We changed our rules to permit homosexuals proudly living out their “true path” to positions of leadership in the PC(USA). That effort began in 1973 with a gay man applying to be ordained in the New York City Presbytery. It was accomplished in 2011 when the last presbytery voted in favor of a new rule giving every presbytery absolute discretion on who they deem fit to serve as a pastor. If my math is true, that is 38 years.
The change will take less time for same gender marriages. The Presbytery of East Iowa is presenting an overture (like a proposed bill in Congress) to change our definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to “two persons.” The Presbytery of Boston is appealing to next summer’s General Assembly to permit sessions to authorize and ministers to perform “same gender” marriages.
Will either of these two pass the test of winning approval from a majority vote of the next General Assembly and then a majority vote of the 173 presbyteries? Perhaps not this time – though it is quite possible they will. But, with all the negative votes leaving the denomination for more conservative ones, with every passing year their vote will become increasingly favorable. It will not take 38 years for this to happen. It may take less than 38 months. There is a snow ball effect operating here. An outrageous change chases off its opposition. This makes the next outrageous change more likely to pass. This will chase away even more negative votes, making subsequent changes more and more likely.
Here is the question that haunts me? Where will it end? What is the next “just revision” to our rules? Could it be persons living together before or instead of marriage? I can make a case right now favoring such a change and some of you will endorse this change gladly.
1. We know that nearly every family in the church has sons and daughters, grandchildren, nieces and nephews who are living together with another person as though they were married. In some cases they are of the same gender but mostly they are heterosexual. These persons often feel shamed from attending worship and thereby stay away from our churches. We need to become a more welcoming congregations that honors the choices made by grown men and women even if they are choices we would not make for ourselves. Therefore we should change the definition of marriage to include any two persons living in mutual fidelity and common bonds of love. We should consider such persons as married in the eyes of God if not in the eyes of the State.
What about open marriages where there is an agreement between partners that they are free to have emotional and sexual relationships with persons outside of their marriages? This would liberate all those who consider themselves to be bi-sexual to have a same-gender spouse and other-gender lovers. To do otherwise who only oppress one part of their god-given set of sexual preferences.
Okay, then what’s next? If a person is bi-sexual or even one who is not satisfied with one partner, why not polygamy? After all, in the Old Testament these social configurations are given casual treatment and maybe even tacit approval. If one man can have several wives, why should one woman not be allowed to have several husbands. If that is allowed for heterosexual marriages it must also apply to same-gender relationships. Why not simply make marriage far more fluid and less rigid?
Then there is age discrimination. Some boys and girls, in early pubescence, can enjoy sexual relationships with men or women ten or twenty years older than them. If no one is being harmed and it is not forced, why do we forbid it? This can happen by lowering the age of consent to 13 or even 12 years old.
Once we have broken the century old taboo of same gender marriages – it is merely a matter of tweaking the argument just a little and all these new configurations begin to sound reasonable and even necessary for the sake of simply fairness.
At age 63, I may have twenty or thirty more years of life. What changes will I witness in that span. Mara-natha. "Even so, Lord come quickly."
4 comments:
I can remember making much the same argument back in 1985 (or so). I was castigated for supposedly equating homosexuality with pedophilia. As far as I know, homosexuals are no more or less likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.
But, the arguments that could be made for affirming the sexual orientation of those who "God created with a love for children," are no different than the arguments for affirming homosexuality (Or, as you've demonstrated, polygamy, etc.). The only difference is that our society continues to have a taboo against those practices... for now. Some societies don't - so I guess the argument could be made that it's ok there, but not here. Wouldn't want to suggest that our cultural or religious values are in any way superior - would we?
My level of grief at what is happening to the PC(USA) is without bounds.
Dear Gary,
I agree that it will take much less than 38 years for same sex marriage--my guess is 3 years. But I did talk with a proponent of homosexual ordination who is opposed in principle to changing the definition of marriage. How he squares his two principles is a mystery to me, for once you overrule the clear teachings of Scripture in one area, the rest of the interpretations are simply a matter of personal preference.
My grief for the PC(USA), and the UCC and Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran Churches, is deep, as well.
It sounds as if you are concerned that people who are not currently married but have no legal restriction against it would like to be considered as "married" inside the church, the unmarried hetero couples you mention. Why would couples in this situation not simply get married? There is nothing to stop them. It sounds like a straw man argument. You create a situation that does not exist and warn about its consequences.Do you know a couple that stay away from church because of shame for not being married? I've never heard a church declare such couples unwelcome. There may be restrictions on membership or becoming officers or ordination currently. The church will marry them if they desire but not do the same for homosexuals. Do we really believe it is just a "choice" given all the negative consequences? Who in their right minds would choose it? Massachusetts has gay marriage and has a lower divorce rate among heteros than all the anti gay states who endeavor to "protect marriage". I think the evidence is in that gays should no longer be discriminated against in any way, especially by Christians.Thank you for the forum and for your thoughts on the issue.
To the anonymous commentator:
You lift one example a longer list of moral circumstances I believe will soon happen. It seems to me a reasonable step from homosexual marriage to no marriage at all.More precisely, a definition of marriage which includes all forms of coupling - men to men, women to women, temporary unions of all kinds, and unions not restricted by age differences. Polygamy has far more biblical support than homosexuality. We have put the whole question of marriage on the table. Having done so, we can't control the outcome for the future.
Post a Comment