Amendment O’s long shadow
A commentary by Robert P. Mills, The Presbyterian Layman ,Volume 34, Number 4,Posted May 29, 2001, May 29, 2001
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Amendment O was defeated because some people stood up on presbytery floors and said things they knew were untrue while others sat in presbytery pews and believed them.
Amendment O really was quite simple. “Scripture and our Confessions teach that God’s intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage or chastity in singleness. Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall not 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.”
That simplicity, combined with the fact that the provision would have been readily enforceable, led amendment opponents to mount a no-holds-barred assault on the proposal.
A whopper
Seeming to follow a strategy that big lies are more easily believed than small ones they started with a whopper: Amendment O was unnecessary since the PCUSA constitution and a General Assembly authoritative interpretation already prohibited same-sex unions.
The untruth of this claim was confirmed when, shortly after the amendment was defeated, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick issued guidelines for conducting same-sex unions. Since the clerk ordinarily does not publicize proper procedures for illicit actions, it now is evident to all that same-sex unions were not prohibited either by our constitution or by an assembly action. Of course, that was clear to amendment opponents all along.
But the big lie was bought by those unable or unwilling to counter its deception, and the amendment was defeated.
Pastoral prevarications
A collection of smaller but equally effective falsehoods clustered under the rubric of “pastoral care.” Some pastors lamented to their presbyteries that, if this provision were added to the Book of Order, they no longer would be able to marry heterosexual couples who had lived together before marriage or to bury gays who died of AIDS.
Again, such protestations palpably were untrue. Simply reading the text of the amendment should have been enough to make that clear. But in many presbyteries such emotional appeals were not effectively challenged with facts. Sentiment held sway. And the amendment was defeated.
A long shadow
Amendment O opponents have attempted to portray its defeat as no big deal. But there is no way to sugarcoat the fact that in rejecting the amendment, the presbyteries have formally placed the denomination in the position of continuing to allow PCUSA ministers to conduct same-sex union ceremonies in PCUSA churches.
Most Presbyterians find this untenable. And, slowly but surely, they are finding their voices in response.
In the short run, Amendment O’s defeat contributed to the emergence of the Confessing Church Movement. Congregations across the country are refusing to be identified with the denomination’s official abandonment of Biblical morality and are confessing their commitment to God’s standard of holiness.
Less visible, but perhaps more significant, will be the impact of the year-long barrage of false statements on future debates about sexual behavior and ordination. In Louisville this June, those who led the fight against Amendment O will be leading the charge to repeal the denomination’s “fidelity and chastity” ordination standard. There will be tearful testimonies that the provision is pastorally problematic and fervent assurances that G-6.0106b is constitutionally unnecessary.
Will opponents of fidelity and chastity prevail again? It is too soon to say. Whatever the assembly decides, one thing is certain: When the issue again reaches presbytery floors, Amendment O will cast a long shadow.