“Our church is like fudge: sweet, with a few nuts.” Brian McClaren, gadfly agent provcateur for recovering evangelicals, addressed commissioners and advisory delegates over breakfast Monday, bringing a message of hope and encouragement for the embattled mainline. “Congtatulations,” he stated, “You are further along than you think you are. ” In a later interview he explained: “You have to do less, sometimes, or you have to have less people, but if you only have constraint without creativity you decline. The only thing that pulls you out of decline is creativity. The assumption that the future will be different from the past is a painful conclusion to reach but once you accept it, again it unleashes creativity.” His prediction about a promising future for Presbyterians: “”There will be thousands if not tens of thousands of young evangelicals who are being driven out of their evangelical church because of hostility to gay people, hostility to immigrants, and carelessness about the environment.”
The American General Assembly always begins with commissioners assigned a committee that will vet all material about a specific issue before it comes to all 500 in the final four days of the gathering. Of the twenty-one committees I joined with the press as a correspondent and with many others for #13 “Civil Union and Marriage” and witnessed a fascinating conversation that showed me just how much the culture has impacted the church. An hour and a half was allotted to the presentations: based on the number of submissions, fifteen minutes for those opposed to a change in the existing definition of marriage in the liturgy and standards as between “a man and a woman” and seventy-five minutes for those calling for re-write.
The group arguing for retention made their familiar case: Biblical authority, refusing to change the creation order, and the impact that opening ordination to non-celebate homosexuals had made on the churches overseas that our missionary efforts had established: the Mexican church being the first to cut their ties after the previous General Assembly, followed by Presbyterians in Ghana and even the Mezo Presbyterian church in India. The presenters seemed despondent and dissiprited as though facing a juggernaut.
The counter arguments will become familiar in the days ahead but some were quite novel to me. They focussed on an issue every church will have to deal with sooner or later: in a sexually broken world, the pastoral care congregations will be called on to provide not only for GLBT’s but their families as well. The argument was for pastoral discretion so that the present definitive interpretation does not shackle a loving response to those who need the church’s care if not necessarily its affirmation. In exercising pastoral discretion disregarding the present strictures can involve costly legal battles, as the lawyer for Jean Southard and Jane Spahr testified – both women having been charged recently solmenizing a wedding prohibited by Presbyterian church law. Can we legally deny use of the building for such ceremonies, particularly with cooperative and shared denominational facilites or union congregations? The real difficulty with the present situation is what to do in the six states and the District of Columba) that have legalized same sex union now called by the state “marriage”? The arguments became intensely personal: we were shown a picture of Van and Ralph, in a relationship for many years and one of whom appears near death. Theircongregation wanted to celebrate their union before that happened. We were told that wethe church is sending such away with a broken heart. The present position, it was affirmed, “denies one group of people the opportunity to worship God.”
Astonishing statements were made. “Scripture reveals no consistent view of marriage.” “”Marriage is different today than one hundred years ago.” True but how and then the kicker: “Gender of couples is not the main point.” “Christ provided no instruction about same gender marriage.” “Jesus Christ teaches us radical inclusivity.” “The harm [the church has] done to GLBT’s is cruel – stop the cycle of harm.” “Are they children of a lesser God?” we were asked. A Czech now living in the United States argued from Calvin’s Book 4 of the Institutes and said that in the Reformation there was no such category as Christian marriage.” These staements, given the format of the presentation, could not be debated or challenged.
The overwhelming sentiment seemed to be that this is the time to change, that decisive action was needed, and that there has been too much delay. Later the General Assembly Offfice was called in to discuss what the impact on the denomination would be if there was a change in the definition of marriage, the present authoritative interpretation reversed, and “gender equality” in marriage affirmed. The committee is now wrestling as to whether a firm recommendation to amend will proceed to the Assembly or caution will prevail. But judging from the number of rainbow scarves I saw in the room among both observers and committee members, there is no doubt which way the wind in blowing. Stay tuned again. This could be a decisive moment in Presbyterian history or simply, as the Brits say, “a damp squid.”