Opposing teams debate authority and interpretation of Scripture
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, March 12, 2001
GLEN ELLYN, Ill. – Two five-member teams selected by high-profile independent organizations in the Presbyterian Church (USA) returned to the mat March 9-10 in Glen Ellyn to debate what Scripture says – and what should be believed – about culture, Biblical authority and Biblical interpretation.
The team selected by the Presbyterian Coalition defended the view that Scripture is inspired, or “God-breathed,” and that what the Bible says should not be dismissed to accommodate a changing culture.
The team representing the Covenant Network argued that changing culture requires a new interpretation of Scripture that no longer condemns former moral taboos, such as homosexual activity.
Seeking to emphasize its confidence in culture as an acceptable interpretative tool, the Covenant Network group had challenged the Coalition team to explain why the Presbyterian Church (USA) had ended its opposition to the remarriage and ordination of divorced people and the ordination of women, yet resists ordaining homosexuals.
Divorce-remarriage paper
Parker T. Williamson, executive editor of The Presbyterian Layman, presented an eight-page paper titled “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage.” Footnoting his paper with dozens of Scriptural citations and references to minutes of General Assembly meetings dating back to 1931, Williamson traced the history of the debate that led to a change in chapter 26 of the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1958.
That change declared that divorce violates the “Divine Intention” but that “the weaknesses of one or both partners may lead to gross and persistent denial of the marriage vows so that marriage dies at the heart … [It] does not lessen in any way the Divine Intention for indissoluble union.”
Williamson’s paper concluded that the Presbyterian Church did not depart from “Scripture’s position that God’s intention for marriage is a lifelong union of one man and one woman.” To the contrary, he said, the church declared that divorce “represents a breach in God’s intention for marriage and evidence of sin, the wages of which is death.”
Furthermore, he said, the confessional statement neither celebrates divorce nor ceremonially blesses it. “Presbyterian policy is such that if any ceremony were deemed appropriate for such an occasion it would be more closely akin to a funeral than a celebration.”
Conclusions protested
The conclusion of Williamson’s report was interrupted by protests from members of the Covenant Network team. They objected to his application of the Scriptural principles used in the debate over divorce and remarriage to the same-sex union arguments.
Mitzi Henderson of More Light Presbyterians, who said she changed her mind about the church’s prohibition against ordaining homosexuals after a son disclosed his homosexuality, was the first to interrupt.
“The issue presented here is that the church changed its mind on this,” she said, objecting to Williamson’s application of the church’s reason for changing its policy. She insisted that the church changed the standard on divorce and remarriage because of cultural pressure, not because of fidelity to Scripture.
She also said the Bible depicted a number of conflicting views about marriage. “Divorce was something a man could initiate and not a woman,” she said. “Or a man can have several wives.”
Jerry Andrews, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Glen Ellyn and co-moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition, reminded Henderson that there was a difference between what the Bible says people do and what the Bible teaches is in accordance with God’s moral will.
“Our modern understanding [of marriage] applies to men and women,” Henderson said, “but we’re there without any specific Scriptural ordinance that says that.”
No standard on marriage?
Pam Byers, executive director of the Covenant Network, also objected to drawing a comparison between the Scriptural reason for the divorce-remarriage confessional change and today’s cultural situation.
“People say the Bible has one clear standard on marriage,” she said. “That’s not true. The Bible has many different standards on marriage.”
“Pressure from culture triggered the argument,” Williamson said, “but the resolution was thoroughly Biblical and didn’t cater to culture.”
While he initially was blocked from applying the principles from the divorce-remarriage issue to the current debate over same-sex unions, Williamson later made some of the points that concluded his paper. He also gave copies to reporters for The Presbyterian Layman, The Presbyterian Outlook and the denomination’s Presbyterian News Service.
“The argument of proponents of homosexual behavior that, because the church departed from Scriptural teaching on divorce, it can do so as well in blessing same-sex unions fails on several grounds,” he said.
“The church did not depart from Scriptural teaching on divorce,” Williamson said. “Scripture’s teaching that divorce is the result of human sin remains at the center of Presbyterian Church policy … Thus, the church developed its policy on divorce and remarriage – not in contradiction of Scripture, but in light of Scripture.”
Paper on women’s ordination
Anita Bell, co-moderator of the Coalition and a Presbyterian minister in Philadelphia, presented a nine-page paper on the ordination of women from the perspective of her own study of the Bible that began when she first considered whether to seek ordination.
She cited the many passages in the Old Testament and the New Testament about women in leadership, noting that “Scripture … demonstrates repeatedly how women have been called to and honored for their leadership within the faith community. …”
But, going to the “heart of the challenge,” she emphasized the most controversial passages, such as I Cor. 13:33-35, where Paul says women “are not allowed to speak … for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.”
“First, Paul’s primary concern is the order of the church,” Bell said. “Did he mean that women should always be silent and in all ways be silent? I went back and read First Corinthinans.”
She noted that, in some places, Paul commended women for prayer and prophecy – leadership roles – and in others he urged them to remain silent. “Most commentators argue that Paul was not instructing women to remain silent as the rule, but that order in worship is the intended rule. When disorder arises, those who perpetrate the irregularity within the body of believers must be kept silent. …
“It is important to note that the verses in chapter 14 are obviously addressed to the women in the pews, while the verses in chapters 11 and 16 are addressed to women in teaching leadership. It is even imaginable that the women in the pews were disrupting their own sisters who were praying and prophesying up front.”
Deborah Block, co-moderator of the Covenant Network and a Presbyterian minister in Milwaukee, was quick to praise Bell’s paper.
“You did this so beautifully,” Block said, commending Bell for using Scripture to interpret Scripture. “That’s one of the things we just don’t do in the church. It enlightens us and enables us to see it better.”
Even so, Covenant Network team members argued that culture, not a new interpretation of Scripture, prompted the Presbyterian Church to begin ordaining women – just as they hope that culture, and not a traditional interpretation of Scripture, will allow the ordination of homosexuals and, eventually, recognize gay unions as the equivalent of marriages.
At one point, Covenant Network team member Michael Adee of San Diego, who describes himself as a gay man and a Presbyterian elder, said, “It seemed uneven that our church has been able to look pastorally and responsibly in relation to ordination of women and divorce and remarriage, but sexuality has an even larger component than divorce and marriage.”
Justice issues cited
Adee repeatedly said his quest was to gain justice for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, and suggested he could use Scripture to establish an equally valid basis for the ordination of homosexuals.
“Where are you coming from Biblically in drawing that conclusion?” asked Coalition team member Terry Schlossberg, executive director of Presbyterians Pro-Life.
“Let me say very quickly,” Adee responded, “that when I look at Scriptures or things that teach me how to live, there is a lot I could not follow. Polygamy would be one. Concubinage would be another. Lot offering his daughters … I’m not sure what David and Jonathon meant by a love surpassing that of love for a woman. Ruth and Naomi? I’m not going to say they were gay, but some have made the case. And Jesus, who supposedly wasn’t married. …
“I don’t want to see our church withhold a blessing of people who want to have a faithful relationship. Do I equate heterosexual marriage in a sacred relationship with a holy union? I’m not sure. I have never been married. I am now denied that possibility,” he said.
“What constitutes sin?” Henderson asked. “I think that is a real issue here. Why is that sinful?”
“Sex without love is sinful,” said Adee.
The two teams spent 18 hours in discussion, meals, prayer and worship. Occasionally, the subject matter became far-reaching and tense.
Fear of church schism
William Giles of Birmingham, executive coordinator of the Coalition, suggested that there was an impasse in the Presbyterian Church (USA) that could lead to a schism.
“Each side feels they’re standing under Scripture and being guided by it,” Giles said. “But as we beat up on each other, are we both discerning what is the mind of Christ and are we standing under Scripture as we find ourselves drifting further and further apart and, therefore, seeing two churches emerge?”
Giles said he did not favor a schism, because “certainly, it is a sin to divide the body of Christ. But perhaps there are times in our life in the body of Christ when an amputation has to take place for the good of the body … when a separation has to be effected, in order that health may be achieved.”
Giles’ remarks prompted a number of responses.
Williamson, author of Standing Firm: Reclaiming Christian Faith in Times of Controversy, a book about the church’s fourth-century debate over the nature of Christ’s divinity, from which the Nicene Creed emerged, said Nicea provides a model for today. The Nicene Creed emerged from that debate.
“I think of the church at Nicea fighting for 56 years … people being killed, persecutions over the issue of who is Jesus Christ,” he said. “I guess I’m really thankful that the faithful hung in there, that Athanasius really pressed the truth. I’m thankful that the politicians who said there’s truth in both your positions didn’t prevail. Rather, the truth prevailed.”
Adee said that, rather than focus on the divisions, the better question is to ask, “‘Where is the church?’ I see lots of folk at the local level finding ways to live and love. I think it is tragic that we have elevated matters of sexuality to essential tenets. That’s blasphemous. I don’t perceive that we can’t find ways to live together with some differences, if we talk about economic justice and the death penalty.”
Biblical unity urged
Bell said unity in the Presbyterian Church must be rooted in the Bible. She expressed surprise that a speaker at last fall’s Covenant Network conference on Biblical authority and interpretation called Scripture “the dead word and called us the living word.”
“It’s really about an essential tenet,” she said. “I want my congregation to go to the Word of God and know that there’s truth, bottom-line truth, in it. We don’t go to us. [Scripture] holds everybody accountable. The Jesus I know is never contradictory to Scripture.”
Henderson said unity comes from new understanding. “In my congregation, I see new truth coming forward in the sermons I hear preached, new insights and revelation. They help me understand Scripture. When the church is divided on things, we are challenged to look again.”
“I’m not suggesting that we split,” Giles said. “That’s anathema to me. I think we need to be pragmatic and look at what’s happening to the church … and the realization that we are two churches. Can we keep this church together? We can’t even decide what our essential tenets are.”
“There are some alternatives,” Andrews said. “Hang in there. Do not resolve this. I hear local option as a way. Another: Go forward together but not together. My preaching would be, let’s go forward.”
Referring to the constitutional ordination standard, Andrews said, “At some point a judgment needs to be made. I think a church made a judgment and upheld that judgment.”
Documents about Bible
Much of the discussion focused on two documents: “Presbyterian Understanding & Use of Holy Scripture,” adopted by the 1983 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S., and “Biblical Authority & Interpretation,” which was received by the 1982 General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
Covenant Network team members had proposed the consideration of those two documents as a means of allowing a more subjective interpretation of Scripture. But Coalition team members urged that the priority for considering the authority of Scripture should be, first, Scripture itself and, second, the confessions of the church.
Williamson pointed out that, when the sponsoring organizations of the two teams first agreed to meet jointly, the guidelines were that they would “center our discussion around Scripture and see what God would say. My understanding is that we were going to talk about what Scripture says about Scripture, then what the confessions say about Scripture and then the pronouncements by the church. Scripture is the highest authority, isn’t it?”
“What we’re talking about is how you interpret Scripture,” said the Rev. Laird J. Stuart, co-moderator of the Covenant Network and a minister in San Francisco. “It depends on where you’re coming from.”
There were disagreements over what Scripture says about marriage and whether it establishes an indissoluble standard of one man and one woman.
Henderson objected to the reference in Genesis 2:24 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” – as the only Biblical standard for marriage.
In fact, she said, the Bible has no clear standard for marriage – whether between a man and a woman or between two people of the same gender. And she contended that the passage in Genesis 2 was not about marriage.
Using a passage in Matthew, Bell pointed out t