Task Force members question statement about gay couples in ‘committed’ relationships
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, August 24, 2005
CHICAGO – The members of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church spent about an hour and 30 minutes Wednesday morning tweaking draft documents, took a two-hour lunch break and then scheduled the rest of the afternoon and evening to meet in closed sessions.
They did not release or discuss their recommendations, which will be on the agenda Thursday morning. The task force plans to complete and approve its final report, which will be mailed in September to the 11,019 congregations in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
But task force members did raise questions – without resolving them – about an issue raised in one section of the report, “The Issues Before the Task Force.”
In that section, the task force said its members had not decided “whether the church’s current position [prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals] should be changed.”
But a later statement in the report added, “Many [of the task force members] 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 embrace baptized gay and lesbian persons who are committed to exclusive, covenanted relationships?”
That statement was not offered as a recommendation, but some have read it that way because the task force cited the views of “many” of its members. It did not say how many, or who they were.
Frances Taylor Gench, a professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va., and an advocate of ordaining practicing homosexuals, said Wednesday she was troubled by the statement because it was confined to homosexuals in exclusive covenanted relationships, which gay activist groups want the PCUSA to accept as equal to the marriage of a man and a woman.
“We’re making it clear that no one is making the case for single people in homosexual lifestyles,” Gench said.
Vicky Curtiss, a minister in Portland, Ore., also expressed concern about the statement. “It sounds like we’re focused on one group of people, but God’s drama is not confined.”
Joe Coalter, director of library services at Union Theological Seminary, seemed to object to having the question in the text of the report. “I always thought this question comes in very jarring. It kind of hits you. There’s no preparation.”
John Wilkinson, a minister of a More Light church in Rochester, N.Y., said the question should remain as it is.
“I still think the way it’s phrased is what we wanted,” Wilkinson said. “The fact is that we have this sentence out there and people are resonating with it.”
Scott Anderson, the director of the Wisconsin Council of Churches and openly homosexual, offered no view about the merits of the question. But he did state that the teaching of the PCUSA is clear: Church officers must either be married (a man and a woman) or chaste in their singleness. Thus, he added, the reference to homosexuals in exclusive, covenanted relationships “really focuses on the debatable question for gay and lesbian folks.”
The members of the task force reached no consensus on whether to change the statement about those relationships before recessing for lunch. Gary Demarest, co-moderator of the task force, said the discussion could continue Thursday morning.
The closed sessions were described as “theological discussions.”