Living for 15 months in Egypt introduced us to a different world -- Arabic and Islamic; ancient yet modern; a third world, and an industrial nation unable to give up its old ways; a gracious hospitable people who want you to like their country.
I have experienced an epiphany, or at least a reawakening of personal hope for our Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). In a day when it seems that our beloved church is being torn asunder by irreconcilable issues, such as the Amendment O debate, little did I realize that a request from my session would lead me to a rediscovery of hope for the church.
It is too bad that with so many challenges facing the church today we have to be conducting a dispute with our good friend Jerry Andrews over Amendment O. This diversion of valuable energy is just one more reason we are against the amendment.
As presbyteries consider Amendment Q, some important questions are being raised. As co-authors of the original overture from Genesee Valley Presbytery, we offer the benefit of our thoughts.
1. It sounds like this amendment is just trying to punish the offender.
Last Saturday evening I spent about an hour and a half sitting crossed-legged on the bed in the basement room of one of my 13-year-old parishioners while she and her two friends fired questions at me non-stop. As soon as I took a breath in an answer, mostly to check my own brain to be sure that I was on track, the next question shot out, hung in the air in a pleading way and fell into my lap.
What will the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) be like in the next 10 or 20 years? Only God knows with certainty. But if young pastors, those age 40 or younger, are any indication, the denomination may very well continue to retreat from causes associated with the Great Society and its heirs, while returning to its theological roots.
The Guest Viewpoint by Jerry Andrews and reply by Robert Bullock and me offers a poignant example of Christian friends engaging each other -- reluctantly -- in disagreement. What are we to make theologically of this fact: that disagreement seems to be a permanent mode of the church's existence?
The theology, constitution and policy of our church, in concert with the church universal and ecumenical, teaches that sexual expression belongs only within the covenant of marriage. The polity of the church is to conform to the profession of the church, as our Preliminary Principles say: "We are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty."
I would like to make three comments on Robert Bullock's important editorial, "A Sacred Trust." Before I do that, let me say that even though I differ with him on a number of issues, not the least of which is Amendment O, I know that Robert is a dedicated servant of Jesus Christ and of the PC(USA).
Cleanliness may be next to godliness, but part of the problem with Presbyterians today is they do not often enough smell to high heaven. That is, Presbyterians look down their noses more regularly at bad order than at bad odor. Obviously God made human beings with five senses. Puzzling over how they worked together caused Aristotle to posit a "common sense" (De Anima, III).
Birds are among God's most beautiful creatures and bird watching in the world around us is a pure delight. People of the Middle Ages were also fascinated by birds and filled the borders of their manuscripts with obsessively accurate drawings of birds. Birds were regarded as cheerful, hopeful, impudent and above all free. They enrich our lives and some of them enrich our tables.
The range of responses to Alexander McKelway's reflections on the theology of homosexuality illustrates the diversity of perspectives in the Presbyterian Church today. Without commenting on the merits of what is said, I wish merely to note that each position is offered in good faith, and that each has a certain Christian plausibility to it.
By ceaseless and careless repetition, our society teaches us many things. Few Presbyterians under 40 years of age, I suspect, can distinguish between Rosinante and Dulcinea. However, everyone knows, and has been influenced by, Don Quixote's conviction, "When in Rome do as the Romans do" (Part II, Chapter 54).
All good teaching elders have bad consciences and genuine humility because first-class seminaries instruct them in how much there is to know about divine science (including human and natural science) and how little they ever will. In addition, Presbyterian seminaries do not encourage the notion that any amount of pious zeal can make up for abysmal ignorance.
As one involved in writing what came to be known as the "Thompson Overture" a number of years ago, I was taken by Professor McKelway's intent in "Reconsidering 'Definitive Guidance.'" Through an overture which was sent -- with many others like it -- to the 1992 General Assembly, the session of Nassau church, Princeton, N.J., was seeking "a way through" the difficulty.
In his well-intended article, "Reconsidering 'Definitive Guidance,'" A. J. McKelway essentially argues for the ordination of homosexual persons because they are really the victims of an "involuntary condition." But, he adds, as long as they do not impose their "life style publicly" on the church. That is, if they don't flaunt it, ask for the church's approval or cause injury or public scandal.
A. J. McKelway's article offers to make distinctions that, it is agreed, are often so helpful when considering issues before the church, but one distinction, essential to the conversation, remained unspoken -- a distinction the church has rightly made.
A. J. McKelway has done all of us a great service. He has gone back to the l978 documents regarding the ordination of gay and lesbian people. He believes the original issue was missed and he leads us to a new possibility for our present debate.
The sophisticated elegance of Plato's reflections on the dualism of body and soul and the resulting view of the immortality of soul continue to make a powerful impact on Christian theology. However, Plato thinks on a much higher level than I do. I just try to keep body and soul together.
A. J. McKelway, a retired Davidson College professor of religion, wrote a guest viewpoint, "Reconsidering 'Definitive Guidance,'" which was published in the Nov. 6, 2000, issue of The Outlook.
In that article, McKelway wrote that the church cannot approve of homosexuality, but should return to the position of ordaining into the ministry "homosexuals who do not insist upon that approval."
These remarks are inspired by A. J. McKelway's thoughtful reconsideration of "Definitive Guidance," the grandmother of our present impasse. Our church now has before it Amendment O on homosexuality and marriage. I hope it will be defeated. Concerning the ordination of gays and lesbians, we have not yet convened a real theological debate on the issues/dilemmas raised by that issue.
Laird Stuart, whose efforts at reconciliation are well known, has reported significant points of my previous article, which I hope interested persons will consult.
Charles L. Moffatt, Presbyterian minister, taught me to fear no truth, for all truth is from God. The other side of that is not to be afraid to challenge any claim to truth, for not all claims to truth are from God. That is to say, the church does not have to swallow whole every new teaching that comes down the pike.
Lately it seems that we have had a resurgence in the use of the word "relevant." Everywhere I turn, someone is lauding something for being "relevant" or, more often, deriding something for not being "relevant."
There's a tune from South Ireland we used to sing around the piano that includes the question, "How is poor old Ireland and how does she stand?" Well, I've just been back to Ireland on my third Irish Institute in the past 10 years. And Ireland is old, but it is no longer poor.
© Copyright 2025 The Presbyterian Outlook. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Statement. Website by Web Publisher PRO
