Just before noon on November 11 Florida Presbytery began the vote on the BOO amendments. When we came to vote on 08-C my mind began to wander and to wonder.  As we were forced to choose between the Greek “sympathy” and the Latin “compassion,” I looked around, and it seemed to me that the eyes of my fellow commissioners had that “deer caught in the headlights” look in them.

We seemed to be standing on the same theological “slippery slope” that the Church stood on almost a thousand years ago — torn between the Greek and Latin Fathers — before it slid down into a split that has not yet been healed. The eyes of these commissioners seemed to say, “Are we being forced to choose again between those two ancient factions in the church?”

After centuries of following the Latin Fathers’ teaching that the great human problem is sin, we have finally come to see wisdom in the Greek Fathers’ teaching that the great human problem is death.  Were we, in being asked to choose between “sympathy” and “compassion”, being forced to choose between the Latin immorality and the Greek mortality as competing explanations of the human dilemma?  In being asked to switch from “sympathy” to “compassion” were we also being asked to give up all the wisdom and insight of the Greek Fathers and march forth behind the Latin Fathers? 

All this went on in my mind, and I was settling in for a lengthy and learned debate on a thousand year old issue that is still unresolved — mortality vs. immorality, Greek Fathers vs. Latin Fathers, East vs. West. Then before I knew what was happening the vote on 08-C was taken and passed without debate, and the presbytery moved on.  Once again I had misread the look in the eyes of the commissioners — it was not panic, just boredom — but it still left me wondering!
 
Bill Lee, honorably retired

Tallahassee, Fla.

I look forward to the other two essays by Erwin Barron on this topic. He puts things in place well when he speaks of the seemingly endless battle between the authorities of the Bible versus experience. I also appreciate how he deals with and challenges all of us on how to engage the two authorities in a kind of process dialogue. Still, I think that the problem is deeper than this and Barron may address it soon. The problem is two-fold, as I see it.

One, those who rely on the Bible (admittedly, they also read it in terms of their experience) do not actually base much of their emotional conclusions on what the Bible actually says. They generally lack “good enough” word study, knowledge of content, the culture, etc., on many subjects. The obvious one today is what we all know as “homosexuality.” They base it upon what their own day, culture, and poor English translations (their experience) have led them to believe. We did this with slavery and the place of women in ministry, too. They take their positions as “gospel” when, in Biblical fact, it is not. Such present, deep-seated, hardcore positions often do not reflect a real knowledge of the very Scripture they misuse for their positions. The “plain meaning of the text” has its place, at times, but many accepted interpretations of the Bible today do not render the correct wording for the meaning of a particular term used by the Greek or Aramaic writers in the context of their own day and time. This is THE basis for our fighting! Until we actually know better how to interpret Scripture and allow it to interpret and change us, this problem will remain.

Secondly, experience, reason, science, etc., are good to honor as legitimate secondary authorities, for sure. But, they need to be able to muster past what would be a far better understanding and method of interpreting Scripture. Unfortunately for “experience,” the movement of time, evolving information, discoveries, consensus agreements, etc., also leave us vulnerable to give either not enough, too much, or wrong amounts of experience-authority to any contemporary issue. Even experience, what with human pride, must remain open to questioning. In short, neither “side” really knows enough about what the Bible actually says and means in its own time nor does the other “side” always have a clear picture of various contemporary situations in order for healthy conversation or great positions always to be taken — human hubris being what it is. As such, “Truth” may suffer.

Having said this, it is important for each to remain in dialogue with the other so that all of us might move closer to vs. further from the will of God in matters of faith and practice.

James R. Black, interim pastor

Arlington Church

Jacksonville, Fla.

Looking for ways to celebrate Advent and Christmas in your home or congregation while avoiding the material excesses of the season?

            The Enough for Everyone program of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in October introduced a new component focused on lifestyle integrity for families, couples and individuals: Just Living. Currently featured on the Just Living Web page are Advent and Christmas suggestions. “During Advent we anticipate and celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In our modern-day culture Christmas has also become a season of giving. This year we have compiled some resources to help Presbyterians engage in giving that sustains life and celebrates the birth of Christ in more meaningful ways than mainstream culture provides,” says the Web site.

Families and congregations can find suggestions on spiritual preparation (praying, serving); food, and celebration ideas that support sustainability; alternative suggestions for gift giving.

            Participants can also post ideas their own ideas and experiences in observing the holidays.

In many waits —

I haven’t known what I wait for

or even that I’m waiting.

Standing at the bus stop, she’d say,

“Look around for a 4-leaf clover; they’re good luck.”

Grandmother Emma’s thrill at my discovery

ended the wait!  Time stopped at the bus stop—

as I resumed search for her clover and her delight again.

The Inglewood local always came, I suppose,

or never did — I can’t remember.

In either case, Pittsburgh transit patterns were incidental,

because of her company.

When birthing was woman’s work,

I dozed in a chair in the Fathers’ Waiting Room

foolishly imagining my wait was for a time when I’d be a dad

and that it would begin by dawn — which it did —

to the relief of both parents.

But I was as mistaken, then as at the bus stop.

In subsequent years, as an adult child befriended me

I discovered what I’d been searching for

that night of a child’s birth;

a joy unrecognizable as an object of my wait, until it came.

Now I find missing clearer than waiting — the heart

trumpets what’s missing, or who. 

So I find myself at a stop as silent solstice crawls this way.

I look still and again for a cradled Crossling as I wait,

and gentle and fierce company of other waiters

with whom I finally come to know

that I wait for good times, God-times — these stops,

waiting with the One or ones I miss,

and with those others given me in the meantime

between now and when the delight of Another once-born and still alive

comes again.

 WILLIAM R. LEETY is pastor of Overbrook Church, Columbus, Ohio.

Editor’s Note, November 7, 2008: As Presbyterians consider presbytery action on G-6.0106b, the OUTLOOK makes this statement of clarification: Mike Loudon’s essay, “Let the PUP Report Work” (pub. Nov. 3, 2008), states that that report “called for the retention of the present ordination standards. …” To be exact, the report “encourage[d] the 217th General Assembly (2006) to approve” no changes “…that would have the effect of changing denominational policy on any of the major issues in the task force’s report. …”  The rationale of the report explains, “In order to assess whether the ways forward we have proposed are effective in promoting peace, unity, and purity, it seems advisable to all members of the task force, whatever their personal positions on issues, that the task force’s recommendations be considered and weighed in a spirit of discernment, and that they also be given an opportunity to work. … We believe it would create confusion and further conflict to attempt to make major constitutional changes to section G-6.0106 or on other controversial issues before the church has reacquainted itself with the time-tested principles of the proposed authoritative interpretation” (p. 43). The report did not express any opinion regarding possible policy changes that might be considered by subsequent General Assemblies.

 Re:  Loudon/Wheeler Forum (pub. Nov. 3, 2008)

Mike Loudon (“Let the PUP Report work,”) urges a return to pre-G-60106b “scruple” days. But that was before homosexual ordination became an issue. To insure conformity to “fidelity and chastity,” this escape hatch for objectors was removed.  Mike thinks it should be restored as a means of achieving Peace, Unity, and Purity. Has PUP accomplished these elusive ideals? Letters to the Outlook indicate otherwise.

But the issue that concerns me is not procedure but theology. What should determine belief and practice, Scripture or culture? Instead of critiquing culture in the light of Scripture, Barbara Wheeler [“Why not replace (or retain) G-6.0106b] and her ilk seem to be reinterpreting Scripture to support unbiblical cultural norms. That is why I believe the presbyteries should vote to retain the thrice-affirmed ordination standards of G-60106b.

Joe Hopkins
New Wilmington, Pa.

Thanks to Mike Loudon for his excellent article, which raises a question: During the 250 years that scrupling was allowed, were there any recorded instances in which a minister was ordained after scrupling a requirement of personal conduct? None is given in the rationale supporting Recommendation 5 of the PUP report.

Also, The Report of the Special Committee on Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government Minutes, 1983, pp. 141-58) indicates that such scrupling was not permitted: (1) “The situation regarding the requirements and prohibitions of the Form of Government is different; because polity often requires compliance in behavior, whereas the confessional standards may not.” Ibid., p. 155) (2) “The fact that the church permits diversity of theological beliefs but in many areas requires uniformity of practice does not exalt polity over theology.” Ibid., p. 156) (3) “Therefore freedom of conscience is not abridged by the requirements of our Constitution.” Ibid., p.158).

Going still further back, The Westminster Confession states that the purpose of freedom of conscience is destroyed by those who use it to practice any sin. (6.110)

This is an important question of fact, because the PUP authoritative interpretation (AI), the 2008 AI that nullified the 1978 and 79 interpretations, and the 2008 AI that attempts to override the Bush decision, are all based on it.    

Warren Herron

Atlanta, Ga.

Each proposed amendment carries the following preface: "The 218th General Assembly directed the Stated Clerk to send the following proposed amendment to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes."

It is therefore the constitutional responsibility of presbyteries to VOTE on the proposed amendments. Deciding to take "no action" has the same effect as a "no" vote — but it lacks the courage and legitimacy of an actual vote.

It disrespects the work of our GA commissioners to refuse to act on items properly sent to the presbyteries. It does not matter whether we agree or not. It does not matter whether we are tired of the issue or not. The business has been placed before us, and we are duty-bound to act.

How ironic is it that anyone could dare to suggest that we should handle a proposed amendment dealing with ordination vows by failing to honor our own ordination vow to abide by the polity of the church?

"No action" is not an honorable option. Vote with respect for all opinions. Vote with the love of God in your heart and with the Spirit guiding you. But vote yes or vote no — that is our duty.

Richard Hong
Englewood, N.J.

I deeply appreciate Barbara Wheeler’s article … regarding the proposal to amend G-6.0106b, "Why not replace (or retain) G-6.0106b?"
     In it she recommends against approval because it may harm the church and probably will not succeed in accomplishing what is sought.  She recommends this in spite of the fact that she believes G-6.0106b is wrong. That this argument comes from a person dedicated so strongly to ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians is a credit to her.
     Ms. Wheeler suggests not voting for Amendment B as a way of expressing the concerns she raises. The effect of this would be to report to the General Assembly that no action has been taken, effectively a vote against it. Robert’s Rules does not allow a motion to take no action, but it can be accomplished by a motion to “postpone indefinitely” when Amendment B is presented for approval. This motion allows full debate, discussion, and a vote on the matter, without having to say yes or no. If the motion is defeated, a presbytery can proceed to vote yea or nay. 
     I am particularly appreciative of Ms Wheeler’s rationale for supporting the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians. She eschews the standard arguments in favor — secular principles of equality and theological arguments for justice — instead grounding her stand on her interpretation of the Reformed Tradition’s understanding of God, who would not prohibit non-celibate gays and lesbians from: love and companionship; sealing a covenant between two persons with sexual intimacy; responding to God’s call to discipleship and social responsibility in a family relationship; seeking faithfulness to a partner and commitment to children. It is a persuasive argument.
     What Ms Wheeler seems to lift up is a hope that her goal of full acceptance of LGBT persons can be furthered by deep and faithful discussions based on Biblical teachings, freedom, love, and open dialogue. I do too. Which makes me curious why Ms. Wheeler has not taken a step that might really help to accomplish the beginning of a process that could be fruitful.
     In her definition of what God seeks, she uses terms like love, companionship, sealing a covenant, discipleship, faithfulness to a partner.  In effect, she says these describe what God wishes. Perhaps she would be willing to take these concepts and make them prescriptive, rather than merely descriptive.
     If she, as a major voice in the movement for the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians, would declare that those who seek to be ordained must seal a covenant, not with sexual love but with a public declaration before God and the church, a covenant that would call the couple to discipleship, social responsibility, and fidelity to the partner, then this may form a core agreement that can be acceptable to all parties. Indeed, we expect these from those who marry.
     This may open an opportunity to begin dialogue, for it could form a common ground on which to base discussion. Without it, the freedom for sexual intimacy she seeks has no limits, no commitment to faithfulness and permanence, or call to service that is expected of those in a marriage. In effect, the covenant she describes is sealed only by sexual intimacy, a flimsy bond. The ancient rule of the church is simple: no fornication, no adultery. Approving same-sex intimacy for gays and lesbians without limits would approve it also for heterosexual intimacy, something repugnant to a large portion of the church.
     Such an advocacy will not, of course, resolve the matter. But it may be enough to encourage many to engage in the kind of discussion she seeks, and which I do as well. Moreover, it is a first step that can be taken unilaterally. She could do it herself, on her own initiative.

Ed Koster, stated clerk

Presbytery of Detroit

Detroit, Mich.