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.
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."
Ephraim Radner has written an interesting book. An Episcopalian priest, Radner argues that the present divisions within the church are themselves a sign of "pneumatic deprivation," that is, the abandonment of the church by the Holy Spirit. That is the message that the title of his book is meant to convey: The End of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West (Eerdmans, 1998).
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.
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.
For more than 50 years, The Presbyterian Outlook and its predecessor publications worked passionately for the reunion of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A./United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. and the Presbyterian Church, U.S. -- the Southern branch separated from the main body since 1861. Year after year, patiently and persistently, our editors worked through individual Presbyterians, North and South, and through the governing bodies of the church to make reunion possible.
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 setting is a sleepy French village around 1960. Everything was nice and neat and orderly. The town is run by a benevolent despot of a mayor (Alfred Molina), who also takes attendance as the head usher at the Catholic church every Sunday. His wife is always traveling abroad.
John Sonnenday says he hit a "turning point" in his spiritual life when he figured out that just because he had a blank spot on his calendar, he wasn't obligated to fill it.
Sonnenday, a pastor from McLean, Va., said he gradually began to realize that unless he made more time for God and for rest -- unless he said "no" to some of what other people wanted him to do -- he could not do his best at doing God's work.
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.
A friend of mind has said from time to time concerning persons in the church with whom she violently disagrees, "Talk? I wouldn't want to be in the same room with that person!"
Before the presbyteries for a vote, as the new year begins, is the issue of Amendment O. Narrowly passed last summer by the 212th General Assembly, Amendment O proposes an addition to the PC(USA) Directory of Worship to the effect that church property shall not be used for, nor shall any church officer "take part in conducting any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God's intention" of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.
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.
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.
The litany of Presbyterian woes gets tiresome. In the New Year we should covenant to cultivate a more positive spirit, not because of what we can do, but because the church belongs to God, not us, and God's strength is always made perfect in our weakness.
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.
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.
© Copyright 2026 The Presbyterian Outlook. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Statement. Website by Web Publisher PRO