PresbyMEME: Why I am voting yes on Amendment 10a

November 12, 2010 by
Filed under: Religion 

Sometime between now and next Summer, presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be voting on changes to our Book of Order and Book of Confessions.  One of those changes is labeled Amendment 10-A, changing a paragraph in the Book of Order (G-6.0106b) that was added in 1997.  The current text of that paragraph reads:

Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

The new version would read:

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.

The history of this paragraph is unquestioned.  It was added to the Book of Order in 1997 in response to the controversy over the ordination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer individuals to the offices of Deacon, Elder or Minister of the Word and Sacrament (with most of the controversy over Ministers).  The existing language is the only place in the Book of Order where an individual “sin” is chosen as something that would make an individual ineligible for ordained office.  (I use quotes around the word sin because I personally do not agree that homosexual activity is sin.)

Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, a friend of mine and moderator of the 218th General Assembly of the PC(USA), has created a meme in the blogging world around the voting on this amendment.  He has a list of questions and answers for those who support this change.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:  I am not an elder or minister, and will not actually get to vote on this amendment.  But if I were able to vote, this is how I would vote.  I will be attending the meetings of presbytery dealing with this amendment as an observer.

So here goes:

Name, City State:  Mark Smith, Hamilton, NJ

I can be found on Twitter and Facebook.  (I’m protected on twitter but welcome follow requests)

It keeps your elimination system relaxed that further puts your entire system healthy. sildenafil tablets 100mg The medicine is capable to understand the origin, treatment and prevention cialis price of the complex and chronic diseases that your body gets enough time for repair and regeneration. However this option has side effects online levitra 2. But perhaps it’s cheap cialis midwayfire.com the supplement’s ability to help out with enhancing the male’s sexual performance is the most sought-after benefit. My church is in the Presbytery of New Brunswick and I am an Inquirer under care of the presbytery (and a Deacon at my church).   Our vote will occur on March 8, 2011.  A special meeting of the presbytery where no action will be taken will be held on February 8, 2011 for the purpose of discussing the proposed changes to the Book of Order and Book of Confessions.

The FIRST reason that I would vote for this amendment is that it restores the Presbyterian principle that those responsible for determining the fitness for ordination of an individual be the people who know that person best.  For Elders and Deacons, that’s the Session of their church.  For Ministers, that’s the Presbytery.  Let’s face it, we are all sinners of one variety or another.  If sinlessness were required for holding office, none of us would be eligible.  What the current language of G-6.0106b does is elevate a group of “sins” to a position of primacy – indicating that history of some sins is acceptable in ordained individuals but that some “sins” are never acceptable.  The reason that our polity traditionally uses communal discernment and personal knowledge of the ordinand is that it leaves room for the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts and minds of those making the decision and in the heart and mind of the ordinand.  Reducing eligibility for ordination to a checklist is idolatry of the checklist, and idolatry of those who created the checklist.

The SECOND reason that I would vote for this amendment is that I don’t believe that homosexual practice is sin.  (I could go on with jokes about the word “practice”, but I use it here because it was used in the original Definitive Guidance to separate orientation from activity.)  I have read the handful of scriptures that are purported to establish a prohibition on sexual activity between people of the same gender.  I have read the arguments on the interpretation of those scriptures, and I find the most compelling argument to be that the actual Hebrew and Greek words mean something other than a loving balanced relationship between people (generally they are referring to temple prostitution or forced sexual activity or the use of the sexual act in a manner contrary to the God-given orientation of the actor).  So I don’t see the sin here.  No sin, no prohibition.

The THIRD reason that I would vote for this amendment is that I know a number of folks who are not exclusively heterosexual and who are very clearly (to me) called by God to be leaders of God’s Church.  Some are already ordained.  Some are in the process and a few are stuck because of this issue.  Some have left the PC(USA) to its detriment.  And some may be hearing the call of God but are ignoring it because they know that the PC(USA) will prevent them from ever fulfilling it.  This makes me sad, and it makes me angry.  I trust that God is working to fix this situation and that I do not understand all of God’s ways.

What are your greatest hopes for the 10a debate that will take place on the floor of your Presbytery? I hope that the discussion will be both loving and real.  Our presbytery has some very liberal members, some rather conservative members, and a lot of people somewhere in between.  Like every other presbytery there are sometimes heated discussions.  But I do not feel actual hatred on the floor of our presbytery.  The worst that I feel is frustration that we can’t work out our issues, and frustration with the tension between what each person believes is God’s message and the difference with what others believe.  I see a true spirit of trying to bridge that gap in tension with standing up for God’s message as each person interprets it.  What I hope for this discussion is that it will be held in that place of love and respect, rather than degenerating into hatred and pain. I have a lot of optimism about this.

How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)? We’re already losing people.  I was out of the church for over 15 years.  This issue was one reason.  The judgment and control over others’ lives shown by the concentration on people’s bedroom behavior turned me away.  I had decided that church was all about a small group of people trying to control a larger group of people.  I’ve come back because my theology about people has changed.  I see that all are sinners, that all are saints.  I see the attempt to control others’ behavior as a part of their attempt to do what they believe God is calling them to do.  But make no mistake – we’re losing people (particularly young people) because our concentration on controlling others’ behaviors rather than our own has painted us as judgmental and controlling.  If those who feel the need to control others leave because they find themselves unable to do so, so be it.  I will mourn their departure.  But know that our inward focus and focus away from ourselves and on others (Matt. 7:1-5) is causing us to bleed our future.  God calls us to be righteous in ourselves and to do God’s work in the world.  God calls us to guide others.  But I do not feel that God calls us to coerce others.

What should the Presbyterian Church focus on after Amendment 10a passes? My flip answer to this question is “Go have a beer together at the bar”.  And I think that’s part of the answer.  We need to put aside our disagreement on this issue and find commonality with those who disagree with us on one or two issues.  I have always said that church fights should be like hockey fights – battle with all you’ve got for a few minutes, and then go have a beer together after the game and laugh about it.  Then, when we’ve made some progress restoring our relationships, it’s time to face outward again.  Mission should be our focus – both mission in the form of evangelism and mission in the form of helping others.

How does your understanding of Scripture frame your position on 10a? First, I am not yet a scriptural scholar.  That will soon change to some degree.  So I rely on others to do the heavy lifting in the areas of exegesis and translation.  Today, I see Scripture as a document inspired by God which has been handled by humans and as a result is as imperfect as we are.  We only need to look to the recent admission of intentional mis-translation of the Heidelberg Catechism to see how human beings likely have changed Scripture to suit their beliefs and motivations.  Add to that a need to understand what the words meant to the authors, as opposed to what they mean to us today.  That’s how I see Scripture.  And it has framed my position on this issue – some folks just aren’t reading Scripture the way it was intended.  The hard part is figuring out who (or which side) that is.  That’s where we need the input of the Holy Spirit, and communal discernment.  And I believe firmly in the statements that “men [sic] of good characters and principles may differ” (G-1.0305) and that “they [the Church as a body] may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow” (G-1.0302).  These are Scripturally-derived principles, and our Church and any other institution created by mankind is subject to them.  I have no doubt that if you ask me in 3 1/2 years as I walk to graduate with an M.Div. degree that my answer will be different.  This is how I see it today.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

3 Comments on PresbyMEME: Why I am voting yes on Amendment 10a

  1. Daniel on Fri, 17th Dec 2010 4:03 am

    2. great post, thanks for sharing

  2. PresbyMEME: Why I am voting yes on Amendment 10a « Bruce Reyes-Chow on Wed, 7th Sep 2011 1:45 pm

    3. […] Westmoreland, Cincinatti, tbaSylvia Thorson-Smith, de Cristo, 04.30.11John Shuck, Holston, 12.07.10Mark Smith, New Brunswick, 03.08.11Carol Tompkins, New Covenant, 11.13.10Ray Bagnuolo, New York, Spring […]

  3. PresbyMEME: Why I am voting yes on Amendment 10a | Bruce Reyes-Chow on Sat, 31st Dec 2011 12:01 pm

    4. […] Mark Smith, New Brunswick, 03.08.11 […]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!