The final report now is available on the Web site of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
The committee did not recommend any change in the constitutional prohibition of same-gender weddings. Nevertheless, it did propose further steps that could lead in that direction, prompting three members of the committee to vote their disapproval of the final report.
For the most part, the special committee recommended that the upcoming General Assembly delegate to other bodies – sessions, presbyteries and departments in the General Assembly – various tasks of studying the issues and formulating policies for recognizing covenanted same-gender relationships within the existing Constitutional standards (see recommendations, below).
The committee voted Jan. 24 to approve its report and recommendations, with eight members voting yes and three no. Those three — all of whom have said they support the current definition in the PC (U.S.A.) constitution of Christian marriage as being only between one man and one woman — voted no on the report and recommendations, and reserved the option of submitting a minority report in subsequent weeks. As of the Outlook press deadline, no minority report had been filed. The deadline for a minority report was March 5.
Bill Teng, a pastor from northern Virginia and one of those who voted against the recommendations, said a minority report could serve the broader church by giving it alternatives, and does not reflect a splintering of the committee. “I really believe that what we have done here is good work, is faithful work,” Teng said. “We have spoken our convictions on both sides. We just came to different places” about what should be in the report.
“The option of a minority report gives us all a way when we’ve gone as far as we can go to allow everybody’s conscience to be unbound,” said Lisa Cooper Van Riper, an elder from Greenville, S.C., who also voted against the report. She urged those who support the recommendations to vote for them – “don’t worship the unity of a report. Go after what you believe. … I operated on truth today, from my perspective, and it felt good.”
But some members voiced deep disappointment that the committee was not able to reach unanimity.
Margaret Aymer, an associate professor of New Testament at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, said: “I’m very, very proud” of the committee’s work, but its inability to reach consensus “still makes me very uneasy. … It makes me uneasy for this church.”
During its 10 months of conversation, the committee discussed a complicated matrix of ideas including the reality that some Presbyterian ministers serve in states that have made same-gender marriage legal; that churches minister to families in a wide variety of configurations, including gay and lesbian couples and their children; and that state laws governing same-gender marriage and civil unions are diverse and fast-changing.
The committee’s vote was the result of a months-long struggle by its members to find common ground, but still to stay true to their convictions; to say something substantive, but not incendiary. Repeatedly, the committee removed language that someone suggested was “loaded” for either progressives or evangelicals.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee discussed presenting a report with no recommendations, but ultimately rejected that.
Among the recommendations it did approve were to:
» Ask the 2010 General Assembly to encourage presbyteries and sessions to develop resources that are consonant with the PC(USA) constitution, regarding how church facilities can be used for marriages and same-gender union ceremonies, and for clergy participation in marriages or same-gender ceremonies. According to the discussion, those resources could help answer questions ranging from “Does someone have to be a member of this church to get married here?” to “Will we allow same-gender union ceremonies?”
» Ask the assembly to direct the denomination’s Office of Theology and Worship and the Constitutional Services section of the Office of the General Assembly to provide guidelines and resources addressing the difference between a ceremony of Christian marriage and a same-gender union ceremony.
» Encourage sessions to study issues of Biblical interpretation, using specific resources already available in the denomination.
» Commend the committee’s covenant for use by others in the church on divisive issues.
» Ask the assembly to “affirm the church’s call to extend Christ’s compassion to all,” and to encourage presbyteries and sessions “to be diligent in their exercise of care in all the transitions of life.”
The committee decided not to make a specific recommendation on another issue — the recognition that the Book of Order definition of Christian marriage, as being between a man and a woman, does not match the civil definition in marriage in a handful of states that have legalized same-gender marriages. Instead, in a footnote in the report, the committee points out that “a conflict may exist” in definitions, “and this conflict has implications for the role of clergy as agents of the state. However, changing the definition of marriage in the Book of Order falls outside the mandate of this committee.”
THE COVENANT
The committee also is recommending that the church use the committee’s own covenant as a guide for discussing divisive issues.
There was some discussion, during a reconsideration Jan. 25 of the vote taken the night before, of whether the committee should remove that covenant from the report, considering that it has the title “Those Whom God Has Joined Together, Let No One Separate,” while they are facing the possibility of a minority report. Ultimately, they decided to keep it in.
“Our unity was not in our conformity,” but in the ability to stay together at the table even while diagreeing, said committee chair James Szeyller, a pastor from Charlotte, N.C. The covenant speaks of the committee’s commitment to listen to one another with respect; to pray for each other; and “to love one another even when we disagree.”
Those who disagree with the recommendations “didn’t walk out,” Van Riper said.
They didn’t walk out, but they also were not able to resolve some crucial disagreements. Van Riper, for example, voiced her concern that sections of the report “are leading us farther from connection and closer to local autonomy.”
Tracie Mayes Stewart, a minister from South Carolina who also voted against the report, said she believes the historic teachings of the church, the Bible and The Book of Confessions make it clear that “all sex outside of marriage is wrong, and it has harmful consequences. … I do see the carnage of the sexual revolution,” and wanted the report to speak more strongly about that. Stewart said when she considered the proposed recommendations, “my voice wasn’t there.”
Others, however, wanted the Presbyterian church to speak a clear and pastoral message to committed gay and lesbian couples.
Earl Arnold, a minister from New York state, said that for him, the question is not just what the church says about sex outside of marriage, but “is marriage limited only to a certain category” of sexual orientation?
“What is the place of covenanted, same-gender partnerships in the Christian community?” the report asks. “The members of the PC(USA) cannot agree.”
And Emily Anderson, a single minister from Tennessee, said the church also struggles with how to speak pastorally about sex and relationships to those who aren’t married.
When Presbyterians make arguments about God creating men and women to be complementary and to complete one another, “what that says is that I am incomplete and half a person,” Anderson said. “I feel like I am treated as half a person by the church all the time. We know what to do with married people. I don’t think we know what to do with single people.”
In the end, this committee finished its deliberations with the possibility of a minority report looming; without any clear word on how the PC(USA) should resolve these difficult issues; and unsure of how its work will be perceived by the broader church.
But the committee members were still able to worship and pray together, to tease one another and to praise each other for honesty and faithfulness, even when they ended up in different places.
“We have not solved the problem,” said Clay Allard, a pastor from Dallas. “We have said ultimately, that’s not our call. Our call is to witness to the fact that Christ called us together.”
While the committee members couldn’t agree on the issues – just as the rest of the PC(USA) hasn’t been able to agree — “we can with integrity” stay together, he added.
