Witherspoon officers comment on the
defeat of Amendment O
[3-16-01]
Two visitors
have commented in response to these thoughts. Sam Lanham
points to the importance of the human dimension of the issue in
presbytery debates.
[3-17-01]
Following the deciding votes on March 13, sealing the
defeat of Amendment O and its ban on the blessing of holy unions,
Witherspoon president Jane
Hanna offered some thoughts, along with WebWeaver Doug
King.
We have also shared a helpful and hopeful analysis and
comment by Doug Nave.
Now we're happy to offer more reflections on this
action, from three other current officers of The Witherspoon Society.
If
you have thoughts to share, please
send them along, and if they contribute to the conversation, we'll
add them too!
The Rev. Chris Iosso, Issues
Analyst of the Witherspoon Society and pastor of Scarborough
Presbyterian Church in Scarborough, NY, comments:
It is clear that the Presbyterian
family system just took a turn for health. Legalistic, coercive
behavior designed to control others is rarely a sign of health,
whether in families, congregations or denominations. Whatever people's
personal feelings about homosexuality, a majority of presbyters
declined to devote more of the denomination's energies and resources
to policing other people's lives. (In the popular world, this is
called, "getting a life." In the Friedman school of family
systems counseling, it is called leadership by self-differentiation).
It seems clear, as well, that a space
for grace was being left for Gay and Lesbian people in the church.
Love between two people is to be honored, and fidelity encouraged, by
the vote.
The church should now be alert to
efforts, such as those of some newspaper chains and talk-shows, to
continue to provoke division in the church by calling such unions
"marriages." Whether or not the participants in such unions
consider themselves "married," the intent of the church and
its definitions are clear. Blessing is an inclusive category.
The Rev. Barbara Gaddis, an
at-large member of Witherspoon's executive committee and a practicing
family therapist, comments:
Although I would like to believe that the vote is a positive sign
about the easing of the debate on homosexuality, I think more that the
vote against O was in part due to how poorly worded and sweeping the
amendment was. Basically, I think that if there were to be an up or
down vote on whether or not we ought to allow the joining of two men
or two women in holy union, most Presbyterians would say it was a bad
idea. But, the devil is in the details, and legislation pertaining to
who a pastor can and cannot bless, just doesn't sit well with most of
us.
Secondly, telling sessions how they can run their
show makes most Presbyterians nervous. Finally, I think many of our
churches and elders are just sick of the entire debate, and want
desperately to get back to the mission of the Church...which plainly
isn't arguing about the logs in our own eyes. I wish I could be more
optimistic. I am truly glad the amendment failed. But I doubt it has
anything to do with the debate on homosexuality.
The Rev. Gene TeSelle, former president of
Witherspoon, now serving as liaison with other organizations, notes that
the defeat of the ban on holy unions "simply leaves us where we
were since 1991; anybody in their presbytery meetings could have read,
right at the bottom of the first page on Amendment O, the ACC opinion,
adopted by that year's GA, which said that the Directory for Worship
does not exclude such ceremonies if they are not called marriages. It's
a matter of learning to be comfortable with the complexities that life
always involves. The AP headline was basically on target, however--a
referendum to the presbyteries says that we 'may' (not must) celebrate
holy unions (other-sex as well as same-sex!!) when in our judgment it is
a committed relationship for which prayer is appropriate."
