Few proposals to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s General Assembly in recent years have created as much online debate or reaction as OVT-044 (now CON-10), “On Requiring Ministers of Word and Sacrament to Be Monogamous.” The primary focus of the language of the overture is prohibiting polyamorous and polygamous relationships for ministers of Word and Sacrament and asking for care to be provided to those exiting non-monogamous relationships.
In “Polyamory, church police and the limits of regulation,” an opinion piece published on the Presbyterian Outlook’s website, writer April Stace argues against the church providing mechanisms to regulate relationship structures, noting that “the biblical record” presents various norms for family relationships throughout its writings.
Related reading: “Polyamory, church police and the limits of regulation,” by April Stace
Stace, who is an Episcopal priest and the author of Poly in the Pews: Reexamining Relationships, Sex, and What it Means to be Faithful, advises, “The current conversation about polyamory represents another instance in which churches must decide whether to focus primarily on regulating relational forms or to take on the more difficult yet more effective work of forming people capable of sustaining ethical, life-giving relationships.”
As written and presented to General Assembly 227, the overture’s rationale addresses polyamory and polygamy – categories of non-monogamous relationships addressed in this recent debate. It does not, however, speak to the sexuality of the partners in the relationship under consideration, merely stating that they be monogamous.
The language of the overture seeks to modify the Book of Order to add an authoritative interpretation to section G-2.0503a – requirements for a validated ministry – that reads:
(4) Display moral character in all personal relationships by loving all neighbors without exception; refraining from gossip or strife; exhibiting patience; extending grace; serving as agents of God’s reconciliation in the world; and, if engaged in any relationship of a sexual nature, living in a monogamous one.
Yet the ambiguity of the language and the extent to which the church would require ministers to conform to this standard or exit previous relationships has led to confusion. This author contacted the Presbytery of Sierra Blanca to gain more insight into the formation and overall intent of the overture. The response from Brent Brewer, communications administrator for the presbytery, was, “I forwarded your message to the author of the amendment; they decided to decline to be interviewed.”
Further research into the presbytery’s meeting minutes yielded a draft resolution, presented to the presbytery at its January 30-31 meeting at the First Presbyterian Church of Lovington, New Mexico, that addresses the original intent. Sections 1-7 (see PDF) provide more insight into the rationale of the overture’s authors, the session of First Presbyterian Church of Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Responses from associated PC(USA) committees have unanimously recommended disapproval of CON-10. The original overture appealed to both the Office of Theology and Worship, which no longer exists in the current structure of the PC(USA), and the Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns, which has been renamed Advocacy Committee for Women and Gender Justice (ACWGJ), to develop pastoral resources for those “exiting polyamorous or polygamous situations.”
In ACWGJ’s disapproval notes, it said the overture “extends beyond the Church’s call to form disciples into an attempt to regulate the private lives and relational structures of individuals in ways that risk harm rather than healing.” Furthermore, it advised the overture “reinforce[s] systems of shame, silence, and spiritual coercion, particularly for those already navigating complex or marginalized identities.”
ACWGJ recommended redirecting the denomination’s efforts toward GEN-09, “Beyond Changing Families: Flourishing Relationships and Belonging.”
The Advocacy Committee on LGBTQIA+ Equity (ACQ+E) recommended disapproval of CON-10, instead “recommend[ing] approval of that [GEN-09] in response to this one.”
“We believe study around relational ethics, including within monogamous and polyamorous relationships and families, has a natural fit in GEN-09 and should be included as part of that work,” its statement said, in part.
Advice and counsel from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP) also recommended disapproval, while recommending approval of GEN-09, saying the broader study “would broaden the focus to all people of faith, not just Ministers of Word and Sacrament, and does not presume a position, allowing for a study team and committee(s) to discern together what God is saying to the church about covenantal relationships.”
The final PC-Biz comment published on CON-10 as of this writing is from the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, which states, “the overture as it is written does not meet the standards for an amendment to the Constitution nor a request for an authoritative interpretation.”
More Light Presbyterians’ response to CON-10 expresses concern that the overture’s language “risks reinforcing narrow and culturally bound definitions of relationship that have historically been used to exclude, police, and harm queer bodies and lives.”
Its statement recognizes that the language of the overture does not directly target LGBTQIA+ persons, yet is apprehensive that the overture may be used to target queer communities disproportionately.
“Even when policies are written in ostensibly universal language, they often operate selectively in practice, reinscribing suspicion toward queer lives rather than trust,” the statement reads.
Brian Ellison, executive director of the Covenant Network of Presbyterians, said CON-10 is “terrible,” and “the worst possible way” to go about a discussion of sexual ethics.
“There are so many better ways to address family structure and a faithful approach to our sexual ethics,” he said. “The recommended ACSWP study [GEN-09] will help us to undertake a thorough study of our sexual ethics and respond in a way that is faithful to scripture and our Reformed tradition. What is presented in [CON-10] is going about it in the wrong order.”
Online discussion in the PC(USA) Leaders Facebook group has largely agreed that the overture is poorly written, with few defending it as a requirement to be added to the Book of Order.
Still, others foresee a more nefarious outcome for the discussion of CON-10 at GA227. David Schell, pastor of Jackson First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Michigan, posted that the overture felt “like an attempt to create a knee-jerk headline for the denomination that says ‘Nation’s Largest Presbyterian Denomination Declines Amendment to require Monogamy from Clergy,’ saying, in part, “nobody will remember that the BoO already says marriage is between two people …
“This feels like a hit job,” Schell said.
This, and other overtures and issues, will be discussed in the online committees on June 22-24.
