One Committee, Two Reports
PCUSA Marriage Committee Proclaims Unity Amidst Disagreement
Alan Wisdom
January 28, 2010
Additional side articles on the PCUSA Marriage Committee:
- In Rejected Motions, the Makings of a Minority Report
- An Ironic Covenant
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage approved a modest, somewhat muddled report to the 2010 General Assembly. The key vote, taken late in the evening of January 24, split the committee 7-3. The three dissenters announced their intention of filing a minority report to the assembly.
The committee’s report urges “mutual forbearance” among Presbyterians holding different views on same-sex marriage and same-sex unions. It encourages local congregations and presbyteries to provide resources on the issue “consonant with” the PCUSA constitution. The effect may be to give a slight opening to advocates pushing churches to find ways to bless same-sex couples.
The minority report has not yet been filed, and the three dissenters (Elder Lisa Van Riper of Greenville, SC; the Rev. William Teng of Alexandria, Va.; and the Rev. Tracie Mayes Stewart of Salem Presbytery in North Carolina) still have the option of not going ahead with such a report. If the three do submit a minority report, it will have to be based upon motions that they presented and that the committee rejected. Those motions:
- quoted directly from key biblical passages such as Genesis 1-2 and Matthew 19:1-12;
- noted that marriage is “almost universal among human societies;
- upheld the authority of the PCUSA constitution in teaching that “marriage is a physical and spiritual union of one man and one woman”;
- stated unambiguously that “[a]ny sex activity outside of marriage violates this beautiful intention of God”;
- affirmed that “[p]astoral care must be extended to all people,” but “should always conform to the standards of the confessions.”
‘We Are Still Around the Table’
Curiously, the part of the report about which committee members were most enthusiastic was a covenant to “struggle together with perseverance to find God’s will even when the way is difficult.” That covenant was tested through long hours of sometimes sharp disagreements about almost every section of the report.
Toward the end of the committee’s January 22-25 meeting in Louisville, the Rev. Emily Anderson of Maryville, Tenn., challenged her fellow committee members: “It seems a bit of double-speak to talk about our covenant together when we have a minority report.” The committee moderator, the Rev. Jim Szeyller of Charlotte, N.C., responded: “Our process that we have used does not dictate uniformity. It allows for disagreement…. In the presence of a minority report, our unity has not been broken. We are still around the table.”
Van Riper assured her colleagues: “We [the minority] said we’re staying within the process all the way to the General Assembly.” Members of the committee majority and minority expressed appreciation for one another’s qualities of character and respect for one another’s consciences. In the end, the committee unanimously decided to keep the covenant as a prominent element in its report.
An Underwhelming Report
Many observers will find the special committee report underwhelming and even disappointing. The 2008 General Assembly had directed the committee to answer a series of questions culminating in: “What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community”? The committee’s answer to that question is simply: “The members of the PC(USA) cannot agree.” It insists that “it is inappropriate for us to seek to define ‘the place’ of any of our sisters and brothers within Christ’s church.”
The committee report places two contradictory positions on a level: “[S]ome believe acceptance of same-gender partnerships to be tantamount to approving of homosexual practice, which they find at odds with Scripture and our confessions. Others have no difficulty accepting same-gender partnerships, pointing to biblical principles of love and justice.”
In the face of such disagreement, the committee appeals for “mutual tolerance and forbearance in those areas where people of good faith differ”—including, apparently, the definition of Christian marriage. It contends that “we must love, support, and trust each other as together we search for Christ’s truth.” The committee seems to discourage any attempt to hold ministers or churches accountable to the denomination’s constitutional teaching on the marriage of man and woman. It rejects “coercive ways of achieving uniformity” as “ultimately unhelpful.”
The committee leans toward local church autonomy rather than national standards: “Questions of marriage and civil union are already being addressed at congregational and presbytery levels, where the issues have human faces, concrete circumstances, and real consequences. Any successful resolution must begin with individual sessions and presbyteries.”
The committee’s recommendations “encourage all presbyteries and sessions to provide resources consonant with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) regarding use of church facilities” and “clergy participation in marriages and/or same-sex union ceremonies.” They do not say what would happen if the local church resources were not consonant with the PCUSA constitution.
Leaning Toward ‘Local Option’ on Marriage
Regarding this recommendation, Teng remarked: “I think we’re talking about local option here. If we’re all adhering to the constitution, we do not need guidelines because the constitution is pretty clear [about the definition of Christian marriage]. It seems as if we’re encouraging people to disobey the constitution.”
Elder Tony De La Rosa from Los Angeles expressed “my deep offense over the term ‘local option.’” According to De La Rosa, “Presbyterian polity is local option.” The Rev. Dr. Margaret Aymer from Atlanta noted the diversity of state laws regarding marriage. “Because of the way the nation is structured,” she said, “we have to have local option.”
Another committee recommendation directs the General Assembly Mission Council and the Office of the General Assembly “to provide updated guidelines and resources addressing the difference between a ceremony of Christian marriage and a same-sex union ceremony.” This recommendation could be used to affix a kind of denominational imprimatur upon same-sex ceremonies. The Rev. Vernon Broyles, representing OGA as a staff resource to the committee, nourished that impression: “I understand this [recommendation] to lead to some kind of service of blessing [for same-sex couples] like what is found in the Book of Worship.”
A 2000 General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decision permitted same-sex blessings, but only under strict conditions: they should not be represented as marriages, they should not “appropriate specific liturgical forms” from the wedding ceremony, and they should not be “construed as an endorsement of homosexual conjugal practice.” It would be a big step beyond that cautious decision for official church agencies to start providing resources to assist ministers and churches in performing same-sex ceremonies.
Recommendations to ‘Generate Conversation’ and ‘Move the Denomination Forward’
Teng moved that the committee make no recommendations except to commend its report for study. He warned, “The majority of readers will move past all the careful, nuanced report and go straight to the recommendations,” where “neither side will be happy.” Teng suggested instead, “In light of our desire to be descriptive and not prescriptive, let the readers decide.”
Stewart supported her colleague’s motion. “Our church is very fragile,” she said. “Having no recommendations is a great model of grace…. None of where I am is here [in the recommendations]…. Rather than saying, ‘This is what I want,’ let’s just have no recommendations.”
Anderson argued to the contrary: “Our church has invested two years of time and a fair amount of money in asking us to do this work, and they want to know what we think…. We can’t just say we don’t want to be controversial and we want to play it safe.”
Szeyller stepped out of his moderatorial role to intervene in the debate. He maintained: “We weren’t called to inform the denomination. We were called to move the denomination forward.” The committee moderator predicted that its recommendations would “generate conversation.” Teng’s motion, which initially appeared to have majority support, was defeated on a 6-4 vote.
More Troublesome Recommendations Dropped
Committee deliberations eliminated two of the more troublesome recommendations. The original recommendation 5 would have created a new special committee “to develop guidelines for biblical interpretation concerning matters of human sexuality, paying particular attention to the interpretive role of personal experience.” The original recommendation 6 would have authorized the denomination’s Office of Theology, Worship, and Education to propose revisions to the current Book of Order definition of marriage as “a civil contract between a woman and a man” (W-4.9001).
Both of these recommendations could easily have become vehicles for pushing future General Assemblies toward the normalization and approval of homosexual relations. Stewart objected, “I would much rather see amendments to the constitution come up from sessions and presbyteries” rather than “top-down from a special committee.” Recommendation 6 was deleted, and recommendation 5 was softened into a call for local churches to study biblical interpretation using existing resources.
Two more radical recommendations floated last September had disappeared from the report during the intervening months. The first would have suggested that pastors “encourage same-sex couples who wish to marry in a state that allows same-sex marriage to have their marriages solemnized by an authorized civil agent and to offer to such couples an appropriate religious service.” The second would have urged Presbyterians “to support legislation and civil administrative and judicial action to extend to same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges as enjoyed by married couples.” Apparently, the committee majority was not willing to go in those directions.
Answering All Questions Except the Last
The bulk of the committee’s report is much less controversial—more descriptive than prescriptive, as committee leaders had anticipated last June. A biblical section discusses the “ancient Semitic understanding of marriage” and “the diverse marriage practices in the Greco-Roman culture.” There are brief references to many Bible verses, but few direct quotations and no extended discussion of any of them.
A historical section narrates the rising role of the church in marriage through the Middle Ages, the changes introduced in the Protestant Reformation, and the adaptations of the church to modern American culture. Recent court decisions and legislation relating to same-sex marriage are noted, as are PCUSA court decisions on same-sex unions. The teachings on marriage held by several other denominations are recounted.
The report presents a chart contrasting traditional civil marriage, “redefined marriage,” domestic partnerships/civil unions, and Christian marriage as defined in the PCUSA Book of Order. It describes four perspectives on same-sex civil marriage, ranging from “[l]aws that fail to give benefits equal to marriage to same-gender couples and their families violate the standards of social justice and equality” to “[p]roviding legal benefits equal to marriage for same-gender couples makes society complicit in encouraging this behavior.”
The report summarizes the differential treatment of married couples under federal law, as well as the varying configurations of state laws relating to marriage and civil unions/domestic partnerships. It surveys current research on children being reared by same-sex couples, concluding with a quote: “There are plausible arguments on all sides of the issue, and as yet there is no evidence sufficient to settle them.”
Committee members seemed to agree that they had done fairly well in answering the first four questions posed to them by the 2008 General Assembly—those relating to “the history of the laws governing marriage and civil union,” “how the theology and practice of marriage have developed in the Reformed and broader Christian tradition,” “the relationship between civil union and Christian marriage,” and “the effects of current laws on same-gender partners and their children.”
But the committee report quite obviously ducks the final question, regarding “the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community.” It seems that the minority report from Van Riper, Teng, and Stewart may offer a clearer answer, grounded in Scripture as interpreted by the PCUSA confessions. The 2010 General Assembly, July 3-10 in Minneapolis, will have a choice between those two options.