Expanded version of views about homosexuality discussed
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, January 16, 2006
A study that apparently played a key role in the final report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity – especially for members who had been identified with the evangelical wing of the Presbyterian Church (USA) – was reviewed again during last week’s final meeting of the panel.
This time it came before the task force in a much-expanded version – 142 pages, not including footnotes that will be added – and raised some wariness among a few members of the group. The report is nearly three times the length of the task force’s 56-page final report.
The study, based on a review of book extracts and papers by a range of writers, was originally presented orally to the task force by William Stacy Johnson, a professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary in a three-hour session in 2004. Later, during that same meeting, the task force went into executive session to discuss it.
The task force never officially adopted Johnson’s oral presentation, but members – even the evangelicals – seemed to express at least some agreement with the idea that the denomination ought to consider ordaining practicing homosexuals who are in long-term, committed relationships with same-gender partners. That position is contrary to the denomination’s constitutional standard that says practicing homosexuals – and adulterers – should not be ordained.
In its final report (lines 591-596), the task force made a brief reference to Johnson’s presentation: “Having heard a presentation to the task force by member Stacy Johnson on a spectrum of theological viewpoints on same-gender relationships in the church, many believe that, instead of beginning with the question of ordination, it would be more profitable first to explore a more basic theological question: How does God’s gracious drama of creation, reconciliation, and redemption work itself out in the lives of baptized gay and lesbian persons who are committed to exclusive, covenanted relationships?”
The “many” who held that view were not identified, but they were the overwhelming majority. And the members regarded as evangelicals never openly put up a fight to keep that position out of the final report, even though they may have succeeded in preventing the task force from endorsing homosexual behavior at any level.
The final report recommends against repealing the constitutional “fidelity/chastity” clause or the current General Assembly Authoritative Interpretation that says practicing homosexuals should not be ordained.
But the task force also wants the General Assembly to approve an Authoritative Interpretation that allows ordaining bodies to decide on their own whether a homosexual relationship automatically constitutes a failure to adhere to the denomination’s “essentials of faith and polity.” The task force does not consider the “fidelity/chastity” clause an essential – but a “standard.”
In his written presentation, titled “The Church and Same-Gender Relationships: Seven Theological Views,” Johnson indicated his own personal support for ordaining homosexuals in what he described as “exclusive, covenanted relationships.”
Stating his opposition to the yes/no debates and votes that have dominated mainline Presbyterians’ consideration of homosexuality and ordination, Johnson calls for “framing a different kind of question.”
He offers that question – and spinoff questions – within the boundaries of personal experience – not on the basis of Biblical exegesis.
- “Imagine your child, a sibling, another family member, or a friend [who] is a lesbian or gay man. How do you think about the sexual identity of this person? How do you relate to this person? Is your stance to affirm and support, to rebuke or correct, or to remain undecided.
- “Imagine, further, that this person tells you about finding a life partner. You hear about how wonderful and life-giving this new-found relationship is, and how more than anything in the world these two now want to give themselves to each other. In short, they tell you they plan to commit themselves in an exclusive, life-long, covenantal union, and they ask for your response.
- “So what is your response? And what should be the church’s response? … At this turning point in their lives, to what extent do we allow ourselves to enter into the joy of their celebration?”
Later in his written presentation, Johnson expands on the question:
- “Where do persons who are baptized members in good standing of a Christian congregation, whose sexual orientation is firmly established, and who desire to enter into an exclusive, committed, life-long, same-gender relationship with another baptized Christian find their place within the fellowship of the church? More importantly, where do such persons find themselves within the unfolding drama of creation, reconciliation and redemption?”
Johnson uses the “creation, reconciliation and redemption motif” to frame the seven theological views about ordaining practicing homosexuals. He titles them 1) prohibition, 2) toleration, 3) accommodation, 4) legitimation, 5) celebration, 6) liberation and 7) consecration – a slight variation from the titles in his oral presentation.
The consecration model is clearly favored. He describes it as the viewpoint that “sin does not reside in orientation or behavior per se, but in whether one’s life is rightly ordered.” By rightly ordered, Johnson means a committed covenanted relationship that is “blessed by the church.” He doesn’t use the word marriage, but Johnson’s model clearly sees homosexual monogamy in a similar way.
But how is it possible to “order” properly a homosexual relationship in view of what the Bible says about homosexuality?
Johnson cites the impasse in the long-running debate, saying it has been “accentuated that there are only two views on this subject: the biblical view and the non-biblical view. A moment’s reflection will demonstrate that this either/or way of framing the matter is seriously flawed. For any given passage of Scripture, there are scores of commentaries on the library shelves, each of which has a very different interpretation of what the passage in question is saying.”
“Framing the chuch’s debate over same-gender relationships as an either/or war of biblical texts not only misconstrues how the Bible ought to function in the church, but as a practical matter it has left the church exhausted and many within its fellowship feeling wounded,” he said. “It has also obscured the fact that there are not simply two views on this topic but a range of views, each of which draws upon biblical and theological traditions to make its claims.”
Before presenting his paper, which Johnson says is the beginning of a book he is writing on the issue, the Princeton professor described it as merely “a teaching paper, not a document officially adopted by the task force per se.”
“I’m trying to be fair in this presentation,” he said. “It’s a long document, so in order to make it useable there will also be a study guide.”
He asked for the thoughts and comments of the other task force members.
Mark Achtemeier, a professor of theology at Dubuque Theological Seminary in Iowa, asked Johnson to phrase some of the paper so that readers would view it as a roadmap of discussion and not a position paper – “so people don’t tend to confuse it with the task force position.”
Achtemeier also found some of the language in Johnson’s paper “off-putting,” include his reference to the “coercive and one-sided practice of the Roman soldier using his male slave to satisfy himself sexually …” In his paper, Johnson said that kind of homosexual relationship “cannot be morally equated with the loving, egalitarian and mutually committed love of a gay or lesbian couple who together are raising a child. To apply the same moral evaluation to people in both of these contexts makes neither common sense nor Christian sense.”
In response to Achtemeier, he added, “There’s no way you can present something like this without making certain judgments. I do believe the Roman soldier example is the example that is most pertinent in the Biblical context.”
William Stacy Johnson’s chart on viewpoints about homosexual behavior:
