Reflection from Jerry Deck

A couple of weeks before we were to vote on the GA amendments our presbytery co-sponsored a zoom meeting in order to discuss 24-A and 24-C. The hope was for us to be able to more clearly understand what the impacts would, and would not be, if these amendments passed.  Like many of us, I am most concerned about 24-C and so was intrigued to see how this conversation would be framed.  By the end of the night, I was angry and the next morning I found myself (much to my surprise and awkwardness) weeping in front of three elders as I described the previous night’s event.  It took me some time to try and understand exactly why I was so deeply unsettled and emotionally raw.

The reason, I believe, is not because of what it would mean to more theologically conservative people in the PC(USA) if 24-C passes (and honestly, I have to smirk somewhat when I say that we are theologically “conservative” since many of my friends and family would consider me quite liberal!).  No, the reason for my deep pain is because, to put it bluntly, I feel as if I am being lied to by the church that has received me, loved me, and nurtured me for the past two decades.  I come from a broken family with many secrets and one of the things I unconsciously promised myself four decades ago was that I would not allow myself to be lied to again and I realized during that seemingly innocuous Zoom that this is exactly what was happening. 

While I am saddened that there are those in our denomination who would prefer that I no longer be in this denomination, I am grieved beyond words at the ways in which many advocates of this amendment prefer to take the easier road of saying this doesn’t change anything rather than honestly stating the difference this amendment would invoke.  For many, this dishonesty is truly a hopeful naivete that believes this amendment is simply expanding our welcome.  However, for others, I believe it is a truly disingenuous attempt to allow us to pass something that will later be used as a weapon and not as a welcome.

The image that has come to my mind is that of one-way spikes. These are the spikes that make renting a car so fraught with anxiety because once you go over them you cannot reverse lest every tire be slashed. (I have frequently wished that the employees would just drive over these spikes for me out of fear that I will surely accidentally reverse!) In this time, we are being told that while we don’t know exactly what the amendment will mean (we were literally told on our Zoom that some of the terms of 24-C would need to be later defined by the G.A.P.J.C.), that we should just keep moving forward by passing the amendment. It feels to me like we are being waved over the “spikes” by friendly employees who say, “Don’t think about it too much, or too deeply, just keep the car going,” and yet once we have passed over the more painful truth will be made evident. Perhaps I am being melodramatic, but I am not prone to catastrophizing which is why, quite honestly, I have stayed in this denomination.

Because of all of this, when I gave my statement on the floor of presbytery last week, I spent the two minutes I was allotted speaking to the lack of integrity around this amendment. Again, the pain of being asked to leave is, for me at least, less anguishing than the pain of being lied to. Perhaps we conservatives who are left are owed nothing by our “mother church,” but if we are owed anything, being told the truth seems to be a good place to start. This was what I attempted to say to my colleagues at our presbytery meeting (as you can read below), a group of people that I love and with whom I desire deep, meaningful, and honest relationships.

Advocates for this amendment suggest that it is simply ensuring that we who are theologically conservative are willing to work with those who are not, that very little is changing. I believe this to be untrue.

First, the rationale behind this overture was precipitated not by two candidates who could not work with those who are theologically liberal, but because their theology was not progressive enough for the Olympia presbytery.  The very reasoning behind this amendment is categorically different than the reason why we are being told this amendment is necessary.

Secondly, in the Zoom our presbytery co-sponsored about this amendment, we were told that in order to discern exactly what it would mean to theological conservatives we would likely need to wait on the G.A.P.J.C. to give a judicial decision or an authoritative interpretation. In other words, we are being asked to pass something today that will be defined for us by the court system in the future. Where else, when else, would we be asked to give a vow or sign a contract or agree to an amendment whose definition is unclear, but “don’t worry, someone else later will let us know what we just voted “yes” to?!”

If you want a face for who you are voting against, let me offer my own. Yes, I am more theologically conservative than many of you, but during seminary I chose to join this denomination not in spite of our differences, but because of them. As the son of a gay man, I wanted to be a part of a community inclusive of those whose theology was different than my own. More than desiring comfort, I desired a place to engage in honest conversation and relationships and that is exactly what the PCUSA offered and why I have stayed. It is for that reason that I refuse to be quiet in the midst of the dishonesty that is being told us about this amendment.  If you would like to be rid of those like me, then by all means have that honest and painful discussion with us rather than trying to painlessly pass this amendment with words of peace, peace, where there is no peace. Do we not at least owe that to one another? If, however, your desire is to truly sit around the table with those who come theologically from the north, south, east and west, then I implore you to vote “no” on this amendment.

Jerry Deck is the senior pastor of Zionsville Presbyterian Church in Zionsville, Indiana.