At our presbytery meeting, I presented the 2010 GA's proposed amendments to our church's "Book of Order." The hottest issue was the ordination of unrepentant homosexual persons to the offices of deacon, ruling elder, and minister.
Many of the points made in support of ordaining homosexuals were unsettling.
Here are ones I recall - I'll paraphrase.
1. I can't imagine Jesus opposing the expressed love between two person's just because they are of the same gender.
Comment: On what basis do they imagine what Jesus opposed or didn't oppose? Is imagining the same as knowing? "I know well enough to say what he would like and what he wouldn't." Jesus does not speak directly to the question of homosexuality, just as he does not address ecology, or political theory, or incest for that matter. In absence of his clear teaching the interpreter of Scripture must use what is clearly taught in scripture to address where the Bible is silent or unclear. Nowhere is homosexuality sanctioned and everywhere heterosexuality is commended. This puts Jesus at odds with his own apostles who teach a restrictive morality.
If the presence of what is called "love" is the test for sexual morality, then it must follow that anyone who loves another is morally permitted in their relationships and actions. If I love another, regardless of their status or even if they are human, I am free to express it.
2. The Presbyterian Church (USA) will continue to lose members if we don't get in line with the "young people." They don't have a problem with two men or two women living together in committed relationships akin to marriage. They are put off by us because we oppose such things.
Comment: Do the speakers have sociological evidence to substantiate the claim concerning the moral sensitive of persons between the ages of 16 and 30? Even if it can be proved that this demographic is sexually permissive, does it follow they will remain so for life? Do we, as an institution, really want to take moral guidance or give it? It says to young people, "The Presbyterian Church (USA) has nothing useful to contribute on this moral question. We really hoped you could advise us."
3. There were a few variation of this argument. "We have been arguing long enough, its time for everyone to agree with me and my tribe. Doesn't anyone simply want to move past this controversy?"
4. Only one person commented on the biblical passages that condemn homosexuality. He said, in essence, "There are only seven, and scholars (those who agree with him) have interpreted these passages to prove that they really don't address modern expressions of homosexuality."
Comment: This was clearly an appeal to an "authority." If you string it out, it goes like, "I am a point of view and an opinion. Some biblical scholars support my opinion." This is an appeal, it is not a reasoned argument.
5.No one favoring it spoke directly to the substance of the amendment - that is, the decision concerning who is to be ordained is best left with those closest to the candidate.
This still doesn't give any specific moral guidance. It's only value is a kind of local-ism - which is an appeal to providential prejudices. If it is, because of their familiarity with the candidate, good for a presbytery or session to decide who is and isn't morally and spiritual fit for ordained, wouldn't the closer the better be the inherent wisdom. Maybe the candidates family could decide. Perhaps the candidate himself or herself is in the best position; who closer to the person, than the person.
The voted, cast in secret so pastor's would not have to represent how they voted to their more conservative parishioners, was 35 in favor and 44 opposed. The closeness of the vote indicates the degree of divisiveness in the national church. That is, among mostly pastors and other church administrators - the staff at the presbytery, synod, and General Assembly levels.
2 comments:
Gary,
I look forward to the time when you and I can sit for coffee and discuss some of these points. I think you raise some valid critiques, but at the same time I don't think you do justice to a couple of them.
Where I would like to quibble with you this morning is in your final paragraph. I think you give two mischaracterizations and I would like you to consider them.
First, those who asked for a secret ballot did so not to hide their opinions from their congregations (I know at least one of those who made the request spoke at a microphone, leaving no room for doubt), but to ensure that we follow two of the three guiding principles of Robert's Rules: 1) promoting courtesy, justice impartiality and equality, and 2) protecting the rights of individual, minority, and absent members. On this ordination issue, both of those have, at times, been lacking.
If I had been a member of the presbytery, I would have made such a motion, not because I am shy--I'm not--but because I want to protect anyone who is. On many issues, shyness is not a problem, but on controversial and divided-church issues, we need to remember that some people are deeply affected. They are afraid they will be labeled, derided, attacked, and alienated. I don't want that to be their impetus to vote one way or another. God alone is Lord of the conscience. That needs to be made clear.
And second, you asked for "sociological evidence" in point number two. Will you point to some demographic evidence for your claim in the final paragraph that the divisiveness of the church is primarily from a certain group? At least, that's how I'm reading your final thought: the division is "among mostly pastors and other church administrators". I interpret that to mean you don't think the division is similar when considering people in the pews.
If this is your meaning, and things are as you say, then I believe the pastor-commissioner ratio of this Presbytery should produce a larger majority in the opposed column. Don't we have more churches than pastors? I forget the attendance numbers from Saturday, but unless you contend that every pastor voted in favor of the amendment, then there are a healthy number of elders on both sides here in Pines. What does it look like nationally?
--Bill
Bill, Roberts' Rule lists three circumstances where a ballot vote is called for, (1) the election of officers, (2) the admission of a member, and (3) to file disciplinary charges against a member. If you know of others please cite the section or page number of Roberts' Rules Newly Revised. I have the 1990 (9th) edition. There is a 10th edition, but I am too cheap to buy it.
Anytime one speculates concerning the motives that prompted others, one is on shaky grounds. I assumed that a secret ballot is for the purpose of keeping something secret. Why do any of us keep our actions secret? The lists of possible motives, I am sure, is short.
Post a Comment