Committee asks GA to redefine marriage?
By James D. Berkley, The Layman, July 6, 2010
MINNEAPOLIS – The majority report on marriage will go to the full General Assembly with Committee 12’s approval. The minority report, which clearly and compassionately articulates a Biblical position on marriage, gained only 27 percent of the vote.
Two years ago, the 218th General Assembly called for a Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage. The committee met most agreeably, but, in the end, it could not agree on a report. Three members produced and argued for a minority report, and the remaining Special Committee members of various persuasions patched together a conglomerate “Final Report” for the majority.
The majority report that urges Presbyterians to further study the issues and stay in covenant with each other while they do so. That study cracks the door to the possibility of later approval of viewing marriage between same-same couples as acceptable.
Truncated testimony with voices not heard
Monday morning began with public hearings on the dueling reports. Complications clouded the testimony and disappointed a number of persons denied an opportunity to speak.
The testimony sign-up lists had slots for speakers both pro and con for both reports. However the list of those favoring the majority report and the list of those opposing the minority report contained many of the same names. The overlap caused confusion at Monday’s hearings.
Further, the set of rules for public testimony introduced by committee leadership oddly required exactly the same number of pro and con testifiers for any item. The committee had approved the rules with little thought the day before, but the arbitrary requirement for strict parity of pro and con meant that the number of those testifying for one side was limited by how few signed up to speak in opposition.
As it turned out, committee leadership held a lottery among the many wanting to testify and, in the end, only 12 of twenty-seven had a chance to speak—fewer than half those who came to Minneapolis with a message to deliver to this committee.
This was particularly unsatisfactory since the docket allowed time for about thirty two-minute speeches. The twelve who spoke finished early, but the committee chair would not allow further testimony.
Special committee presentations
By 10:30 a.m., testimony was concluded and presentations began by first the majority of the committee and the minority report after lunch. The instruction by Special Committee members provided some comments of interest.
The majority report was allotted 90 minutes for its presentation to the committee. At one point, Special Committee Moderator Jim Szeyller said that the majority report’s recommendations “are not asking anyone to give up their position, but to hold their position in such a way that we can remain together.”
Clay Allard sometimes tossed out rather dramatic wording, such “winning a violent zero-sum game” to describe the present conflict. In proposing “What would the PCUSA look like if we would approach one another with humility rather than pride?” he intimated that humility would be a new addition.
And Allard could sometimes reveal surprising perspectives, such as “I believe our unity, however frayed and fragile, is the only gift we can give to generations yet to come.”
Emily Anderson asked rhetorically, “What does mutual forbearance mean?” The problem was that she had no answer, admitting instead that “we’ll have to discover that as we live it out.”
Anderson said, “We recognize that the way we interpret Scripture leads us to different conclusions, but we agree that everyone is to listen for the Word of God.”
In the minority report’s 30-minute presentation, Tracie Stewart talked of wanting not to “further dilute our ordination standards.” She made it clear that “unity is not an end in itself. We need a substantive unity, and it is a unity in Christ that calls us to action.”
In further contrast to those supporting the majority report, Stewart noted: “We acknowledge that we are a sinful and broken people, but then we celebrate that we can be healed and transformed through God’s grace and power.”
Substitute motions
Once the majority report was moved for approval, a commissioner moved the minority report as the substitute motion. With the two competing motions on the floor, the committee turned toward “perfecting” each motion, working through approval or disapproval of a number of amendments and amendments of amendments.
By the dinner break at 5:15, the two motions were declared perfected by the moderator.
Debate and finally decision
Following dinner came the climactic opportunity for the committee to actually debate the matter at hand. What did the committee want to say about civil unions and Christian marriage? A number of opinions were expressed by committee members.
One woman speaking for the majority report pondered the quandary of pastors in states that allow same-sex marriage and concluded, “I don’t know how ministers can say no when the state has said yes.”
“As a pastor, I am not compelled to perform any marriage ceremony that I do not feel is Biblical and of the Lord,” countered another woman, in speaking for the minority report. “I think we are called to be different from the culture, different from the state.”
A man also favoring the minority report recalled a convincing argument from the open hearing: “If Jesus was wrong when he talked about marriage, what else is he wrong about?”
But a majority-report proponent contended that “we have thousands of same-sex couples in our churches, and I don’t think we can deny them compassion.”
An elder, favoring the clarity of the minority report, asked from 1 Kings 18:21: “How long are we going to waver between two opinions?”
But yet another voice contended that “the minority report is divisive. It doesn’t add to civil discourse and will do even more to polarize our denomination. I don’t think this report can lead to consensus.”
Young Adult Advisory Delegate Dae Na wove a number of pertinent Scripture passages together and also observed that “those who are against the minority report lean a lot more on morality, on conscience and emotions. And on the other side, it’s God’s Word and what God desires.”
For him, “it is clear that the relationship we have between us and God is of more value than the relationship between us and others.” It’s not that one ignores other people, “but we need to seek what God desires,” Na affirmed. “I think it is quite clear: If you love God, you obey him.”
A male pastor decided to favor the majority report, saying, “The minority report is faithful to traditional way of reading Scripture, but it is not the only way of faithfully interpreting Scripture.”
Still, a female YAAD countered with the argument for the minority report’s clear understanding of sin and redemption. “If we are of Christ,” she reasoned from Scripture, “the old has to be gone, and the new has to come, and the new has to be of God.”
After three-quarters of the committee voted to make their vote public, and not a secret ballot, the committee finally voted on which amended report it wanted to approve. The vote was not close.
The majority report was favored by 40 commissioners and delegates, or 71%. The minority report got 15 votes, 27% of those cast.
A quick attempt to offer the denomination both reports “for information only” was tossed around for some time, but eventually the committee defeated this second substitute motion by roughly the same margin as before. Plenary will receive a mildly am
ended majority report from the Special Committee.