A special section on the issues raised in the Assembly
debates regarding the deletion of G-6.0106b, from the summary report:
The 2001
General Assembly
A Special Report to Witherspoon Society and
Semper Reformanda Members
by Gene TeSelle and Doug
King
To
the beginning of the report
What are the issues? Here are some of the main
points made during committee hearings, in the overture advocates'
presentation, and on the floor.
What's wrong with G-6.0106b? The
divisive enactment, discriminatory enforcement, and destructive effects
of "Amendment B" were apparent. Former moderator John Buchanan
spoke of the absence of peace since the
enactment of this provision. Several commissioners lamented that
"this is not the Presbyterian Church I grew up in." Elder
Georgia Hooper-Peck of Hudson River spoke of the costs of litigation, in
the range of $50,000 to $100,000. The Rev. Kim Rodrigue of the Capitol
Hill church in Washington, DC, said that members of the congregation are
able to deal with differences amicably until they turn to G-6; then
arguments about polity become an obstacle to talking about theology.
Elder Cheryl Raine of Los Ranchos asked the Assembly to "return our
church to its New Covenant status" so that it can deal with issues
in terms of justice and love, not law and litigation. The Rev. Ann
Graham-Johnson of Eastminster said, "There will never be enough
laws to overcome our fears," then pointed out that God gives a
Spirit of love, not of fear.
Why can't we just engage in further dialogue?
The call by Detterick and Kirkpatrick at the opening of the Assembly to
move beyond the "regulatory" approach was echoed by many
during the debates in committee and on the floor, asking for
"dialogue" rather than "disputes" and "legal
wrangling" over yet another amendment. This was often the argument
of those who advocated referral of the ordination question to the
theological task force. (In response, members of Committee 7 insisted
that they had not designed the task force to
deal with the ordination question.) The same kind of argument was also
put forward by champions of the minority report, who blandly claimed
that upholding the ordination standards would preserve the peace,
purity, and unity of the church and prevent schism. Of course it would
also mean that G-6.0106b remains in place for four years, excluding our
LGBT members from ordination while doing nothing to slow down the surge
of bruising litigation or to keep committees from asking prying
questions of candidates.
How does the New York City overture help the
church? The Assembly's action, by returning us to the situation
in our church in 1978, offers the "more excellent way," the
"middle ground" that many have been seeking.
For one thing it levels the playing field, clearing
the ground for genuine dialogue and giving no party a built-in
advantage. Removal of G-6.0106b is a necessary step for the work of the
task force created by the Assembly. The commissioners saw that they did
not have an either/or choice between study and the deletion of
G-6.0106b. Instead they made these parallel processes that move us
beyond constant wrangling and allow us to engage more fully in the
church's true mission.
As the presbyteries consider this amendment during the
coming months, we should not expect a
repetition of the debates a few years ago, first over Amendment B and
then over Amendment A; the creation of the task force changes the
setting to one of dialogue and discernment. Picking up on Moderator Jack
Rogers' comparison on the opening night of the Assembly, Tony de la Rosa
commented that passage of Amendment B had been like "adding another
wire to the bird cage," while its removal would open the way to the
"birdbath" approach.
The Assembly's action also returns to presbyteries and
sessions their historic role in ordination since the Adopting Act of
1729. "Governing body discretion" became a key phrase in the
floor debates. Deletion of the current ban on ordination of gay and
lesbian persons would neither require nor forbid
any session or presbytery to ordain gay or lesbian persons. It would
leave in place the high standards already 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 have
through their baptism and the priesthood of all believers. In answer to
the objection that ordination is for the whole church, the reply was
that election and installation are always to a particular ministry;
governing bodies already exercise considerable discretion, sometimes in
highly ideological ways, before installing ordained persons.
Along with the responsibility of the governing body to
discern suitability for ordination, our Presbyterian heritage also
emphasizes the duty to show "mutual forbearance" (G-1.0306)
and to respect the Christian conscience (G-1.0301) when governing bodies
act.
All agree that the authority of Scripture is basic to
this issue, and our church has long affirmed that there are various ways
of interpreting Scripture; we do not impose any one interpretation. A
statement recently issued by 33 professors of Bible at our Presbyterian
seminaries, "The Whole Bible for the Whole Human Family,"
reinforced this point, with specific reference to the LGBT issue.
More generally, there is the question who it is that
controls Scripture. Elder Kathryn Morgan of West Jersey pointed out in
Committee 6 that the Bible cannot be the exclusive possession of any one
person or position. "I hear 'my Bible says this,'" she said,
"but it's God's Bible, not yours or mine. I've seen God's Word
lived out in the lives of [LGBT persons] and I believe there's room in
God's house for all of us." Paul Tillich was accosted by a
Bible-waving fundamentalist asking, "Do you believe this book is
the Word of God?" He replied, "Yes, I do if it possesses you
rather than you possessing it."
The biblical injunctions against idolatry are also
relevant to this matter. A number of speakers expressed their concern
about the elevation of certain biblical passages, or particular human
views of sexuality and morality, to the status of absolutes.
Finally, personal stories -- from people who gave
testimony during the open hearing and from members of the committee
itself -- led a number of committee members to rethink their own
positions. You can read some of those personal statements on our web
site, <www.witherspoonsociety.org/surprises.htm>.
