Worldwide Ministries leader puts positive spin on gay issue
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, August 6, 2001
A growing number of people involved in Presbyterian and Reformed ministries around the world is expressing shock that the Presbyterian Church (USA) once again will consider ordaining self-affirming homosexuals as ministers, elders and deacons.
But in a letter to mission partners, Marian McClure, director of the denomination’s Worldwide Ministries Division, has used a positive spin to interpret the action of the 2001 General Assembly.
She provides an interpretation that is similar to the “pastoral letter” by Moderator Jack B. Rogers, who says he represents the entire church, but has promised to work to eliminate the ordination standard and to provide gay couples the “moral equivalent of marriage.”
McClure stresses two points that were pressed by gay activists when they asked the General Assembly to delete 6-6.0106b, the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard, from the Book of Order.
One, McClure’s letter suggests that ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexuals – and adulterers – was acceptable before 1978 because there was no national standard and every presbytery had the authority to make its own decision.
Two, her letter left the impression that the General Assembly’s action was endorsed by missionaries and ecumenical groups – and that the decision created no rancor.
“Prior to 1978, presbyteries had to make those decisions by reading and interpreting Scripture and our Confessions,” McClure said. The General Assembly vote “asks the presbyteries to decide whether the situation in our church should return to the pre-1978 standards.”
She does not mention that there has been consensus among Presbyterians that homosexual activity is sinful and that ordination of practicing homosexuals would violate Biblical and confessional standards.
That consensus has been verified by national polling by Presbyterian Research Services, numerous General Assembly votes and presbytery votes. The polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of the members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) favor the ordination standard.
In 1991, the General Assembly voted 534 to 31 not to adopt a human sexuality report whose “justice-love” theme declared that the consensual nature of an adult sexual relationship, not whether it occurs within the covenant of marriage, determines its moral quality.
In 1997, the denomination’s presbyteries voted by 55 percent to include the fidelity/chastity standard in the Book of Order. Asked a year later to water down the standard, the presbyteries instead voted nearly two-to-one to affirm G-6.0106b.
On the second issue, McClure wrote: “A majority of the ecumenical advisory delegates, chosen by our church partners, and a majority of our missionary advisory delegates, voted for this proposal. There was no rancor or harshness or overt anger expressed by either side at the Assembly.”
McClure may not have attended a press conference arranged by the Presbyterian Church (USA) news service in which gay activists and renewal leaders were interviewed by the media. The winning side was understandably cheerful, but the renewal representatives were both angry and hurt.
There she would have heard such strong statements as, “What has crept into the life of the Presbyterian Church is not just difference of opinion but unbelief,” by Joe Rightmyer of Presbyterians for Renewal. And, “To a certain extent we as Presbyterians are like two or three people handcuffed together,” by Russ Ritchel, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Winston-Salem, N.C. “We are handcuffed together by our property.”
And while advisory votes – not included in the official tally – cast by ecumenical and mission delegates reflected majorities favoring the General Assembly’s decision, there are other views that suggest that was simply a Louisville phenomenon.
Harold Kurtz, retired executive director of Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship and one of the denomination’s experts on world missions, says the votes of mission representatives at the General Assembly do not reflect the worldwide church.
“The split I worry about is between ourselves and the world church,” Kurtz said at a recent meeting. “There are 35,000 denominations in the world. Only four have approved homosexual behavior. We have not seriously engaged the world church on this issue. Our General Assembly acted without consulting the world church.”
Camille Josey of Atlanta, an elder commissioner to the 2001 General Assembly, said the committee testimony on the ordination issue was skewed to present only the liberal side of the world church view.
“That was particularly evident when committee leaders would not allow a representative of the church in Pakistan to speak on the ordination issue, but they welcomed speeches from representatives of the church in the Netherlands,” Josey said. The Netherlands officially sanctions homosexual activity and drug use and allows doctors to put to death patients whom they judge to be terminally ill.
There are several ecumenical bodies whose leaders join activists for gay ordination but whose organizations do not endorse that bias. The National Council of Churches, for instance, has voted several times not to accept a predominantly gay denomination – Metropolitan Community Church – into its membership, yet many NCC staff members and some board members argue unceasingly for gay ordination.
Other mainline denominations in the United States have also learned that their mission partners around the world are substantially more committed to Scripture and moral standards.
For example, the world assembly of Anglican bishops – called the Lambeth Conference – overwhelmingly opposed ordination of homosexuals, despite charges by the liberals that many of the bishops were “unsophisticated” and “superstitious” for clinging to Biblical beliefs.
McClure’s letter does hint that there could be trouble ahead if mission and ecumenical partners are not impressed by the positive spin in her letter.
“I know this action of our General Assembly may cause a good deal of consternation,” she said in the next to last paragraph of her letter. “If so, I am sorry for the pain and discomfort you may go through.”
In the last paragraph, she adds, “Living together in the gift of unity is not always easy.” She makes no reference to purity or peace.