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.