[1] The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been mired in debates
about ordained service by non-celibate gay and lesbian persons
since 1976.
[2] In 1976, two presbyteries (local districts) overtured
General Assembly, the denomination's highest governing body, for
"definitive guidance" whether persons who openly acknowledge a
homosexual orientation and practice may be ordained. The 1978
General Assembly responded with a "Policy Statement and
Recommendations," that "unrepentant homosexual practice does not
accord with the requirements for ordination" as minister, elder, or
deacon.1 Over
90% of the commissioners to that assembly voted to approve the
statement.
[3] Despite its exclusionary position on ordination, the 1978
statement contained a number of statements affirming the interests
of gay and lesbian persons:
- The value of ministry by celibate gay/lesbian persons was
strongly affirmed: "The repentant homosexual person who . . .
finds God's power to control his or her desires and to adopt a
celibate lifestyle, can certainly be ordained, all other
qualifications being met. Indeed, such candidates must be
welcomed and be free to share their full identity. Their
experience of hatred and rejection may have given them a unique
capacity for love and sensitivity as wounded healers among
heterosexual Christians, and they may be incomparably equipped to
extend the church's outreach to the homosexual
community."2
- Inquisitions were discouraged. Examining bodies were urged
"to conduct their examination of candidates for ordained office
with discretion and sensitivity, recognizing that it would be a
hindrance to God's grace to make a specific inquiry into the sexual
orientation or practice of candidates . . . where the person
involved has not take the initiative in declaring his or her sexual
orientation." 3
- Presbyterians were challenged "to reject in their own lives, and
challenge in others, the sin of homophobia. . . . The
Christian community can neither condone nor participate in the
widespread contempt for homosexual persons that prevails in our
general culture. Indeed, beyond this, it must do everything
in its power to prevent society from continuing to hate, harass,
and oppress them." 4
- Presbyterians likewise were called upon "to work for the
decriminalization of private homosexual acts between consenting
adults . . . [and] for the passage of laws that prohibit
discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, and public
accommodations based on the sexual orientation of a person."
5
- Finally, the church expressed its willingness to continue
learning in this area: "No opinion or decision is
irreformable. Nor do we mean to close further study of
homosexuality among the presbyteries and congregations."
6
[4] The general principles established in that statement have
continued to guide the PC(USA) to this day.
[5] Adoption of the 1978 "definitive guidance" generated deep
and lasting controversy in the church. Much of the debate,
obviously, reflected disagreements about whether gay/lesbian
relationships are necessarily sinful or should be a bar to
ordination. Other objections to the statement came from many
quarters. Many felt that the policy violated freedom of
conscience, and the duty Presbyterians have to show each other
mutual forbearance in matters not "essential" to the faith.
Some felt that the prohibition was inconsistent with constitutional
requirements that full rights of church membership (including
eligibility for lay office) be extended to all persons on
profession of faith, and that church sessions and presbyteries be
empowered to determine the fitness of their own members.
[6] Additional controversy focused on governance issues, and
whether General Assembly had intended its "Policy Statement and
Recommendations" to be binding on congregations and
presbyteries. Many felt that if the 1978/79 statements were
to be considered binding, General Assembly had acted
illegitimately, usurping the power of the presbyteries to ratify or
reject any amendments to the standards for ordination set forth in
the Constitution.7
[7] The General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC)
ruled in 1985 that the 1978 statement was binding on lower
judicatories.8
Then, in 1993, the GAPJC issued a pair of decisions that finally
addressed, in a very concrete way, how the policy might be applied
to individuals and churches. In the first case, the GAPJC
held that a presbytery could not certify, as ready to receive a
call, a woman who had graduated from seminary, passed her
ordination exams, and declared at examination that she was lesbian,
but who was not known to becelibate.9 In the second case, the GAPJC
held that a presbytery could not approve a congregation's call to a
"self-affirmed, practicing" lesbian who had previously been found
qualified and served as a pastor elsewhere in the
PC(USA).10
[8] A storm of controversy erupted. Efforts by the next
annual General Assembly to legitimize these rulings with a new
"authoritative interpretation"-that "self-affirming, practicing
homosexual persons" cannot be installed in ordained
office11-merely
added fuel to the fire. The denomination hunkered down for
another three-year study of the issues, asking its congregations
and presbyteries to learn more, dialogue, and pray together in
search of a united way forward.
[9] In 1996, when General Assembly next took up the issue, the
church was primed for a formal addition to the Book of
Order. It was clear that the legitimacy of any rule
limiting ordained service by non-celibate gay and lesbian persons
would be questioned until it had been submitted to, and approved
by, the presbyteries. A wave of overtures came in from the
presbyteries, twenty-four seeking to affirm the prohibition, and
twenty-four seeking to overturn it.12 Disappointingly, the
denomination's offices reported the results of a survey showing
that only 5% of congregations reported any study on the issue
during the three-year study period leading up to the
assembly.13 Many in the
denomination held fiercely to sincere beliefs, but there was good
reason to question how many had undertaken any serious inquiry into
the Scriptural or scientific grounding for their views.
[10] What went to the floor of the General Assembly in 1996
became known as the "fidelity and chastity amendment," or
"Amendment B." It stated that:
Those who are called to
office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture
and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the
church. Among these standards is the requirement to live
either in fidelity within 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.
[11] The measure passed at the General Assembly, with roughly
60% of the commissioners in favor and 40% opposed. When the
measure went to the presbyteries, it was ratified, with 57% of the
presbyteries voting in favor of it. However, unofficial
counts of the roughly 26,000 individual presbyters (elders and
ministers) voting in presbytery demonstrated just how divided the
denomination really was: the measure passed by only % to
49%.1414
[12] At the 1997 General Assembly, progressives introduced a new
overture calling for the replacement of "fidelity and
chastity"-which had become new section G-6.0106b of the Book of
Order-with a measure known as the "fidelity and integrity"
amendment. That measure stated that:
Those who are called to
office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Jesus
Christ, under the authority of Scripture and instructed by the
historic confessional standards of the church. Among these
standards is the requirement to demonstrate fidelity and integrity
in marriage or singleness, and in all relationships of life. .
.15
[13] The measure was intended to accomplish several things:
- First, it was intended to replace what its proponents saw as
legalistic adherence to old texts with a requirement that all
persons live first and always in obedience to Christ.
- Second, the proponents of "fidelity and integrity" sought to
establish a higher standard for all relationships than one focused
solely on the sexual conduct of a small segment in the church.
16
[14] The measure was approved by the General Assembly. However, the
presbyteries failed to ratify it, with 67% voting against the
change. Again, unofficial counts of individual presbyters'
votes showed a far closer division: the measure was defeated
55% to 45%.
[15] Debates across the presbyteries indicated that at least
some of the voting on "fidelity and integrity" was motivated by a
desire to respect the recent vote on Amendment B, as a matter of
good process, rather than by presbyters' views on human
sexuality. For whatever reason, the defeat of "fidelity and
integrity" brought a temporary halt to most legislative
initiatives. Although some progressive groups continued to
introduce overtures seeking more inclusive ordination standards at
each General Assembly, these were not approved.
[16] The dispute moved instead to the judicial realm. A
number of churches adopted "statements of dissent," declaring their
intention not to be bound by G-6.0106b. Some adopted
statements simply refusing to comply as a matter of
conscience. Others, seeking to come more clearly within the
bounds of Presbyterian polity, argued that they could not enforce
G-6.0106b as a practical matter, because it conflicted with a
number of other mandates in the Constitution requiring that the
church show Christ's love and justice to all persons, that all
persons be entitled to full church membership (with opportunities
to serve in ordained leadership) upon profession of faith, that
churches and presbyteries determine the fitness of their ordained
leaders, that minorities be fairly represented in all governing
bodies, and that the church remain open to reform.
[17] There was little enforcement of G-6.0106b while the
validity of such dissent was judicially
tested. 17
In summer of 2000, however, the GAPJC finally ruled that sessions
and presbyteries cannot ignore any part of the Constitution, but
must interpret all parts of the Constitution-including G-6.0106b-so
that they work together.18
[18] The GAPJC handed down this decision just as a new
legislative effort to change the PC(USA)'s ordination standards was
gathering steam. At the end of a voluntary, three-year period
of forbearance, twenty-eight presbyteries sent thirty-five
overtures to the 2001 General Assembly, seeking more inclusive
ordination standards for non-celibate gay and lesbian
people.19
The Overture Advocates for these measures pooled their efforts in a
common presentation, organized around an overture submitted by the
New York City Presbytery and an hour-long PowerPoint presentation
that focused on the tensions between G-6.0106b and Presbyterian
traditions favoring freedom of conscience. 20Given obvious differences in
the church about sexual ethics, the advocates side-stepped this and
focused instead on traditional principles of Presbyterian polity,
requiring mutual forbearance in matters of difference not deemed
"essential" to Reformed faith and polity. The overture sought
to restore as the sole standard for ordination a provision already
in the Book of Order, that-
In addition to possessing
the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who
undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith,
dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and
Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the
Christian gospel in the church and in the world.21
[19] The General Assembly amended and adopted the New York City
overture, voting 60% in favor of it and 39% against-a virtual
reversal of the ratio by which "Amendment B" was adopted in
1996.
[20] Conservatives organized swiftly to oppose ratification of
the measure. Many threatened schism if the measure were
ratified. Others urged that any vote on ordination reform be
delayed until a Theological Task Force, established in 2001 to
consider causes of denominational unrest, could report back in
2005. Conservative activists commissioned a professional
video to rebut the PowerPoint presentation, and many of the
presbyteries saw, for the first time, a ratification debate waged
in large part by "duelling videos." And, immediately after
the ratification voting began, Muslim extremists flew two airliners
into the World Trade Center-almost certainly dooming the prospects
of a contentious reform while parishioners sought security and calm
in the church.
[21] In the final voting, the presbyteries rejected Amendment
01-A almost 3-to-1. However, the results in a number of
presbyteries were very close (some decided by a tie or single vote
or two), and the majority opposed to reform was made up of only 57%
of the roughly 23,000 presbyters voting on the measure. The
church clearly continues to be closely divided on the issue.
[22] The PC(USA) has now entered another "judicial"
season. Congregations and presbyteries pursuing inclusive
ordination standards have begun to grapple with the many ambiguous
terms in G-6.0106b, considering ways in which its exclusionary
impact might be lessened. Some have argued that "chastity"
may require something different than "celibacy"-for example,
monogamy or moderation, whatever the gender of the partners in a
relationship. Others have argued that the Confessions do not
call all homosexual conduct "sin"-that condemnations of "unnatural
lust" and "homosexual perversion" no more condemn loving, same-sex
relationships than prohibitions of "heterosexual perversion" or
"unnatural lust" would proscribe all loving heterosexual
relationships. Still others argue that "refusing to repent"
(a prerequisite for a candidate's disqualification under G-6.0106b)
means something akin to contumacy-wilfully disregarding an inward
conviction of the wrongfulness of one's acts-and not mere
persistence in conduct that, though condemned by a majority, the
candidate believes is right. In the next several years,
sessions, presbyteries, and PJCs around the country will be
grappling with these and other interpretative arguments.
[23] It has been the rule since the 1970s, that an examining
body may not inquire about a candidate's sexual practice unless the
candidate takes the initiative in declaring a homosexual
orientation. While this rule for a long time meant that
candidates were forced to remain "in the closet," that is no longer
the case. The GAPJC recently ruled that examining bodies may
not probe into a person's sexual practice merely because s/he
affirms a homosexual orientation-that "[t]o single out a category
of persons above and beyond other persons as more likely to sin
violates the doctrine of total depravity."22 The critical question
in this respect remains whether a candidate who is in a committed,
same-sex relationship may be deemed to have "self-acknowledged"
sexual practice with sufficient clarity to merit inquiry. The
answer in the Synod of the Northeast appears to be
"no,"23 while
the other synods have yet to rule on this issue.
[24] If local governing bodies reject all of the interpretative
options now being explored, gay/lesbian persons who choose to
"self-acknowledge" the fully sexual nature of their relationships
may be forced to fall back on the declaration of "scruples."
This is a traditional form of protest allowing a candidate to
declare that s/he cannot and need not comply with a denominational
rule because it is not an "essential" of Reformed faith and
polity. Such a strategy may well be tested before long, as
some appear to be rejecting nuanced interpretation of G-6.0106b in
favor of outright defiance.
[25] The PC(USA), like most mainstream denominations, remains
deeply troubled about possible participation by non-celibate gay
and lesbian persons in its ordained leadership. However, the
denomination has reached a greater degree of consensus and clarity
in other areas.
[26] As noted earlier, the PC(USA) long has supported secular
reforms that would protect gay and lesbian persons from criminal
sanctions for private, consensual sexual conduct and from
discrimination in employment, housing, and public
accommodations. In addition, the PC(USA) long has supported
same-sex unions, in both the secular and the ecclesiastical
realms.
[27] The PC(USA) has affirmed on five occasions in the past
decade that its ministers may bless same-sex unions, and that
ceremonies celebrating such relationships may be held in
Presbyterian churches, so long as such ceremonies are not held out
as services of Christian marriage. What "crosses the line" of
permissibility has yet to be determined, but it appears that what
is required is to avoid undue confusion between the two types of
ceremonies. The most recent affirmation of same-sex unions
came with a GAPJC decision in 2000, where the court suggested that
same-sex union ceremonies might find express warrant in the
denomination's Directory for Worship.24 It therefore is increasingly
common for pastors in the PC(USA) to conduct formal, same-sex union
ceremonies, while announcing at the start of such services that the
PC(USA) does not treat the relationship being affirmed and blessed
as a "marriage." The pastor and the congregation often
promise, at the same time, to afford the couple the same support
and nurture in their life together as they afford heterosexual
couples.
[28] As Presbyterian law has moved to embrace the lives and
aspirations of gay and lesbian persons, so it may move in the
not-too-distant future with respect to ordained leadership in the
church. Such is the trend indicated in General Assembly
voting-from over 90% in favor of a prohibition in 1978, to only 60%
in favor of prohibition in 1996, to 60% in favor of
lifting that prohibition in 2001. Argument continues
about whether the "plain sense" of Scripture condemns all same-sex
conduct, with many in the church believing that change is
inevitable (as the church has changed its position with respect to
slavery and segregation, interracial marriage, divorce, and women's
rights). The insistence of some on freedom of conscience
ensures that confrontations over respect for Presbyterian polity
will continue. These are rocky times in the PC(USA).
But the news is not all gloomy. At a time when society
evidences widespread indifference and even antagonism toward
organized religion, this protracted debate, painful as it is,
demonstrates that Presbyterians take their faith and the gospel
seriously enough to really care about how the church approaches
this critical issue.
© January 2003
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 3, Issue 1
1 As a technical matter, this action was taken by a
predecessor of the PC(USA), the so-called "northern church," or
United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
(UPCUSA). UPCUSA Minutes, 1978, Pt. I at pp. 213-67 (quotation at
p. 265). In 1979, a similar statement was adopted by the
Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), the so-called
"southern church" that had split from the northern church in the
1860s over the question of slavery (PCUS Minutes, 1979, Pt. I at
pp. 200-10). The UPCUSA and PCUS were merged into a single
denomination, the PC(USA), in 1983.
2 UPCUSA Minutes, 1978, Pt. I at p. 264.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 264, 266.
5 Id. at 266.
6 Id. at 264.
7 Under the Presbyterian form of government, amendments
may be made to the Book of Order only if they are approved by a
majority in General Assembly, and then ratified by majority vote in
a majority of the presbyteries before the next General
Assembly.
8 Union Presbyterian Church of Blasdell v. Presbytery of
Western New York, PC(USA) Minutes, 1985, Pt. I at pp. 118-123.
9 LeTourneau v. Presbytery of Twin Cities Area, PC(USA)
Minutes, 1993, Pt. I at pp. 163-166.
10 Sallade v. Presbytery of Genesee Valley, PC(USA)
Minutes, 1993, Pt. I at pp. 166-170.
11 PC(USA) Minutes, 1993, Pt. I at pp. 75-77, 127.
12 See PC(USA) Minutes, 1996, Pt. I at pp. 80,
679-760.
13 PC(USA) Minutes, 1996, Pt. I at pp. 156-161.
14 While the PC(USA) has no official clearinghouse for the
reporting of presbytery votes, interest groups from across the
theological spectrum typically collect and publish such information
on their websites. Vote tallies on "Amendment B" and subsequent
issues of this nature are available at http://www.covenantnetwork.org/home.htm.
15 PC(USA) Minutes, 1997, Pt. I at pp. 89-90.
16 Notwithstanding its apparent breadth, which technically
applies to all unmarried persons, G-6.0106b was generally
understood as an effort to prohibit gay and lesbian people from
holding ordained office. Indeed, it appears that all judicial cases
brought to enforce the rule since its passage have related to gay
or lesbian candidates for office.
17 As in the US court system, the PC(USA) includes several
levels of permanent judicial commissions, with cases moving from
courts having jurisdiction over limited areas (presbyteries) to
appeal before courts covering larger regions (synods) and
ultimately to the GAPJC, which rules on behalf of the national
church.
18 Rem. Case 213-2, Londonderry Presbyterian Church v.
Presbytery of Northern New England (GAPJC, slip op. July 7,
2000).
19 In addition, one presbytery sent an overture
seeking to reinforce the current rules.
20 The PowerPoint presentation and related materials
prepared by the Overture Advocates remain available on the websites
of a number of progressive Presbyterian groups, including http://www.covenantnetwork.org/home.htm.
21 Book of Order § G-6.0106a.
22 Rem. Case 214-5, Wier v. Second Presbyterian Church
(GAPJC, slip op. April 14, 2002).
23 See Rem. Case R-1998-1, Hair v. First Presbyterian
Church (PPJC-Southern New England, slip op. March 5, 1999), upheld
in relevant part, Case No. 99-5, Hair v. First Presbyterian Church
(SPJC-Northeast, slip op. Oct. 9, 1999).
24 Benton v. Presbytery of Hudson River, PCUSA Minutes,
2000, Pt. I at pp. 586-589. Warrant was found, in particular, in
§ W-6.3010, which provides for services recognizing
significant life events, when "households are established . . .
[and] people are empowered, restored, make new commitments. . . .
The ministries of pastoral care support people in . . . celebrating
these and other such times of adjustment, assisting them in working
toward a new role in life and affirming their identity through
transition." This decision led to a legislative effort by
conservatives to add a prohibition on same-sex unions to the Book
of Order. However, that effort was defeated in the
presbyteries.