How shall we talk about AMENDMENT A?
by Gene TeSelle
[8-15-01]
Listening to the debate about this year's Amendment A, which would
delete G-6.0106b and reverse all previous authoritative interpretations
of the Constitution on this matter, I have identified several
"'tis/'taint" arguments. Let me list them and try to see what
is being said, on one side and the other.
1. Is Amendment A the "more excellent
way," the "middle ground" that was called for by
Moderator Syngman Rhee and many others at the last General Assembly?
Obviously this is a judgment call. It may not be
exactly what Rhee and other leaders had in mind. For that matter, it may
not be what most other people had in mind during the first few days of
the Assembly. But the members of Committee 6 came to see it that way. By
the time the Assembly voted on Friday afternoon a full 60 percent of the
commissioners were led to see it that way, too.
2. So how is Amendment A the "more excellent
way"?
At the opening of the Assembly, Stated Clerk Clifton
Kirkpatrick and GAC Executive Director John Detterick urged
commissioners to break the pattern of the "regulatory
approach," which has only encouraged a "winner take all"
mentality. This new amendment levels the playing field, clearing the
ground for genuine dialogue. While it is not what either the right or
the left in the church has sought, it gives neither party a built-in
advantage.
The commissioners saw, furthermore, that removal of
G-6.0106b is necessary for the four-year work of the theological task
force created by the Assembly. In turn the Assembly, in creating this
task force, has set the debate over Amendment A in a new context, for it
recognized that our differences do not revolve primarily around the
"sexuality question" but range widely, including issues of
"Christology, biblical authority and interpretation, ordination
standards, and power."
3. Is it really true that the passage of Amendment
A would mean that presbyteries will neither be required nor forbidden
to ordain gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons?
It really is true. It returns to presbyteries and
sessions their historic role in ordination since the Adopting Act of
1729. Instead of "strict subscription" to the Westminster
standards, it allowed a person seeking ordination to state his (in that
day it was only his) "scruples" concerning the Westminster
standards, and the presbytery or session had the responsibility of
judging whether these were within legitimate bounds. That has been our
practice ever since.
This is not really "local option," although
the term has often been used in casual discussion. "Governing body
discretion" is the more accurate phrase, and it was often heard in
discussions at the General Assembly. Amendment A leaves in place the
high standards for ordination already present in G-6.0106a, including
the requirement that "their manner of life shall be a demonstration
of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world." No new
"rights" would be given to LGBT members beyond those they
already have through baptism and the priesthood of all believers.
4. Since ordination is to the whole church, not to
a particular presbytery or session, why shouldn't we have uniform
standards for ordination? Wouldn't this new amendment lead to a
confusing amount of diversity?
Well, we do have uniform standards. The details have
changed many times, of course, since the Adopting Act of 1729. But
G-6.0106b represents something new -- "barbed wire around the grace
of God," as it was characterized by a group from the Hudson River
Presbytery. It has been divisive in its enactment, discriminatory in its
enforcement, and destructive in its effects. It has brought anything but
peace to the PC(USA).
And yes, ordination is to the whole church. But
election and installation are always to a particular ministry. Governing
bodies already exercise considerable discretion, sometimes in highly
ideological ways, before installing persons who have been ordained
elsewhere.
Let's remember that ordination is not even to the
PC(USA) but to the Church Catholic as we understand it. We have
"full communion" agreements with the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, for example; also with other denominations in the
Reformed tradition, including the United Church of Christ, which permits
the ordination of gays and lesbians. We do not try to keep the UCC from
ordaining GLBT persons. A gay person ordained in the UCC is in exactly
the same situation as a gay person ordained in another presbytery; each
would be eligible to be called as minister by a local church, but
subject to presbytery examination and approval.
5. Isn't the General Assembly's adoption of
Amendment A one more sign that the PC(USA) is unfaithful to its
heritage?
There always seem to be some in the church who view
anything contrary to their own opinions to be proof of faithlessness.
This year's defeat of Amendment O, which would have forbidden all
services of worship in connection with same-sex unions, was viewed by
some as proof that the church was already unfaithful. Reaction to the
Assembly's 60%-40% vote to delete G-6.0106b has been far more negative,
and the Confessing Movement is gaining support from a number of
sessions.
The Presbyterian Layman in a harshly worded
editorial refused even to call the 213th General Assembly by its legal
name; describing it as a "Convention Center gathering," it
called it "an apostate assembly" (lower case, merely generic).
In another column in the same issue, board chair Robert L. Howard said,
"The Louisville conclave does not deserve to be called a General
Assembly of the Church. A Gross Aberration is more descriptive."
Moderator Jack Rogers and Stated Clerk Clifton
Kirkpatrick sent the board of the Lay Committee a letter in which they
contested the use of the term "apostasy," suggested that they
did not have the authority to declare apostasy, and asked them to
reconsider the charges they had leveled against the Assembly and the
ministers and elders who served as its commissioners.
The "broad middle" of the church has been
making its own judgments about what constitutes faithfulness to our
tradition. Now it is being condemned for exactly those judgments. Let's
remember that the hard-core conservative vote at the General Assembly
has usually been around 15 percent. The Presbyterian Right may be
painting itself into a corner. The rest of the church is not inclined to
give in to its call for a new loyalty oath based on a new "three
fundamentals," for they know that this is out of keeping with the
confessional nature of our church.
6. But doesn't Amendment A threaten schism in the
church?
This was one of the possibilities often mentioned by
conservatives at the last General Assembly. Their argument was that we
ought to keep G-6.0106b in order to minimize the danger of
schism. And of course many people have threatened, as they have many
times before, to withdraw from the church or reduce their contributions
to the PC(USA) if Amendment A passes.
Let's think about contributions first. For many years
a number of conservative congregations have refused to pay per capita
assessments in order to "send a message." The result is that
their presbyteries have had to make up the difference. And of course
many congregations have refused to support the mission budget of the
church, channeling their contributions to "parachurch"
organizations instead. In the opinion of most people, however, this is
not appropriate behavior. When the time comes for nominations and
elections in presbyteries or the General Assembly, such behavior is not
regarded as a strong recommendation for persons associated with those
congregations.
What about the threat to leave the church? This is
often heard, but we cannot know how seriously to take it, since there
are others who have decided to stay in the church and influence its
decisions. The more they draw firm lines and condemn those who stand on
the other side, however, the more they obligate themselves to withdraw
when their conditions are not met.
Back in 1980 a number of conservatives were unhappy
about a Permanent Judicial Commission ruling that refused to
second-guess the examination of a UCC minister by the National Capital
Union Presbytery; the PJC declared that the presbytery has the
responsibility to decide who can be accepted into its membership. They
withdrew to form a new denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian
Church.
What will be the action of those sessions that have
endorsed the Confessing Movement? Some will recommend withdrawing from
the PC(USA). Others may be reluctant to do so. Or their congregations
may not want to go along with them. If there should be a split, one
observer comments, "We will lose a number of ministers, but not as
many congregations."
7. Won't the next step be to require us to ordain
GLBT persons, just as we are now required to have women elders and to
include members of various groups on committees?
The point is simply this: there are GLBT Presbyterians
who have the gifts required for ministry, want to serve, and have been
called by governing bodies, but cannot be ordained because of G-6.0106b.
When people hear their stories they usually become convinced that the
Book of Order needs to be changed. That's what happened at the 213th
General Assembly, first in committee and then on the floor.
Most of us believe that our church's current policies
of inclusion were adopted as a result of guidance by the Spirit into new
paths that were often resisted in the past and may still be resisted
today. (That's why the Book of Order also has provisions for
"waivers" for sessions that cannot, or will not, live up to
these policies.) We do not know where the Spirit might lead the church
in the future, and we certainly should not foreclose any of the
possibilities.
The church takes one step at a time. Sometimes, as in
the case of G-6.0106b, it can take a false step. For better or worse, we
have to vote on issues as they come up. During the next four years a
large part of our responsibility will be to think, along with the
theological task force, about the many issues, including those of
"Christology, biblical authority and interpretation, ordination
standards, and power," that threaten to divide us.
Some of those who advocate full inclusion have called
for policies that would support that inclusion more explicitly. Others
feel that they should promise not to seek this kind of change
in the future, in order to gain more support now for Amendment A in the
presbyteries. But we certainly ought not bind the conscience of those
persons who seek full inclusion. We can only trust that they will
advocate it in a decent and orderly way -- as they have done for the
past twenty-five years in the face of many setbacks and false
accusations.
