Meaty Monday: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
by Jim ~ June 30th, 2008. Tags: GA, PC(USA).The following post, as is with all posts on this blog, is solely my own personal opinion and is not meant to be the position of my church. They are also preliminary thoughts.
Well, it has been fascinating to watch the shake-out today across the blogosphere following the actions of the General Assembly last week. Drew offers a post that points to various pro and con posts that have appeared today around the web, and our own denominational leadership offers this pastoral letter to its churches.
What is somewhat surprising is that at least in terms of national media the actions of last week were nowhere near as news-worthy as the ones that happened at the previous General Assembly in Birmingham AL. That year, the national media picked up on the news that the PC(USA) had received a “Trinity Paper” and erroneously reported that the PC(USA) had completely abandoned traditional language for the Trinity. In terms of media attention, there was a lot more damage control to do following that assembly than there will be following this one.
Of course, based on the actions of last week, the denomination is in for another long battle over the standards for ordination surrounding the ordination of GLBT officers (deacons, elders, and ministers) as replacement wording for what is known as ‘amendment b’ has been sent for approval to our local presbyteries. Churches that thought about but did not initiate proceedings to leave following the last GA, will surely be much more serious about doing so this time around, especially since all previous denominational statements about homosexuality were declared moot by this assembly.
Now as to the meat of the argument on the amendment in question, in case you’re not up on these things, our current ‘amendment b’ (G-6.0106b) states:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic and confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to life either in fidelity withing the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.
Some have argued that ‘amendment b’ as it currently stands is about much more than homosexuality, that it really is about all ministers holding to a standard of sexual faithfulness. Now, in theory as one reads the amendment that may very well be the case, but in practice it’s simply not true. In my own experience, I was single, dating, engaged, and then married at various stages during my ordination process and no one dared or bothered to ask me about either my fidelity or chastity during any stage of that process. Surely if this was of concern and someone cared enough, they would have asked me?
Anyway, the new proposed ‘amendment b’ states:
Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation (G-14.0240 and G-14.0450) establishes the candidate’s sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.
What I find interesting in this proposed replacement of ‘amendment b,’ which has to be voted in the affirmative by the majority of presbyteries in order to take affect, is that in effect it puts those who argue against it in a rather difficult place. In fact, to do so could very well be interpreted to say that one places a higher value on a certain sexual ethic than on the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And that seems to be a place where very few people will really want to be.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Good stuff man. Good stuff. I will too be interested to hear the discussions in the next few months.
I pray that people will hold their emotion or at least not be subject to it, but instead take the time to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit for them, as individuals, as parts of a community, and as part of the greater church.
Blessings,
Greg
June 30th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Thanks for a very interesting post putting the emphasis not on the issue but on the actual proposed amendment. It will be curious to see if this round of discussion in the presbyteries brings us as a denomination to look more closely at the wording — or if we simply get stuck at this one issue that seems to hold our attention beyond all others. I too pray that we can look at the wording and listen for the Spirit to guide us to what we believe we are called to do in these days.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Perhaps there was less media coverage because we have become irrelevant. The current media is a very competitve cut-throat market where every story has to be a revenue puller. We have been arguing for so long over these issues that it is barely worth repeating in the media.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:10 am
“In my own experience, I was single, dating, engaged, and then married at various stages during my ordination process and no one dared or bothered to ask me about either my fidelity or chastity during any stage of that process. Surely if this was of concern and someone cared enough, they would have asked me?”
This is a good point. How has this actually been checked in the past? I mean, what if I was living with a woman (you know like Barth’s “help-meet”) and simply said, Oh but we don’t really have sex. It looks like a shady situation according to the rule, but also it’s totally legal by the same standard. So would we be looking at uneven enforcement if I said I am living with a man, but we don’t really have sex? Or is the latter legal anyway? The problem is how we can objectively assess a situation based on a clear standard.
I think this is why it is important to go back to presbyteries for sound deliberation at this point. I am hopeful that this will occur.
To the last point about placing a higher value on a specific sexual ethic, what troubles me is that according to the standards I can be greedy self-aggrandizing and if the church I serve likes my behavior, there is nothing in the constitution to stop that kind of conduct. I have seen these situations as well. So that is where the language of the amendment now seems to be more strict in some areas, and less strict in others because it is not as explicit regarding sex. I am not sure why this is a bad thing in that regard unless one has a specific sexual agenda at the expense of everything else that is of importance in the conduct of a minister of the Gospel.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:22 am
Drew, you nailed my point precisely…are we to just be about maintaining a certain narrowly defined sexual ethic or an overall package of discipleship to Jesus, that encompasses so much more than sex?
And as far as sex is concerned I don’t see the church getting out of this particular morass until it does the hard work of developing a broad, covenantal sexual ethic.