The latest version of “Transforming Families,” which the General Assembly will be asked to approve later this week, is a pared-down statement — 14 pages from more than 40 — that attempts to satisfy concerns that last year’s version was so inclusive that it was no longer Presbyterian.
The paper’s most controversial parts have been reworked as many as 20 times, and some of the most vocal critics of last year’s version were recruited to help the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy update it.
“Transforming Families” comes in response to the 209th General Assembly in 1997, which called for a study of changing families and social structures that support families in order to strengthen the church’s ministry to contemporary families in both the church and society.
But while its focus was predominantly on ministering to children, the report became a lightning rod for controversy, raising difficult — and highly personal — questions about adult relationships: What does the church want families to look like? Are some families better than others? Are married couples superior to single people in the church’s view? Is sex outside of marriage OK? What about same-sex couples, or single parents?
“I think the church needs to have a guide for families in black and white, certainly one that’s based on the Scriptures,” said committee member Becky Dodson, an elder from San Joaquin Presbytery.
Debate Monday was serious, subdued and polite, though tiny word changes took on great meaning.
In one section, Wayland Wong, a minister from Los Ranchos Presbytery, proposed changing the phrase “covenantal relationships” to marriages, saying, “Covenantal relationships opens the door to too many things that may not be biblical.” The amendment failed after the group decided the context of the paragraph made clear that the relationships being discussed were marriages.
The committee worked paragraph by paragraph through much of the document.
“Paragraph 6? Paragraph 7? Paragraph 8? Paragraph 9,'” asked moderator James H.Y. Kim, pausing for amendments.
Members debated whether to keep a reference to studies showing children do best when their mothers and fathers stay together in a loving, lasting marriage — and that children are still likely to flourish if their parents divorce. The references stayed in. But the committee didn’t add, as some members would have liked. that other studies show that children of gay parents also generally turn out well.
One committee member moved to strike a phrase stating that the church rejects attitudes or practices that value some family members more highly than others “based on gender, age, class, ability, ethnic origin, sexual orientation — or any outward condition”; that amendment failed. In all there were few substantial changes to the document.
“K? L? M? N? O? P?” Kim asked. “OK.”
The committee approved it by a vote of 60 to zero, with two members abstaining. Afterward, commissioners and observers on various sides of the debate said it was a good compromise. “”People found something we can agree on. That is a wonderful thing,” said Deborah DeBoer, a committee member from the Presbytery of Northern New York.
Marriage declaration not endorsed
Less settled is the question of marriage. The committee voted by a narrow margin against endorsing “A Christian Declaration of Marriage,” with 29 in favor, 32 opposed and one abstention. Instead, the group voted to ask church members to join in a year of prayer for marriage renewal and reconciliation, and to urge synods, presbyteries and congregations to work with other Christian bodies to promote marriage.
Committee member Don Wade, a minister from Greater Atlanta Presbytery, said he plans to seek permission to file a minority report, which would ask the Assembly to approve the declaration.
Several committee members expressed concerns that the document departs from Reformed teachings — for instance, in stating that one of the purposes for marriage is the procreation of children. Charles Wiley, an associate for theology with the PC(USA) said he believes the declaration is “roughly ” consistent with the current Presbyterian understanding of marriage. “It doesn’t seem to me that there is a fundamental disagreement with current things. Of course, some people are dissatisfied with current things.”
Several committee members said it is a valuable affirmation of marriage and a way to reach out to other denominations. “I’m afraid it will be read by other Christian denominations as a rejection of working together on those areas,” said Miji Working of Santa Barbara Presbytery, the overture’s advocate.
