Draft paper suggests possibility of ordaining ‘committed’ gays
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, October 14, 2004
LISLE, Ill. – After reviewing a variety of opinions about the ordination of homosexuals, the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church began to look at one of its own: A draft from a subcommittee that raised the prospect of allowing presbyteries to ordain practicing homosexuals if they are in committed relationships.
A spirited discussion accompanied the presentation of the draft document Wednesday afternoon. But there was no vote and no obvious consensus that would suggest that the task force will pursue the essential direction of the subcommittee’s paper.
William Stacy Johnson, a professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, issued a lengthy disclaimer of “Fidelity and Chastity,” saying, “These are not anything more than proposals for discussion – provisional, hypothetical, ways to get conversation started.”
But Johnson, who described himself as the primary writer of the document, aggressively defended it when other task force members raised questions or objections.
The other members of the subcommittee are John Wilkinson, pastor of a More Light congregation in Rochester, N.Y.; John “Mike” Loudon, a Confessing Church pastor in Lakeland, Fla.; and Sarah Sanderson-Doughty, a New York pastor.
Johnson said the 10 statements in the paper represented a theological and logical order. The gist of those assertions:
- 1. Neither breaking the vows of marital fidelity through adultery nor homosexual promiscuity “are in keeping with the imperatives of the gospel. Affirming the church’s agreement concerning these two convictions may make it easier to reach consensus on other issues.”
- 2. Any person – heterosexual or homosexual – who engages in an unfaithful or promiscuous lifestyle falls short of the “manner of life” standards required for ordination. “On the other hand, since 1978 the church has made it clear that sexual orientation by itself is no bar to ordination.”
- 3. “The real question is the propriety of covenantal same-gender unions. By focusing squarely on this question, the possibility of reaching some consensus or mutual forbearance amid our differences may be enhanced.”
- 4. “Efforts to reduce the range of Presbyterian views to a simple ‘either/or,’ therefore, are misleading and contribute to the discord that has surrounded the church’s debate on this issue.”
- 5. ” … the question of church leadership by persons in same-gender relationships must be seen as intimately connected to the question of Christian sexual ethics for such relationships.” The General Assembly reached blanket decisions about ordination “before affording any opportunity to deal responsibly with the question of ethical standards for same-gender relationships.”
- 6. The statement cited the perspectives of two “groups” of Presbyterians: those who believe a “committed, same-gender relationship is better than promiscuity” and those who affirm same-sex couples and believe “these relationships can be a positive good.” The draft said the two groups “have arrived at a practical consensus that the committed relationship itself is to be accepted within the body of Christ.”
- 7. “It may also be possible to arrive at either consensus or mutual forbearance concerning the case-by-case eligibility for church leadership of a person committed to such a relationship.”
- 8. “Since all persons ordained depart at least to some degrees from the high standards articulated by the Book of Order, it is necessary to determine whether a particular departure is essential or inessential.”
- 9. The governing body that considers a candidate – sessions for deacons and elders and presbyteries for ministers – makes the basic determination of whether ordination standards have been met.
- 10. “It is an ancient conviction of the church catholic, which has been reaffirmed by the Reformed churches in their confessions, that the peace, unity and purity of the church resides neither in the peace, unity or purity of its members, but in the peace, unity and purity that is graciously given to the church by the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ.”
Johnson solicited comments after reading each of the 10 statements, and sometimes editing them himself on the fly. He frequently noted that the wording had sometimes been poorly constructed.
Gary Demarest, co-moderator of the task force, wasn’t as worried about the wording as what it seemed to imply. He rephrased No. 1 to mean, “If I can get you to agree with this, then I’m going to take you somewhere you may not want to go.”
And Barbara Wheeler, president of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City, added on the same point, “I’m not prepared to answer the question the way you ask it.”
There was some disagreement over what constitutes promiscuity. Johnson’s paper suggested that committed homosexual couples in monogamous relationships were not promiscuous.
But Loudon, who has said he will oppose any effort to allow the ordination of practicing homosexuals, said they were promiscuous. “My understanding of promiscuous would be anything outside the bounds of marriage,” Loudon said.
In defense of the paper, Johnson emphasized that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has declared sexual orientation in itself is not contrary to church law. He added, “I would say that the church has lost ground in its understanding of its own mind on sexual orientation.”
The Rev. Jose Luis Torres-Milan of Puerto Rico said the paper’s conclusion that honoring covenantal relationships between same-sex partners “is a red flag. … Even though there’s no decision, it’s kind of implied. Many will say, uh, uh, don’t take me there.”
Mark Achtemeier, professor of theology at Dubuque Seminary in Iowa, acknowledged that there is a constituency in the Presbyterian Church (USA) that clings to a slam-door, firmly articulated no. That constituency was not acknowledged in Johnson’s paper but, Achtemeier said, “If that’s widespread, it may be something we need to acknowledge and address.”
“Just as some might be taken aback by the language of covenant monogamous relationships, don’t they also need to hear from the other side?” Johnson asked. “We’re not advocating promiscuity.”
But, Loudon replied, “There are only two views: Biblical and non-Biblical.”
“Isn’t that just the difference in interpretation?” Johnson asked. “You’re not saying that those on the other side have non-Biblical views, are you?”
Loudon did not answer. But he defended the discussion of what could lead to a task force statement on ordination. “I think one of the reasons we’re discussing this is because to sidestep the issue would really be a disservice to why we were appointed to the task force. The church is looking at us to see if there is something we can say that is constructive.”