By Sue Cyre
Theology Matters
The Board of Directors ofTheology Matters is deeply grieved by the action of a majority of commissioners to the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly that now allows ministers to perform same-sex marriages and effectively changes the definition of marriage. A majority of commissioners approved and celebrated a behavior that God has condemned in His Word and that Christ died to redeem. Their action gravely wounded this part of the bride of Christ and blasphemed His name. Thus we grieve.
The assembly approved an “authoritative interpretation” (AI) of the constitution immediately allowing ministers to perform same-sex marriages. The AI directly contradicts the words of the PCUSA constitution that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
In addition, commissioners sent to the presbyteries for ratification an amendment to the constitution that changes “a man and a woman” to “two people.” The AI and the amendment are independent actions. The AI is enacted immediately and stands as the interpretation of the constitution whether or not the constitution is amended. The proposed amendment cannot be enacted until a majority of presbyteries vote to affirm it within the next year.
What the actions say
You can click hereto read the authoritative interpretation (AI) from the official PCUSA GA website. And you can click here to read the amendment being sent to the presbyteries for a vote.
How the GA actions affect you
Both the amendment and the authoritative interpretation (AI) have wording that appears to protect ministers from being forced to perform same-sex weddings in violation of their conscience. The wording however, will not protect pastors or congregations. Here is why.
First: The power of intimidation.
Without the protection of the constitution limiting marriage to a man and a woman, ministers may be subject to intimidation by church members who threaten to disrupt the peace and unity of the congregation if the minister refuses to perform same-sex weddings. If the presbytery is unsympathetic to the Biblical position on marriage, even the complaints of a very small number of church members may be perceived as a disruption to the peace of the congregation. That perceived disruption, according to theBook of Order, is grounds for the presbytery to step in and remove the minister and session.
The presbytery may inquire into reported difficulties in a congregation and may dissolve the pastoral relationship if after consultation with the minister, the session, and the congregation, it finds the church’s mission under the Word imperatively demands it.” Book of Order, G-2.0904
Similarly, the Book of Order (G-3.0303 e) gives the presbytery the power to dissolve a session and assume original jurisdiction, if it judges the session to be “unable or unwilling to manage wisely its affairs.”
Second: Presbyteries set membership requirements
Presbyteries have the right to set their own membership requirements. Presbyteries whose majorities support same-sex marriage may refuse to accept into membership a minister who refuses to perform same-sex weddings. The wording of the AI and the amendment may be a weak attempt to protect ministers currently in a presbytery, but it cannot override a presbytery’s right to determine its own membership. Click here to view the video clip from the recent GA in which commissioner Ken Macari asked if ministers would be able to take a call or be ordained without “prejudice” based on their understanding of Scripture on this issue.
Gradye Parsons, the stated clerk of the General Assembly and highest constitutional officer, responded “The Book of Order guarantees the rights of bodies to determine their membership. .. .they can determine their membership … based on the laws of their state and their understanding of this issue.”
A congregation cannot call a pastor unless that pastor is first admitted into membership of the presbytery.
How to respond
Statistics show that often people accept same-sex marriage as “fair” and “just” because they have never learned a Biblical understanding of marriage. They are swayed by touching personal stories. Too many leaders fear that teaching the truth about marriage will divide their church. But the most important response to the actions of the GA is to teach the truth about God’s plan for a man and a woman; God’s power to heal and redeem; and God’s condemnation of sin that led Christ to the cross.
When the church in Jude’s day was faced with sexual immorality, Jude told those “who were called,”
I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Jude then explains how they are to contend for the faith,
Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear …
It is time to stand boldly for the truth in order to vindicate the name of Christ and protect the flock, even knowing that such a stand might bring persecution.
Sue Cyre is the executive director of Theology Matters. In the weeks ahead, Theology Matters will be sharing links to teaching resources on marriage through its biweekly email update. Also included will be examples of actions that churches and individuals are taking. To sign up for the updates, visit www.theologymatters.com.
22 Comments. Leave new
I’m deeply saddened to read Sue Cyre’s characterization of the General Assembly’s actions affirming the freedom of discernment for pastors to perform and sessions to permit legal marriages, including same-sex marriages. At a time when many of us — including many evangelicals and renewal organizations in the church — are striving to reach out to one another and identify ways we can be church together, even with deep and serious disagreement, this article instead chooses the way of fear.
I have been close to the conversations around same-sex marriage for some years now, and obviously I supported the outcomes approved by this General Assembly. And I can tell you with full integrity that I have heard no one–not one supporter of these proposals–suggest that they would force, coerce or pressure a minister to perform a marriage they thought unwise. No one has suggested that choosing not to perform a wedding, as an exercise of pastoral discretion, would be a disciplinary offense. No one who sought these changes has suggested it would be appropriate to exclude a teaching elder from presbytery membership on those grounds. Those who supported these marriage initiatives did so because they believe the church has room for a variety of views, with ministers searching the scriptures and their consciences, sometimes coming to different conclusions, and living into that as church together.
I’m hopeful for the PCUSA’s future. Blessed by people across the theological spectrum, and baptized and ordained in a congregation that today identifies as evangelical, I long to strengthen and deepen those relationships and our commitment to proclaiming together the Good News of Jesus Christ in word and in deed. I hope and pray we can work together for our Savior’s mission and the unity of the church, taking steps rooted not in fear, but in hope and in the love that binds us all together in Christ.
Rev. Brian Ellison, executive director
Covenant Network of Presbyterians
“Mr. Walter Wynn Kenyon was an honors graduate of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. in his trials for ordination, Mr. Kenyon, upon being asked his position on the ordination of women, stated that he could not in good conscience participate in the ordination of a woman. He said that it was his understanding of Scripture that prevented such involvement, but went on to say that he would not stand in the way of such an ordination, if such was the desire of a church which he would happen to serve. Immediately there arose much dissent, and such dissent grew until the overwhelming majority of the church endorsed the judicial verdict which banned Kenyon and all future Kenyons from the pulpits of the UPCUSA. Furthermore, there was both explicit and implicit action which was taken against those men already ordained.”
http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/presbyteriesAM/ascension.html
Mr. Ellison’s assurances that sessions and ministers who adhere to a biblical view of marriage will not be targeted carry no weight. Mr. Ellison speaks only for himself. The video clip shows Gradye Parsons, our highest constitutional officer, responding to a GA commissioner who specifically asked if there were protections for ministers. Gradye rightly observed that the Constitution allows presbyteries to determine their own membership—irrespective of Mr. Ellison’s assurances. The constitution, which I quoted, also allows for presbyteries to remove ministers and assume original jurisdiction over sessions with wide latitude. Again, Mr. Ellison’s assurances carry no weight over presbytery actions.
Brian,
“No one has suggested that choosing not to perform a wedding, as an exercise of pastoral discretion, would be a disciplinary offense.”
Brian, like you I’m a progressive, but given the tone of some of those who have called out for stopping churches from leaving [Ashe] or highjacking their property, they are rightly justified in their concerns. if they don’t trust us, there’s a reason why. That road was paved long ago.
Can two walk together except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3)
Mr. Ellison: Liberals are all for an open mind and difference of opinion… as long as it agrees with them. You are either delusional or intentionally misleading to believe otherwise.
Mr Ellison, your comments are out of touch with what is happening in society at large. Look at the recent protests of Hobby Lobby. Any conservative who makes a stand for their beliefs is relentlessly attacked.
2 Timothy 4:2-5, 2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
I have a dear friend who used to be a PCUSA pastor. His church in Denver had scruples against the ordination of women. The COM decided that they would discipline this church. In the middle of the night someone from COM changed the locks of the building. In the morning when the staff came to work they found that they were locked out. This rather stupid and diabolical action of the Denver Presbytery was the precipitating factor that led to several conservative churches leaving our denomination for the EPC. COM’s action took place in the mid 80s. I know of a similar situation that occurred in Ohio. Rev. Hector Reynoso in Texas can testify that his church in recent years suffered a similar indignity at the hands of his presbytery. In January, the church I pastor in Florida, hosted a seminar on transformation for those who have same sex attraction. The local press published an article about the seminar. The clerk of session of a More Light Church in the presbytery wrote a scathing Letter to the Editor about our church and seminar. Brian Ellison and others who think that in the future, presbyteries will be open and affirming of pastors like me who strongly oppose homosexual ordination and marriage….are naive. We will be disciplined and then expelled from the denomination. As one of the founders of OnebyOne, a ministry that helps people leave homosexual expression, I know too well what it feels like to be marginalized in the PCUSA. I am at age where being disciplined and “beat up” by a local presbytery won’t affect me. I am concerned for the younger conservative-minded pastors who bring a faithful witness for Christ and they will have no place to serve because they won’t fall in line to affirm what God calls sin…..homosexuality.
Rev. Ellison
The old “Peace and Unity” slogan which the PC)USA) has since minimized; has now been replace with your examples of soft words and assurances. Time will tell how long those will last. My prediction is that in the not too distant future a homosexual couple will deliberately approach a Faithful Scriptural Pastor with their marriage request. Once denied, which they already knew would happen, they will gleefully file a lawsuit and be all over the media outlets proclaiming how their rights are being violated and how evil the Pastor and church are. Your PC(USA) will step in and find a way to discipline that Pastor and that church. It is not a matter of if it will happen but, a matter of when. This and much more are the fulfillment of prophecy found in Revelation 12 and forward. Therefore, I rejoice when I am privileged to witness God at work. Jesus is coming back!!! The Creator already knew the outcome of this recent GA even before the delegates were born. “There is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9
On the basis of Holy Scripture I reject your assurances and I reject your denomination. There will never be Peace and Unity without Purity of knowing our Holy God. PC(USA) leadership has proven they know Him very little.
Hebrews 10:30-31
Mr. Ellison, your views and advocacy of behavior and actions inimical to the decency and order of the church make it difficult if impossible for me to trust anything you say. I do not want to “…identify ways to be the church” with people who do not have a common understanding of the sovereignty of God, the authority of His word or the exclusive salvation found in Christ alone. This latest GA was just another nail in the coffin of a spiritually dead debate society.
” No one has suggested that choosing not to perform a wedding, as an exercise of pastoral discretion, would be a disciplinary offense” There is a word for this type of disingenuousness, but I won’t use it here. However, have you ever heard the name Kenyon? What is permitted today will most certainly be mandated soon.
If this were in fact a desirable and spirit led development for the church it would not have been necessary to impose it by fiat and the extraordinarily improper use of an authoritative interpretation. Nor should it have been necessary for the Stated Clerk, Moderator and GAC Executive to try to get out ahead of it by issuing their insultingly disingenuous “pastoral letter” the same day that the AI was imposed upon the church. The only result that letter engendered from me is that I now will return every single piece of mail from any of them marked “RETURN TO SENDER – REFUSED”.
My only reaction to the entire 221st General Assembly is a sense of shame.
Mr. Ellison,
I have heard it said that the manual for church officer examinations (written by Doug Nave?) produced about three years ago by CovNet did in fact, argue that failure to administer permitted pastoral care (i.e., SSM) could preclude a candidate for ordination. Please verify or refute this posture. Thank you.
I find it difficult to believe Mr. Ellison’s words for two reasons. First, he does not have a stellar record for honesty and integrity (http://mateenelass.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/integrity-matters-when-its-convenient/); second, the primary philosophical rationale fueling the liberal agenda on same-sex marriage was that this is a matter of “justice love,” like that of the equality of all races and equality of the sexes. As we fought in the past for full rights for minorities and women, so the church should be leading the charge on equal rights for gay marriage. If indeed this is a matter of justice, then conscience must give way to what is an unalienable right for homosexual unions to be recognized not just as legal but as full-fledged marriages, equal to those of heterosexuals. It is understandable that there must be a temporary adjustment period, as we moral and spiritual Neanderthals are sent to reeducation camps, but after sufficient time elapses, the powers-that-be will no longer allow those under them to hold and act on beliefs that “continue to promote injustice” by arguing that same-sex marriage is and will forever be a violation of God’s will. The PCUSA, having argued that justice demands support for same-sex marriage, will not be able to then say, “Well, but it’s alright for our sessions and ministers who oppose same-sex marriage to continue in their unjust ways….” If it was right to require ministers to embrace the ordination of women (regardless of their conscience) because the cause of justice demanded it, how will it not follow that the PCUSA someday soon mandates the acceptance by all ministers of same-sex marriage? After all, to allow injustice to continue is to compound injustice.
My hypothesis is that Mr. Ellison is either disingenuous or naïve in his comments. I hope to be shown to be mistaken.
MATEEN ELASS :”must be a temporary adjustment period, as we moral and spiritual Neanderthals are sent to reeducation camps, but after sufficient time elapses….
LOL, Not all of us think that about those who disagree with us. I will say however, that as a ruling elder I would not put my Pastor or members in the position of having to choose, it’s not an option in our church or presbytery or state. If it was up to me I would support civil unions accross the board, and leave to the church to conduct marriages. I do support the right for gays to have civil unions.
You all know my views on churches being able to depart if they desire.
Have you ever gone to work for a company whose policies and politics we’re so different from yours that every day you go to work hating yourself and feeling morally compromised. How much worse must it be for ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Tradition to swallow these changes in marriage. If Luke 17 was ever relevant it seems to apply here. ( How much worse would it be I if he were to cause one of these little ones to sin.) What pressure! What courage is required? !!! We must pray for our clergy and as frogs in the heating pot of water, the water is almost boiling, we must do what is necessary to save ourselves.
This whole conversation is much ado about nothing. It fails to recognize that the PC(USA) is moving to the far left wing fringe of Presbyterianism at such a rapid clip that it’s just a matter of time before there aren’t any churches or pastors who won’t accommodate gay weddings.
Good comments Evelyn…
Like many respondents, I do not trust the promises made by progressives like Ellison on this issue. If it is a justice issue, as we’ve been told all along it is, then at some point those acting in what are perceived as unjust ways must be disciplined. Sue Cyre makes some excellent points above. It’s only a matter of time. Two years? Five? Ten? I think it is “when,” not “if.” And it will be much sooner, not later.
“Statistics show that often people accept same-sex marriage as ‘fair’ and ‘just’ because they have never learned a Biblical understanding of marriage.” I would love to see some support for this assertion. Whose statistics? What study? I sense that what you are saying (what you are hoping) is that supporters of same-sex marriage will agree with your interpretation of Scripture if they knew what it was. Listen, sister, we know your interpretation, and we reject it. We come to our support for marriage equality through our faith, through our understanding of the love of God and the redemption of Jesus Christ, and yes, through considerable study and discernment of Scripture.
“Presbyteries whose majorities support same-sex marriage may refuse to accept into membership a minister who refuses to perform same-sex weddings.” Absolutely their right to do so. And I wouldn’t blame them one bit.
Amen to that, brother!
Our session approves every marriage that is performed in our church. So my question (comment) is as long as the session is made up of elders that believe in the biblical definition of marriage, so what if the Atlanta Presbytery tells us we have to have a pro-gay marriage pastor!
What is next? Perhaps this should be the question we should be concerned about, if we surrender the Holy Scriptures to such liberal interpretation. I accepted the call to preach the Gospel, and this includes prayerful interpretation of God’s word. I cannot be forced to ignore actions which are clearly described as sinful in God’s word. What’s next? Marriage to more than one woman, or man? Or marriage to a 12 year old? Or marriage to an animal, such as a sheep? Go ahead and bash me if you wish, but as for me and my house, we will worship The Lord! I will preach as long as I have breath, and will not worship any governing body who attempts to satisfy the immoral groups who seek to gain approval of their sinful lifestyle. I am a sinner saved by Grace, and welcome into my flock all who desire to worship with us. I confess my sin daily, and encourage love, and support for all sinners, but I do not ask others to approve of any sin. Are we unequally yoked? I pray for the future course of the Presbyterian Church as we move forward, I can only see more turmoil unless we return to the Bible to govern our actions.
Deliver goods to our customers all over the world with speed and precision.