbyterian Outlook urging approval of Amendment O. And
publications of many organizations on both sides have been filled with
arguments for and against the amendment.
Late last year, 19 former General Assembly moderators
released a public statement urging the defeat of Amendment O, which it
said "would lead us away from the traditional rights and
responsibilities exercised by sessions and ministers." The
statement was signed by Thelma Adair (1976), Dorothy Barnard (1981),
Robert Bohl (1994), John Buchanan (1996), James Costen (1982), John Fife
(1992), Freda Gardner (1999), Robert Lamar (1974), William Lytle (1978),
Sara Bernice Moseley (1978), Harriet Nelson (1984), Douglas Oldenburg
(1998), Howard Rice (1979), Isabel Rogers (1987), J. Randolph Taylor
(1983), William P. Thompson (1965), Herbert Valentine (1991), Benjamin
Weir (1986) and Albert Winn (1979).
At about the same time, the National Korean
Presbyterian Council, representing 350 Korean-American Presbyterian
churches with a total of 37,000 members, sent an open letter to
Presbyterians, urging them to "support the proposed
amendment." The letter argues that it is "clearly and
unambiguously written in the Scripture" that "homosexual
partnerships are incompatible with God's created order," and warns
that a rejection of Amendment O would be "a devastating blow in
(the PCUSA's) membership growth because Koreans, particularly young
people, are conservative and evangelical and will turn away from our
denomination."
Even the independent church press has waded into the
fray. In a Jan. 15 editorial co-authored by Princeton Seminary theology
professor William Stacy Johnson, Presbyterian Outlook editor
Robert Bullock came out against Amendment O, arguing that it is
"bad polity." Bullock wrote that the amendment could be used
to deny baptism to the children of same-sex parents and to deny the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper to some church members. He argued that
The Book of Order "already contains remedies to deal with (same-sex
unions)," and said passing this amendment is like "using an
elephant to swat a fly."
A "Third Way"?
On Dec. 6, a group of 113 presbytery executives and
other officers issued a statement calling for a "third way"
out of the impasse over sexuality issues in the PC(USA).
"We believe the church we love has a future, but
it will not be by determining winners and losers," the group
stated. Insisting that legislative and judicial action will not bring
reconciliation, the group said: "We envision a third way which can
only come from an openness to the Holy Spirit. We will rely on God's
grace and refuse to leave the table until a way is discovered."
The statement, which arose from discussions at the
annual meeting of the Association of Executive Presbyters, commended the
leaders of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians and of The Presbyterian
Coalition for initiating a series of prayer and Bible study meetings.
The next such gathering is scheduled for March 8-10 in Chicago.
"We ourselves," the signers wrote,
"covenant to look for a third way. In each of our presbyteries and
with each other, we will gather at a common table to pray and talk
together. We promise not to leave the table before a direction
emerges."
The Covenant Network responded positively almost
immediately. "We know from our own experience that the Spirit and
the Word can bring new insights and new commitments to the body of
Christ as we engage in honest and searching dialogue with our colleagues
in ministry," it said in a response dated Dec. 11.
The response from More Light Presbyterians, a group of
people and churches committed to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian
Presbyterians in the church, including their ordination as church
officers, also was positive. That group agreed with the presbytery
executives that "restrictive legislation and judicial complaints
are inadequate, divisive and even counter-productive à for discerning
God's will in times of disagreement." The five Presbyterian
Coalition leaders involved in the Coalition-Network Bible study
meetings, however, rejected the "third way" approach.
"Involvement in the issues of our day and church, including meeting
with those with whom we disagree, has never been, nor is it now, about
our way, or their way, or some other third way which might be mutually
satisfying," they said in a written statement. "Rather it is
about Christ's way. Alone. Therefore, we have not, and we will not,
engage in any search for an alternative to Scripture's clear and plain
teaching."
The statement was signed by Coalition Moderator Jerry
Andrews, Vice Moderator Anita Bell and Executive Coordinator Bill Giles;
Presbyterians Pro-Life Director Terry Schlossberg; and Presbyterian
Layman Executive Editor Parker Williamson.
The tally on Amendment O
Click here for
our own more recent count.
For (11): Central Florida, Charleston-Atlantic,
Coastal Carolina, Flint River, Muskingum Valley, New Harmony,
Northumberland, Riverside, San Diego, San Joaquin, Seattle.
Against (23): Boise, Chicago, Des Moines, Eastern
Oregon, Elizabeth, Heartland, Hudson River, Maumee Valley, Minnesota
Valleys, Missouri River Valley, North Central Iowa, Ohio Valley,
Redwoods, San Francisco, San Jose, Scioto Valley, Southern New England,
Twin Cities Area, Utah, West Virginia, Western Kentucky, Western
Reserve, Whitewater Valley.
