[re-posted on 4-28-06, from original report on 6-26-00[

On the morning of June 25, before the opening worship service of the 212th General Assembly, many lgbt Presbyterians and their friends gathered to welcome people arriving for worship, while making clear their own urgent desire to be full members of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

The group Soulforce was present for the vigil, and a number of people engaged in acts of civil disobedience by standing in places where the police had ordered them not to stand.

One of the speakers at the event was former Moderator and Stated Clerk William P. Thompson.

A moving moment in the Soulforce action came when Thompson stepped to the microphone. Thompson, whose rulings as Stated Clerk helped to establish the "definitive guidance" against ordination of gay and lesbian people, has come to a thoughtful change of mind. We publish here the written text from which he spoke, with sincere thanks to him for sharing it with us.

June 25, 2000

I have been asked why I am here with you. I shall attempt to tell you in a few words.

Last Wednesday I noticed an article on the front page of the New York Times. Its headline caught my eye: "Senate Expands Hate Crimes Bill to Include Gays."

The paper reported that on Tuesday the Vice President had returned from the campaigning mode to preside over the Senate because of the matter to be voted on, so that he could cast the tie-breaking vote in the event of identical votes for and against the bill.

The bill before the Senate proposed an amendment to the "Federal Hate Crime Law." That statute applies to crimes involving bodily injury motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion or national origin and only when the victim is seeking to exercise a federally protected right such as voting, registering for school or using a restaurant. The amendment to be voted on would make a federal crime of random hate crimes such as the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, and would add to the listed motivations "gender, sexual orientation or disability." The major disagreement centered on "sexual orientation." Al Gore eagerly supported the bill. It was supposed that George W. Bush opposed it because he has opposed a bill in Texas with similar language.

I am sure that most of you are familiar with the outcome, but for those of you who were preoccupied with preparations for Long Beach, the Vice President did not have to vote. The Times described the result as "unexpectedly wide, 57 to 42, and ... the first time either house of Congress backed protection of gays in a roll-call vote that could have political consequences." The roll-call recorded 44 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting for the bill with 41 Republicans and 1 Democrat against.

Although it is not clear that the House of Representatives will vote in a similar way, I was delighted at the bi-partisan nature of the Senate vote.

I regret that most of the recent actions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Do not engender the same sort of optimism as that Senate vote did. But we need to remember the 1998 "authoritative interpretation" of G-6.0106 (including both sections a and b) and G-4.0403 adopted by the General Assembly in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The 1997 Assembly had referred Overture 97-24 to the 1998 Assembly, which considered it in depth. Against the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, the commissioners drafted their own resolution as "authoritative interpretation":

Standing in the tradition of breaking down the barriers erected to exclude people based on their condition, such as age, race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) commits itself not to exclude anyone categorically in considering those called to ordained service in the church, but to consider the lives and behaviors of candidates as individuals. (Minutes, 1998, Part I, p. 68.)

This represents an encouraging step forward, but it has not been cited in actions of the General Assembly or in the decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission. I fear that it has been overlooked or neglected because we have not been sufficiently insistent that it be accorded the same weight as other "authoritative interpretations." We need to call this interpretation to the attention of those who may fail to take it into consideration.

This brings me once again to the question with which I began: Why am I here with you?

I recall a familiar verse from the first chapter of Genesis:

So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27 [NRSV])

As God created both male and female humans, I infer that God has also created racial diversity and determined the sexual orientation of individuals. The latter is confirmed by recent scientific studies which conclude that individuals receive their orientation rather than choosing it.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has committed itself to equality within its membership for individuals of the two genders and of the several races. But it insists on isolating those who are gay or lesbian and restricts their opportunities for leadership.

Our goal as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is visible unity within the church as affirmed in G-4.0402:

Our unity in Christ enables and requires the church to be open to all persons and to the varieties of talents and gifts of God's people ...

As the Holy Spirit has given unity to the church we must make sure that we do not put obstacles in the way of any of God's people who are called to God's service. The Apostle Paul provides guidance for this role:

Spare no effort to make fast with bonds of peace the unity which the Spirit gives. (Ephesians 4:3 [NEB])

This is why I am here among you.