The most salient question facing the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) emerging from recent decisions regarding the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians is one that has not been adequately addressed: When we allowed for the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians, was this an act of justice, or was it an abandonment of principle in the face of changes in public mores? Answering that requires further inquiry: Is God willing to concede principles to public opinion?
Early on, God was considered king in Israel. Leadership in times of distress rested on judges, who had the authority to rally the tribes to fight when external (or even internal) forces threatened the existence and stability of the tribal league. The last of these judges was Samuel. In those days Israel was facing a superior military force, the Philistines, who, because of better technology and a military-friendly political structure, had even captured the Ark of the Covenant. When Samuel’s initial success against the Philistines began to fail, in the face of a superior enemy that looked unbeatable, the people demanded a king. Samuel was disturbed over this request, and took it to God. God’s response: “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.” 1 Samuel 8:7. Reluctantly and after explicit and dire warnings, Samuel anointed Saul king in Israel.
Paul was called to proclaim the Gospel to the nations. He found that some constraints of Judaism were significant impediments to the success of his mission, the most serious being circumcision. If circumcision were to be required of gentiles, as it was for converts to Judaism, the significant attractions of the Gospel were insufficient to overcome the specter of circumcision for adult men. So Paul took the question to the Church. After deliberation and debate, the Jerusalem Council relented and permitted entry into the church without circumcision. Acts 15. This was different from an earlier decision, where Peter had gone to the Council and described the initiative of the Holy Spirit in releasing him from dietary constraints. Acts 10-11. The decision on circumcision came in response to a practical problem and a specific inquiry. And the Holy Spirit guided the response: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . .” Acts 15:28. The most ancient of all standards was overruled in the face of a social reality.
Has the Presbyterian Church ever responded to issues that arise from social changes? At the beginning of the 20th century, the Presbyterian Church amended the Westminster Confession, conceding the Calvinist/Reformed principle of God’s total sovereignty to the success of revivalism and its Arminian call to make a choice for Jesus. In the 1950s, in response to a tide of post-World War II divorces, the Presbyterian Church amended the Westminster Confession to allow for marriage after divorce. In that same decade the Presbyterian Church responded to the rising pressure of social changes to allow the ordination of women, skillfully interpreting Scripture in a way that rejected centuries of tradition. Responding to the general feeling that the Westminster Standards were too rigid for the modern world, in the 1960s we adopted a whole Book of Confessions.
So for those who hold Scripture authoritative and history informative, simply citing a passage or series of passages and claiming that not following them constitutes per se an apostate abandonment of principle cannot be supported.
But even if it be possible to remain faithful while allowing the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians, does that mean what we have done automatically conforms to what God calls us to do and be? That begs another question: What exactly is the line over which one cannot go?
We Presbyterians have adopted two “ecumenical” creeds, Nicene and Apostles’, confessional statements accepted by virtually all Christians. Almost all churches in the West and Eastern Orthodoxy accept the Chalcedonian formulation about the two natures of Christ. Beyond those broad creedal affirmations, we Presbyterians have also adopted a series of creeds that reflect the “Reformed Tradition.” If we are serious about those statements, denying significant provisions would ostensibly differentiate one from those communities.
In all cases, creedal statements are interpretations of Scripture. So what does Scripture say? When one looks at the Old Testament, there are two bright-line limits: the worship of other gods, and the establishment of justice. Jesus substantially expanded the “other gods” definition when he said one cannot follow God and mammon (wealth), Matthew 6, so it is necessary to interpret “other gods” broadly to include those things to which we give higher trust and devotion than God. While there are lots of specific cases in the Old Testament and New, the general limits seem to be those laid out in the prophets: no other gods, no injustice. Concisely stated in the two Great Commandments, Matthew 22, where Jesus combines the Shema of Deuteronomy 6 (“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might”) and the call to love one’s neighbor in Leviticus 19 (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”).
This leaves us with this question: Does allowing same-sex intimacy cross the Scriptural barrier? The justice argument is compelling: On what grounds do we prohibit an otherwise qualified Christian from full participation? The question is equally compelling when posed in this way: Where a person would otherwise be considered a Christian, does mere same-sex intimacy constitute the worship of another god? This demands we address the same question to sexual intimacy in general: When does the desire for sexual intimacy supplant our subservience to God?
Historically, we have said that sexual intimacy complies with Christian standards only when it happens within the institution of marriage. But history and the church have refused marriage to people of the same sex. That raises the justice problem, at least under the modern concept of equal protection under the law. So the argument is well taken that the general prohibition from ordination merely because a person is engaged in homosexual behavior exceeds what Scripture demands, and certainly challenges justice, most particularly in the face of our reluctance to enforce other rules found in Scripture.
What the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has done, however, opens the way for sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex regardless of any context. (One wonders how long before that standard is extended to heterosexual relationships.) And this begs another question, one heretofore ignored in the passion of the debate: Under what circumstances can we ordain non-celibate gays and lesbians? Without answering that question, we may run afoul of Scripture, either by allowing social practices to be the only standard for sexual intimacy, or by shunning justice.
Why must we answer this question? Because it constitutes a significant impediment to our effectiveness in mission. We lament that we have lost the youth in these days. The simple demographic truth is that Americans under 30 do not see homosexuality to be a problem. All they see is our fighting over a something they don’t much care about. Our current lack of a standard is offensive for those who believe there must be some definable context for sexual intimacy, and it may drive many away. The other side of this is that not requiring a context for homosexual relationships leaves us open to the effects of allowing sexual intimacy without limitations.
Neither Scripture nor history prevents us from addressing the last question. Only our unwillingness.
Ed Koster (ehkoster@aol.com“>ehkoster@aol.com) is a Presbyterian teaching elder, lawyer and stated clerk of the Presbytery of Detroit.
