Top Ten Issues before the Assembly, Part 10

Disclaimer: The opinions contained herein are my own and are not intended to represent those of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution or any other person or entity.


Number 1: Same-sex Marriage


At last we come to the most important / volatile / newsworthy issue facing the 220th General Assembly:  same-sex marriage.  The magnitude of this issue can't be overstated.  Apart from the social and theological significance of redefining a fundamental social institution, the impact of this decision for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) could be felt for generations.

First, let's review the business before Assembly Committee 13 (an ominous number, not that Calvinists believe in bad luck). The fourteen overtures and requests before the Civil Union and Marriage Issues committee fall into three categories, with minor variations among overtures in each category:

1. Those that seek to amend W-4.9001 to change the definition of marriage from a covenant between "a man and a woman" to one between "two people."
2. Those that seek to obtain an authoritative interpretation of W-4.9000 (the whole section on marriage) that would allow pastoral discretion to perform a marriage when requested by two persons who have obtained a civil marriage license.
3. Those that seek to reaffirm or reinforce the present definitions and restrictions on marriage.

Like most highly conflicted issues, this one is not nearly as clear-cut as it may appear, and the nuances are likely to be lost in the politicized rhetoric of the extreme factions of the church.  On one hand is the traditionalist stream who point out that the Confessions and the Bible prescribe a single understanding of marriage (between one man and one woman), which shall be definitive for the church.  On another hand is the experientialist stream of the church which argues that changing social situations require adapting our pastoral care to meet the changing needs of church members.

In response to the traditionalists, it should be pointed out that the "biblical" definition of marriage as between "one man and one woman" is pretty slippery.  Not only was polygamy tolerated (Solomon had 700 wives and was uniquely favored by God), it was in some cases required (e.g., Levirate marriage). Moreover, the biblical context of marriage was a culture in which women were regarded as property, biological influences on sexual orientation were unknown, and the economics of lineage and inheritance mandated strict control of marriage, sex, and procreation. Social historians point out that our modern image of marriage and family is more the product of the Victorian era than the Bible.

Pastorally, Presbyterians have usually accommodated changes in society, choosing to defer to pastoral judgment regarding spiritual counsel and pastoral care.  This has been true of changing attitudes towards divorce, contraception, abortion, single parenthood, and premarital sex, just to name a few.  The contexts from which have arisen the requests for change are ones in which pastors are caught in the bind of telling faithful members of congregations that while the state may recognize and bless their relationships, the church which has been so central to their life and faith will not.

Constitutionally, there is an argument to be made that the language of W-4.9001 is descriptive, not prescriptive, and that even if it is regarded as mandatory, there are many mandatory provisions of the Directory for Worship that are widely ignored or flouted with little or no objection or consequence (e.g., the restriction of Holy Communion to baptized persons only).

But in response to the experientialists, it may be pointed out that (1) the church has not yet come to consensus about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, much less about whether or not it can be blessed by God through marriage; (2) arguments based on legalized same-sex marriages or changing social mores are not incumbent upon the church, which exists in prophetic tension with secular society; and (3) the biblical debate about homosexuality notwithstanding, there is no direct biblical evidence to support same-sex marriage.

But perhaps the most compelling arguments against permitting same-sex marriage (either by amendment or authoritative interpretation) are ecclesiastical and ecumenical. Without a doubt, the ecclesiastical consequences of changing the definition of marriage will be devastating -- far greater than changing ordination standards.  Those members and congregations which are struggling to remain loyal to a denomination which they believe has betrayed them on ordination will leave, quickly and en masse. I have been advised in my own presbytery, which has managed with difficulty to stay together after the adoption of Amendment 10-A in 2011, changing marriage will result in the loss of churches constituting at least 40-50% of our membership. It is also likely that the trickle of ecumenical partners who have broken fellowship with us over permitting the ordination (in individual circumstances) of "unrepentant" homosexuals will become a flood if we redefine marriage.

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution has advised that if the Assembly wishes to address the issue of same-sex marriage by changing our current practice, it should do so by constitutional amendment rather than authoritative interpretation.  You may read the ACC rationale in its advice; but from a purely ecclesiastical perspective, this issue is so volatile that any change made unilaterally by the Assembly without the consent of the church through the vote of the presbyteries will have the effect of permanently affecting the credibility and trust of our polity in the eyes of a large segment of our members and leaders.

I don't know if the committee dealing with marriage issues was assigned the number 13 by coincidence or design, but even for us Calvinists, it is an ironic if not foreboding sign of an issue which appears to have no win-win outcome for the church.  Your prayers are invited for the committee, the Assembly, and the whole church.