The overtures in questions are:
o from Detroit Presbytery, which is asking that General Assembly statements from the late 1970s no longer be used on the issue.
o from Twin Cities Area Presbytery, which wants both fidelity and chastity (G-6.0106b) and the Assembly statements removed.
o from Baltimore Presbytery, which wants fidelity and chastity to be removed from the denomination’s Constitution,
o from Western Reserve Presbytery, which wants the Assembly to issue an authoritative interpretation that says in determining fitness for office, sessions and presbyteries are not bound by statements of the General Assembly and its commissions, regarding ordained service by homosexual persons, that predate the adoption of G-6.0106b, and
o from Western New York Presbytery, which is asking that the ordination standard be revised. Instead of requiring fidelity within “the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman,” this proposal would change it to “fidelity within a covenanted relationship between two persons where a lifetime commitment is intended.” And “refusing to repent of any self-acknowledge practice which the confessions call sin” would become “refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which does not conform to this discipline” under the Western New York proposal.
After years debating the same issue, Monday’s session held few surprises (at least for those who’ve watched before). In the cavernous ballroom used for the committee’s work, a crowd of spectators filled one side as the line of speakers snaked to the microphone.
Robert Dooling, a Colorado minister and founder of the renewal organization Presbyterian Forum, made the case that the church needs to keep both authoritative interpretation from the 1970s and the fidelity and chastity rule of 1996. “If we take away the plain and unambiguous words of the authoritative interpretation, G-6.0106b will not be clear,” he said. Dooling illustrated his point by saying the interpretation is like a tent’s center pole — without it, the tent (G-6) is flat and unusable.
Jennifer Stone of Mississippi, speaking for the overtures, compared the church’s ordination standards to the law once used in her home state to deny blacks their right to vote. Under that law, voters had to prove they were literate. “White voters were asked to spell ‘dog,’ but blacks were asked to spell ‘chrysanthemum,’” she said “We were told we needed G6 just to be sure candidates for ministry took their ordination seriously. But not one straight person has had judicial proceedings brought against them under it. It’s only been used against gay people.”
Taking a cue from their opposite number — which often features personal testimonies — the anti-gay-ordination side included at least four men and women who told how they were once gay or lesbian, but had found strength through the church, which did not change the rules and supported their struggle, to become heterosexuals.
And in end, there was a bit of drama. It was announced that the “pro-change” side had been represented by one more speaker than the “no-change” side. As is common with these public hearings, some speakers didn’t show up or had commitments elsewhere. But Paul Rolf Jensen, the Northern Virginia attorney who has personally filed dozens of complaints against Presbyterians across the denomination, was on the scene (followed by a CNN crew) and offered himself as the final speaker.
It was determined that Jensen had not signed up for the hearing, and therefore was not eligible to speak. A motion was made to close the hearing, but it failed. Another motion was then passed to allow the committee’s vice moderator, Muriel Brown, to pick a speaker from the signup list. After calling out several names, it finally fell to Vernon Yoder of Warren, Ohio, to have the last word.
Yoder, an elder in Champion church, said his session was quite concerned about the issue, felt the current policy was firmly based on biblical standards, and was worried that any changes at this time might split the denomination.
The committee is scheduled to discuss its options Monday night. Presentations by the overture advocates and advice from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution were scheduled. Most of Tuesday’s session will feature discussion (in the morning, as a “quasi committee of the whole) and finally action (in the afternoon).
