Go out into the world...

It was interesting to watch the recent General Assembly respond to the politics of fear. I was recently talking to a former Baptist missionary about his experience as the conservatives took over the denomination and began to fire all missionaries, such as himself, who didn’t agree with their positions. He said that while he was trying to decide, he came home for a visit. While the debate raged within the Southern Baptist community, he talked to his mother who had been a life long Southern Baptist. She told him that she just couldn’t understand what all the arguments were about. I suspect that also is reflective of many of the members of the Presbyterian church. Those of us who have been engaged in these arguments over the past thirty (or a hundred) years think that we are debating crucial decisions. The average membership may take sides depending on what charismatic pastor is advocating for one side or the other, but by in large they don’t understand what the fight is about.

With respect to the homosexual debate in particular, I believe that the mood has changed because of relationships. When the vast majority of homosexuals were “in the closet,” most people lived with characterizations of homosexuality that were based on lots of misinformation. When homosexuals began to come out of the closet in droves, many of us discovered that there were many homosexuals that were also people we cared about before we knew of their orientation. They were our brothers, sisters, parents, trusted friends, etc.

Then we began to hear that many of our presumed beliefs were not based on facts. For example, most gays are not sexual predators and our children are at least as vulnerable, if not more so, to heterosexuals. We also discovered that despite the reputation for pormiscuity, many gays were in long standing relationships. Occasionally we would discover that a beloved member of the church, even a pastor or educator, was gay, and yet we knew that their life was exemplorary. I know of one Presbyterian minister who serves as a youth minister in a church and is openly gay. The congregation knows it but they also know him. They have no more fear for their children than they would if he were heterosexual.

At the General Assembly there were those who argued that churches would leave the denomination if we changed our position on homosexuality. Other groups made that precise argument about the churches position on abortion, and still others as they argued against the new Form of Government. It seems to be the new nuclear option argument. What I saw at the GA was that the commissioners were growing tired of that argument. There might be good or bad reasons to vote one way or the other but fear was not one of them.

Was the Assembly reflective of the membership of the church? Will the presbytery votes be different this time? It is hard to know but I, at least, hope that the politics of fear will have less of an impact this time. Wouldn’t it be interesting if our presbyteries genuinely listened to one another and spent a lot of time in prayer as they made their decisions?

When the original Peace, Unity, and Purity report of the PC(USA) came out in 2006, the emphasis was on pushing the ordination question back down to the presbytery level. It was suggested that they were closer to the candidate in question and could make a better decision than a universal standard of one size fits all. The earlier tradition of “scruples” was revived and candidates were permitted to announce that some part of the standards and beliefs required of Presbyterian pastors violated the candidates conscience and therefore s/he had a scruple against it. Having announced such a scruple, the candidates’ committee would examine her or him and decide whether this scruple would prevent the person from appropriately fulfilling the office to which s/he sought ordination. If not, then the ordination would proceed. This, of course, put the weight of responsibility on the presbytery to do a careful examination and discern God’s will in each case.

Those who have kept an eagle eye out to spot any loosening of the barrier that prevented the ordination of gays and lesbians, immediately protested that this allowed for what was labeled local option. Such candidates would simply move to the more liberal presbyteries to seek care. The latest decison in GA 218 (2008), for all practical purposes continued to move in this direction. So the question that is raised is whether there is a threat to the church if presbyteries are given the authority to ordain those that they deem appropriate.

I think those who fear the local option movement are correct in their perception and wrong in their judgment. There are presbyteries who are ready to ordain people who are, in their discernment, called by God and who happen to be gay. Like in the marriage controversy where Massachusetts and California now permit legal marriage to take place among gays, there will be presbyteries within the denomination who will allow ordination of gays and lesbians to take place. Since the votes over the last 30 years have revealed that both members and clergy are almost evenly split over this issue, would this not permit both positions to be represented among the clergy?

Some will say that allowing this to take place will challenge the standards of the church that have stood for centuries. It is, they say, one more example of the church accomodating herself to the values of society rather than proclaiming a better way. The problem with that argument is seen in the history of the church. Almost from the beginning, and in a major way beginning in the year 1,000, and then in the 1500s, the church has shown a great ability to remain vital while having diverse and at times contradictory understandings of vital components of the faith, including our understanding of Jesus.

If, as Jesus said, the central component of our belief is the love of God and the love of neighbor and all else is commentary on those two central beliefs, then we can afford to “work out our faith with fear and trembling,” confident that God is in charge and by the fruits of our faith, the truth shall be made clear.

If we are willing to say that God can call whomever God chooses and our task is to affirm God’s call, how do we do that. Since God has a habit of calling people we do not expect, how do we know if a person has indeed received a call from God. This is an important question that all church bodies must answer.

Some churches are part of a hierarchy that makes that decision and others make it at the level of the congregation. In all cases, they are attempting to discern the truth of the call as it takes place in the human heart. As is made clear in 1 Samuel 16, “the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” (16:7). The problem, of course, is it is extremely difficult to measure the heart of another person.

As far back as the late 70s when the Presbyterian Church was first wrestling with this issue with respect to gay individuals, their study group recommended a procedure that was clearly in line with both the tradition of the Presbyterian Church and the limits of human discernment. For a call to be recognized, first the person has to attest to the call in their own heart. It is important that they believe that they have been called by God.

Next, they have to receive the support of the church body that knows them best. They must receive the support of the governing board of their local church; in the Presbyterian case, this is the session. With the sessions approval, they go under care of the presbytery or regional body of the churches. They must also engage in appropriate education and training in a recognized seminary. In the case of Presbyterians, they must also learn Hebrew and Greek. Some believe that this is a major test of the sincereity of the call.

If they have received the proper education (now including passing of ordination exams) and convinced both their local congregation and the presbytery of the sincerity of their call and their appropriate character and preparation, the final step is to find a congregation or appropriate body to issue them a call to the ministry. Only when all those steps have been taken, is a person recognize as having received a call to serve God in ordained ministry.

History would suggest that such a set of criteria are hardly fool proof. Many have been approved for ordination who should not have been so ordained. That happens regardless and it is only discerned over time in their practice of ministry. It is only a human procedure but does engage the prayerful interaction of a number of human beings and church bodies. The church has survived the mistakes and flourished under some excellent leadership. Often they have been surprised at who demonstrates the best gifts for ministry.

The truth is, we need procedures that help to guide us in our decision making and then we need to trust that God can work effectively even when we make mistakes. The concern is that we not block from the practice of ministry in our churches the person God wishes to call.

The first issue that any Christian body has to resolve with respect to the ordination of either gay or straight, is how we feel about the call of God and our responsibility to honor it. Before we get to the most immediate issue, if we take Scripture seriously, we have to acknowledge that God frequently calls people for service who do not meet the standards that we think are essential. David is the most obvious example from the Hebrew Scriptures that comes to mind. It does not take too much reflection to realize that he broke most if not all of the ten commandments.

At the moment of his anointing, it was made clear that he didn’t meet the people’s standards either. And here we are told in clear words, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, . . . for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” What did the Lord see in this womanizing scalywag who was willing to kill another person in order to steal his wife.

I’m not raising here the argument that we are all sinners so everything is all right. What I am suggesting is that God has a tendency to call people to ministry with a criteria that often violates what we believe and can even quote scripture to support as appropriate. Paul may have been a religious zealot but he could hardly be seen as someone who had seen the light in Jesus as the Christ. When in Matthew we read that Jesus declared about Peter, “and on this rock I will build my church,” he is not talking about a person who modeled the perfect faith. In fact immediately after Jesus affirmation, Jesus had an opportunity to suggest that Peter was acting equivalent to Satan.

The first question we must answer is are we willing to ordain someone God calls. Obviously the next question is how we determine who has been called by God. But before that, we must answer the first question.

Some will ask why the General Assembly keeps discussing these issues when previous assemblies have already responded to them. The answer is that the assembly by the rules that govern it, has the responsibility to respond to questions or resolutions that are submitted to it by the presbyteries. Fifteen presbyteries, one commissioner’s resolution, and three communications from GA agencies requested that the Assembly address various aspects of questions around ordination. The resolutions reflected the wide theological spectrum of the Presbyterian Church.

The procedure is for all resolutions to be sent to appropriate committees consisting of a random sample of elder and clergy commissioners. Most of these committees consisted of about 75 commissioners. Interested parties may sign up to testify to the committee about their perspective on any of the resolutions before a committee. The committee may also seek out expert advice in order to help them come to an understanding of the issues before them.

The Committee on Church Orders and Ministry was assigned these nineteen resolutions. After extensive hearings and debate among themselves, the committee recommended by a vote of 41-11 (there were some who chose not to vote) to recommend to General Assembly that G-6.0106b, frequently referred to as the fidelity and chastity amendment, be replaced by wording that asked candidates, elders, and pastors to declare their fidelity to the standards of the church articulated in their ordination vows without singling out sexual conduct above the other standards.

It also recommended that the body doing the ordaining, churches with respect to elders and presbyteries with respect to pastors, examine and determine the candidate’s sincere efforts to live by these standards. They replaced previous Authoritative Interpretations and would permit candidates to declare “scruples” or reservations on the basis of conscience to any of the standards for ordination. The ordaining body would then determine whether such scruples would prevent the person from being ordained or not.

This recommendation, along with a minority report, was then put before the whole assembly that, after lengthy but civil debate, voted 380 to 325, or 54% to 46%, in favor of the committee recommendation. Since this would mean a change in the Book of Order, the proposal will now be sent to each of the 173 presbyteries, a majority of which would have to vote in favor for it to be approved. If the General Assembly is representative of the church’s membership, then the church splits almost down the middle on this issue, one side getting a few more votes this time and a few less the next time. The real challenge is whether such a church can demonstrate to the world a Christian love towards each other as they debate this issue about which so many feel so strongly.

The proposed new G-6.0106b reads as follows:

“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.

Is the discussion over? Hardly! While this is a representative sample of both clergy and actively involved elders from across the nation, Presbyterians want to make sure that such changes are not just the result of an emotional response. There is a procedure that slows the process and helps in the discerning of God’s purpose. This new recommendation will be sent to the 173 presbyteries who themselves will discuss and vote on the proposal. A majority of them also have to vote in favor for the change to be made.

The church like the nation is not of one mind on this subject. From the faith perspective, we have not been able to discern the will of God. For Presbyterians, that means more discussion and more praying. Stay tuned.