Inferred, though perhaps not implied, in her words was the question: “What on earth was he thinking?”
As the one who made the substitute motion to our Church Polity Committee’s recommendation to disapprove the overture to change the definition of marriage in our Directory for Worship to include same-sex couples, I am probably in the best position to offer an answer.
What was I thinking? Simply this: It’s time to change the conversation.
For the better part of forever in my life, we have been fighting over homosexuality. The reasons are legion and you’ve heard them all before. This bloodletting has led us to a polarization of the church that mirrors the polarization of our culture and to a plethora of well-funded affinity groups, whom I have yet to see serve their adversaries as well as they serve themselves. How might our church and our world change if the focus of their caucusing was not: “How can we seize the day?” but rather, “How can we serve our sisters and brothers, against whom we stand?”
The conversation must change. This is what I was thinking as I prepared the substitute motion that proposed the Assembly approve the original overture regarding the definition of marriage. My hope was not so much to change the definition of marriage, as it was to have the Office of Theology Worship and Education, in earnest consultation and dialogue with Presbyterians for Renewal and the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, to lead us through a study of the overture that could explore, among other questions, how the Spirit of God, who makes all things new, might be reforming the church’s theology of marriage.
Rather than shattering the church, bringing people from across the aisle into such a conversation, God willing, might have been a wondrous leap forward for a denomination stuck in the quagmire of our culture wars. Sending the overture to the presbyteries would have ensured a grass roots discussion would take place. While the answer from the presbyteries most likely would have been a resounding, “No!”, it would have been a response arising not from oft-flung stones and worn out arrows, but from a table where sat adversaries who are first and foremost sisters and brothers in Christ. The conversation must change and the best place to have such a conversation is around a table that, God willing, might even resemble the Table of our Savior and Lord.
This is what I was thinking.
Elder Carpenter, and countless others, could not know what I was thinking. What’s more, her concern, shared by the vast majority, that such a conversation might “shatter” the denomination is a burden we must all bear upon our hearts. Nevertheless the questions must be asked: “Would Christ have us risk shattering the fragile chalice of our church, offering it unto God in the name of peace and unity? Or, would Christ have the church splinter, like a great beam, as we seek to make it conform to our political agendas?”
While it may not be time to raise the chalice, the beam is creaking. The time has come to change the conversation. For what it’s worth, that’s what I was thinking.
William C. Myers is pastor of Faith United Presbyterian Church in Monmouth, Ill.
