The votes from presbyteries are starting to flood in; it won’t be long before the church has a better sense of whether or not the proposed constitutional change will fly.
But this has, so far, been a more subdued debate, less heated, with less energy, although that could swing quickly. It’s not necessarily that people’s minds have changed on gay ordination. Some Presbyterians feel as strongly about that as they ever have, often for reasons built on core theological foundations. But there’s some sense the denomination is in this debate for the long haul — it’s been decades already — and that perhaps not everything is riding or falling on this one vote.
What’s setting the tone? Here are some possible factors — in no particular order.
Departures. Some vocal critics of gay ordination, fed up with a denomination they perceive as being too liberal, have already left the PC(USA), most of them for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Some presbyteries are reporting lower turnouts, even if the outcome didn’t change. At the very least, some of those most incensed about the possibility of ordaining gays and lesbians have already moved on.
Other things to worry about. At a time of incredible economic uncertainty, President Barack Obama is calling for Americans to work with one another to tone down partisan politics and to give back in community service. And some Presbyterians say that, while gay ordination is certainly important, it’s not an issue they’re willing to let consume all their energy.
To many Presbyterians, the church’s debate over gay ordination “is secondary right now to the big issues of the day in the life of our church and our world, with the economic meltdown and the housing crisis and the inauguration of Obama,” said Michael Adee, national field organizer for More Light Presbyterians, which favors opening the door to gay ordination. “The economy is on everybody’s minds. People feel so much more affected by that than by the ordination question in the church.”
Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of the 218th General Assembly, asked recently on his moderator’s blog whether, when it comes to homosexuality and other hot issues, “is there a middle way?” What does movement towards that look like, he asked. Do there have to be winners and losers?
“At the risk of sounding way too simplistic, Christ’s Church has been led by people who did not share the same opinion about how to do things since Christ selected the first twelve,” Paul Andresen responded to Reyes-Chow. Some bloggers saw room for a middle way, others did not.
“As much as I would like to think that there could be a ‘common voice’ in the church on these issues, I am not sure that there can be,” wrote Bill Hayes. “I do feel, however, that there are so many other issues to address that are more important in God’s eyes — such as poverty, hunger, violence, and reaching out to those who do not know Christ. The more time and energy we spend arguing about ordination and homosexuality, the less time we spend on these more important issues.
“While there may not be a ‘middle way,’ there should be a way to work for God’s will in the world — regardless of how we feel about other issues.”
Multiple factors at play. While this vote is certainly significant, there are more ingredients in the pie. If the presbyteries were to vote to change the PC(USA)’s constitution — to drop the denomination’s requirement that those being ordained practice fidelity if they are married or chastity if they are single — lots of folks would jump to attention right fast.
But the early voting, and things certainly could change, has not shown significant shifting. Presbyteries that have voted to keep the “fidelity and chastity” standard before (this is the third time the presbyteries have voted on it since the church adopted the standard in 1997) have for the most part voted that way again.
But even if the “fidelity and chastity” standard holds, the landscape is not the same. Some gay and lesbian candidates are declaring “scruples,” or objections based on conscience, to the “fidelity and chastity” language, and at least two presbyteries have voted to grant those scruples for candidates or inquirers. In time, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission —the PC(USA)’s highest court — likely will rule on one of those cases.
There are differing views on how to interpret this lumpy concoction.
Adee, who favors gay ordination, said of the scrupling process: “I think that’s helpful teaching, but it’s not knocked down the Berlin Wall. I think there are people who thought it would — suddenly a hundred candidates for ministry would step forward (and declare scruples). The problem with that is there aren’t enough safe places and safe presbyteries for people to even mention conscience. We don’t see this as the way through,” because too many gays and lesbians “are in places where a scruple wouldn’t work and it exposes them to too much potential danger.”
The proposed amendment would strike “fidelity and chastity,” adding language that those considered for ordination “pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church.”
People are tired. Terry Schlossberg is leading the campaign for the Presbyterian Coalition to vote down the proposed constitutional amendment. She is starting to see “the energy level is picking up” on this issue, but also says many people are not paying attention to the nuances of this particular proposal — they’re not reading it carefully.
“We’re asking people to look at the wording of the (proposed) amendment and consider the implications of the wording,” Schlossberg said. “I actually think that isn’t happening a lot. There is not a whole lot of debate happening” in the presbyteries. “I’m guessing the reason for that is that people have heard the arguments. ‘Are there new arguments to be made?’ people are asking. They don’t seem to think so.”
At the same time, however, Schlossberg is sure there would be a strong reaction if the PC(USA) voted to strike the “fidelity and chastity” standard.
“I do think there are those in the denomination who don’t think the future rides or falls on the outcome of this vote,” she said. “I really think we’d see enormous fallout if this amendment were adopted — enormous fallout. … I think there are people sitting on the edges of their chairs figuratively waiting for the outcome, even if they aren’t participating actively. They won’t remain in a denomination that won’t hold the standard that’s the biblical standard. They read this in close connection with obedience to Jesus and the Scripture.”
Local conversations. Some following the issue closely say they’re seeing signs of more conversation happening at the local level — in the presbyteries — than on the national scene.
In approving the proposed constitutional amendment, by a vote of 380-325, the General Assembly recommended that “presbyteries are strongly encouraged to consider this overture using a process of listening and discernment.”
Some presbyteries seem to be doing that while others are not. In most of those voting early, “it’s been pretty cut-and-dried,” said Paul Detterman, executive director of Presbyterians for Renewal, which opposes the proposed amendment.
The Covenant Network of Presbyterians, which supports the proposed amendment, also is encouraging dialogue and discussion at the local level. “Our mantra this year is that we are organizing for conversations and not combat,” Tricia Dykers Koenig, Covenant Network’s national organizer, said at the network’s national gathering last fall.
Other options. Presbyterians for Renewal also is working on another approach to the issue, one it’s likely to push the 2010 General Assembly to consider. Its leaders are considering possibilities for structural realignments of the denomination, perhaps by creating, for example, non-geographic presbyteries and synods where it’s clear gays and lesbians would not be ordained, even if other parts of the church were to move in that direction.
It’s all still preliminary; ideas are still being considered. The basic thought is “to allow evangelical folk to be part of the church with integrity,” and the scenarios being considered “would probably all require some degree of constitutional change,” Detterman said.
“We’ve stayed a little bit underground with this,” he said. “But we’re fairly close” to announcing a proposal.
Throughout the fall, Presbyterians for Renewal held a series of regional gatherings for discussion, involving about 2,500 people, from the summer of 2008 through Thanksgiving and now is embarking on a second round.
In those conversations, “people were looking behind this current presbytery debate, saying OK, where are we going to be five years from now?” Detterman said. “Because of that, PFR at least has tried very hard to tailor our effort and resources into addressing those issues. We are obviously encouraging people to help the assembly correct what it did in San Jose” on ordination standards. “But we’re not making a thundering big push on it. It’s simply that we sense throughout the conversation in the church the vast majority of people saying. … ‘Let’s just get this vote over with and get on with it.’ ”
From the progressive side, Adee also sees a dedication to mission — to working on issues that don’t involve the PC(USA)’s internal political disputes.
Some say “we need just to get this right, stop talking, do the right thing, end discrimination,” he said. But “there’s also fatigue” among both progressives and evangelicals.
“Overall, there’s a question of stewardship. With all the human suffering that’s increasing in the world … fighting over the ordination of gay people seems out of priority or out of proportion to what the church is supposed to be about.”
Some use that argument “to stop the conversation about ordination,” Adee said. Others say “we need every hand on deck, and that means gay hands and straight hands” to do mission.
People on both sides seem to agree that “it really is out of proportion,” Adee said. “We’ve spent 30 years on this. Let’s just come to a solution and move forward.”
