Commentary: ‘Both/and’
overtures will add chaos to PCUSA
By Forrest Norman, The Layman, May 18, 2010
A polity plagued by self doubt can neither guide nor govern. Yet the Presbyterian Church (USA) seems determined to infuse contradictory “both/and” propositions into its constitution, or otherwise muddle up unambiguous wording with “Authoritative Interpretations,” which swing back and forth with the winds of societal vogue. Currently, there are eight presbyteries offering overtures to the 219th General Assembly seeking to alter the definition of marriage in the Book of Order. Some would change the meaning of words, and others seek to change what individual sessions and pastors may do regarding marriage, or change the way the denomination “authoritatively interprets” its rules about marriage, allowing for just about anything.
Forrest Norman
These overtures are evidence of a mindset that is comfortable with cognitive dissonance, the idea that logically opposing propositions can co-exist. Mental contortion is required when the effect of these overtures is considered. It would be okay for one church in a presbytery to bless a homosexual coupling, while another church in the same presbytery might reject the request outright on the basis of Scripture. Proponents don’t see a problem with that. Allowing the two theological and ideological interpretations to exist side by side is silly at best and devious at worst. For the good of Presbyterianism, I hope proponents of these overtures are allowing their desire for blessing same-sex couples to override their desire for peace, unity and purity in the church, because the alternative is that they want to add contradiction into the constitution and chaos into the life of the denomination.
The Book of Order has long recognized the inherent absurdity of self contradictory teachings, declaring that “no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are.” (G-1.0304). Yet passage of these overtures would do precisely that – place truth and falsehood upon a level, and declare it is of no consequence which way you go, as long as we all stay together.
None of the eight modify-marriage overtures account for the Book of Confessions, with its numerous references to marriage, clearly defined as a union of one man and one woman, and their clear moral teachings on sexual conduct. So adopting even the least direct (or brazen) of the “change what marriage means” overtures would create a conflict of polity and theology.
A denomination cannot offer a moral witness when it does not even know what underlies its morality. Of what value is our highly-vaunted Presbyterian connectionalism if not to uphold the theological integrity of our Reformed faith? If we cannot even tell our neighbors what the Bible says marriage should be, then how can we claim to be reflective of the One who is a light to the world? If the PCUSA infuses ambiguity into its polity on marriage by adopting the modified-marriage overtures, it will abandon any claim to moral leadership to the larger community. It will be preaching nothing more than a great “whatever.”
Several overtures bow to civil laws in a handful of states as their rationale. If the PCUSA really had a stomach for following opposing state laws on an issue and allowing the prevailing state law to control in that jurisdiction, it would be taking a radically different approach on the church property cases, abandoning its claim to property in those states where the trust clause has been rejected.
The PCUSA needs to have the courage of its convictions and take a stand on marriage one way or the other. It cannot pretend to be all things to all people, particularly if it plans on standing on shifting sands. If the commissioners need to study it more carefully, then they should do so. But if they vote from a position of moral uncertainty, they will be casting a vote for confusion and infect our currently clear constitution with untested and morally equivocating contradictory concepts. The better and more mature approach would be to vote “no” on change, at least until they can pronounce what they stand for with clarity.
To be fair, three overtures have been brought forth that seek to affirm the traditional values of the denomination, and, might I add, Scripture. So hats off to Prospect Hill, New Covenant and Central Washington presbyteries.
The 219th GA will define the PCUSA’s future polity. Will the denomination be led into the fog of self contradictory moral relativism, or will it go decently and in order in accord with Scripture? I fear that if it is the former, the denomination’s ability to guide itself will be lost and the benefits of Presbyterian connectionalism will become divorced from the reality of God’s guidance, and our family burdened with ever more conflict.
Forrest Norman is vice chairman of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and is a deacon at Hudson Presbyterian Church in Hudson, Ohio.
