The General Assembly has recommended that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) change its constitution to eliminate the requirement that those being ordained practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single. But it’s not at all clear whether a majority of the 173 presbyteries will vote to do that – whether that recommended change will come to pass.
So the Covenant Network is looking for ways to sense that progress is being made – however the vote on changing the constitution turns out.
The 2008 General Assembly “threw the door back open” to gays and lesbians by removing old authoritative statements on homosexuality that had been in place since the late 1970s, said Tim Hart-Andersen, pastor of Westminster Church in Minneapolis, where this meeting is being held, and a Covenant Network board member.
But who knows whether the presbyteries will approve constitutional amendment to remove the “fidelity and chastity” language, said Doug Nave, a lawyer who serves on the Covenant Network board of directors. “We haven’t taken a vote in a long time,” since 2001, Nave said. “It may be revised this year. It may be revised in the year 2020. We don’t know.”
During a presentation Nov. 7 on what last summer’s General Assembly achieved as it relates to what needs to happen next in the presbyteries, Covenant Network leaders acknowledge there are some differing views even among their own ranks.
Some weren’t sure this is the right time to ask the church to vote on a constitutional change, Hart-Andersen said. He described “a little bit of ambivalence” in the Covenant Network ranks, and said “we’ve had some dissension on our own board about the timing question.”
And “our mantra this year is that we are organizing for conversations and not combat,” said Tricia Dykers Koenig, Covenant Network’s national organizer.
What that means, she said, is encouraging presbyteries to engage in a process of conversation and discernment, rather than rushing to a quick vote on the constitutional question. And those who want the “fidelity and chastity” standard removed are being encouraged to work on building relationships with whom they disagree on that issue – relationships that could endure, even if the presbyteries vote down the proposed change.
“We don’t need to be afraid of discussing difficult issues of conflicts in our church,” Koenig said. “Of course it’s important to get it right. But our salvation doesn’t depend on that, God’s already taken care of that. … It’s OK to risk being wrong. We can risk hearing other ideas.”
She added: “We blue Presbyterians need to pass our peace to the red Presbyterians, and we need to receive their peace in return.” She encouraged people to “reach out personally to someone thought to be on the other side. Build that relationship.”
But some attending a workshop on Nov. 6 on presbytery organizing said those conversations can be painful. “I am told that I don’t believe in the Bible and I shouldn’t be ordained,” because she thinks gays and lesbians should be eligible for ordination, a pastor from Tennessee said. “That’s pretty hurtful.”
But the Covenant Network leadership is calling for a discussion over gay ordination that’s less angry, more open to listening.
“We need to learn that polarization is not helpful to the country, it has not been helpful to the church,” said David Colby, a pastor from St. Paul and Covenant Network board member. It’s not a good idea, he said, for people to come out of their corners “and try to beat our opponent into a bloody pulp.”
Colby encouraged Presbyterians not to make assumptions about one another in this discussion – citing the example of his wife’s grandfather, a hunter from Idaho, “a proud Republican, proud Idahoan, and a gay rights activist,” which some might not expect.
“Let’s not assume people who disagree with us are wrong. Let’s not assume we need to share the news of Jesus Christ with them because they haven’t gotten it yet,” Colby said. “I want to challenge us not to make assumptions about each other.”
The Covenant Network leaders also make it clear that they’re pleased with what Koenig described as “the awesome 218th General Assembly.”
The assembly recommended removing the “fidelity and chastity” language, and took away authoritative interpretations that had been in place starting in the late 1970s, which held that “unrepentant homosexual practice is inconsistent with ordained service,” Nave said.
The 2008 assembly basically “swept the table clean,” Hart-Andersen said. As Koenig put it, the assembly “wiped away the 30-year stain” of the early authoritative statements.
Gay and lesbian candidates are beginning to declare scruples, or objections based on conscience, to the “fidelity and chastity” language, and to be considered by presbyteries for ordination. According to an authoritative interpretation adopted by the assembly in 2006, local governing bodies can approve a candidate who has declared a scruple if they determine the departure from the standard would not involve an “essential” of Reformed faith or polity.
During a question-and-answer session Nov. 7, some speakers pushed back on the idea of emphasizing conversation over combat.
“What I sense here is a feeling that we think this new Amendment B (the proposal to delete “fidelity and chastity”) is likely to fail,” one woman said. “I just sense a kind of doubt here this afternoon.”
And a man said that, as Barack Obama has shown, “nobody wins an election without believing that they can. … I think we need to get out there and do everything that we possibly can.”
To those on both sides of the issue who say they’re tired of fighting about homosexuality, Koenig offers this: Vote now to remove the “fidelity and chastity” standard. Because “until this blight on the constitution is removed,” she said, “we’re going to have to keep working on it.”
