The Covenant Network (CN) long has pursued the daunting agenda both “to work for the removal of ordination barriers to the full participation of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] Presbyterians, and to support the mission and unity of the denomination.”
The 2011 adoption of Amendment 10-A, which lifted the denomination-wide,

categorical ordination standard of living a life of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness,” brought them a long-sought breakthrough on the equalization front. So, the board of CN waded into the next round of anticipated debate, the effort to open the doors of marriage to LGBT persons.

They weighed the possibility of change in the light of the legalization of same-sex marriage in several states. They also considered their unity goal, referring to those “who are troubled by the change in ordination standards.” They announced Oct. 28 that they will not seek or support overtures to the 2012 General Assembly (GA) that would change the constitutional language that specifies:

Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith. (W-4.9001)

Instead, their statement says that they will “encourage overtures seeking Authoritative Interpretation to protect pastoral discretion to celebrate same-gender marriages where they are sanctioned by the civil authorities.”

Wrong answer. Yes, it looks like a smaller pill for traditionalists to swallow. It would allow the performance of same-sex weddings only in parts of the country that have determined for themselves via secular votes or court rulings that that is the just thing to do. The majority of PC(USA) churches would not be free to perform such services. But, in the PC(USA), it is a poison pill.

It is poisonous because it flies in the face of the obvious meaning of the constitutional standard, and the only way to change such a standard is to amend it through the prescribed process. Yes, some will say that the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) — of which this editor was a member — recommended the adoption of an A/I to allow persons to declare a scruple on points of departure from the ordination standards. However, PUP was dusting off a practice in use since 1729. It wasn’t introducing anything new. This marriage A/I would invent something entirely new. It wouldn’t clarify something ambiguous in the Constitution (the whole point of A/I’s) but make ambiguous what is clear.

This pill is poisonous because it tackles a consequential issue via the path of least resistance — one simple majority vote by the GA. The proper, straightforward process of amending the constitutional Book of Worship requires a vote of the GA plus ratification by a majority of the presbyteries. Sure, that would embroil folks throughout the church, but does anybody think they’d be less embroiled if the change were made without their local church elders getting to cast a vote?

In fact, the truly honorable way to change this policy would entail amending related texts in the Book of Confessions, which requires ratification by two-thirds of the presbyteries, sandwiched between two affirming GAs. That was done properly a generation ago to soften the Confessions’ condemnation of divorcees.

This pill is poisonous also because it submits one of the church’s liturgical, and therefore theological, acts to local, secular, civil government definition and authorization. Are our theological convictions that trivial?

Let nobody doubt that the backlash unleashed by the recent change in ordination standards would pale in comparison to a change in marriage standards. To subject an already fragile church to such a change without due process would, indeed, prove lethal.

As much as we would like to avoid another bitter constitutional ratification battle, and as much as some would like to enlarge the latitude of existing pastoral discretion for blessing relationships, the attempt to change the church’s marriage practice by unconstitutional means is the wrong prescription. It’s just plain bad medicine.

—JHH

Your Responses (15)

Subscribe to this comment's feed