You’re in the driver’s seat. This may come as a surprise to you, given that the public arena seems to tune out your voice. You often have felt frustrated to see so many ministries of the church get disregarded as controversies have monopolized the church’s attention. Yet, over the next nine months, as curves of argument in search of amendment ratification or rejection imperil the old denominational jalopy’s journey, your navigating skills will determine both our arrival and our survival.
The past General Assembly (GA) proposed for presbyteries’ ratification a new summary of ordination requirements. You will cast the deciding votes. The conservative-evangelicals can’t stop ratification without your help; otherwise, we would have prohibited all same-sex unions as proposed by the 2000 GA. The liberal-progressives can’t win without you; otherwise, we would have overturned the fidelity-chastity ordination requirement as proposed by the 1997 and 2001 GA’s.
What role will you play in all this?
Two things we all need from you, for which you are especially equipped.
First, we need you to shape a deliberative process in your presbytery that can insure that all voices get heard and that the majority gets to rule.
About half of the presbyteries are so red or blue that their final vote is all but guaranteed. But, voices long silenced need to be heard. Being outnumbered doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. The biblical prophets seldom commanded the masses.
About half of the presbyteries are decidedly purple. In every one of those presbyteries, the deliberative process will be enhanced if dialogue precedes the debate and vote. Your leadership gifts and ecclesiast convictions equip you to develop that kind of fairness. We need you to take the lead.
Secondly, we need you to ask tough questions. As a centrist ecclesiast, you tend to see issues from their pragmatic perspective: “Will this build up or hurt the church?” A critical question, to be sure. But your ability to sort through the matters theologically is equally important.
For example, on the matter of human sexuality, we know that the Bible says nothing positive about same-sex relations. But does it prohibit all same-sex behavior, or does it reject only those that are predatory (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah), pedophiliac (e.g., Rome), and/or poly-amorous (e.g., Corinth)?
Given the post-Pentecost church’s willingness to compromise biblically dogmatic teachings — Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, eating kosher, and even eating food offered to idols — in order to make the gospel accessible to outsiders, might the traditional teaching prohibiting same-sex relations be compromised today to reach the gay community for Christ? Or, should the prohibition stand uncompromised, as is the case for fornication? (See Acts 15; Romans 14; I Cor. 8.)
For a gay or lesbian to be told, “You’re welcome in our membership; you’re just not eligible to be ordained,” echoes what women heard for generations: “We love when you girls do social and benevolent functions in the church, but God obviously reserved the offices of the church for the men.” The vocational end in view defines the present participatory status. Does the prohibition on ordination throw a stumbling-block before gay and lesbian persons that the New Testament apostles might urge us to jettison for the sake of the gospel?
Then again, families count on their church to help teach high morals to their children, and a church that compromises its sexual morality standards for leaders throws a stumbling-block in their way. Should we defer to them?
Then again, our international ecumenical partners, especially in the two-third’s world — where sexually transmitted diseases (especially AIDS) are devastating their communities — shudder every time we countenance any softening of our stance on sexual standards. Is this a time to listen to their counsel or to speak the prophetic word, regardless of the pain it causes them?
And, yes, will any particular vote build up or hurt the church?
All these questions beg us to contemplate just how we do faithful biblical interpretation, careful theological reasoning, and practical learning in our churches. And, these questions beg for you to take the lead in forming a deliberative process that will help your presbytery and its churches engage the proposed amendment.
You are in the driver’s seat. Please drive carefully.
— JHH
